ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[elimunelson]

Spot on Tom. There is zero chance the league lets anyone out for 120 M at this point. The number will be a minimum of 500m

You guys are crazy. It won’t be 500mm

 

[MSOrange]

 

[syrBossHogg]

It seems Alsacs prophecy re: FSU may be coming true

 

[elimunelson]

It seems Alsacs prophecy re: FSU may be coming true

where is ALSACs? That guy was all over this stuff and always liked to pile drive anyone who had an opinion that was 1% deviating from his.

 

[kcsu]

FSU isnt going anyplace for 120 million

 

[hoopsupstate]

FSU isnt going anyplace for 120 million

That’s just the exit fee. They still have to surrender all tv revenue until the GOR expires. They are also banned from tv broadcasts. Who wants a school if their games can’t be broadcast? The total cost could be well over $500 million or more. Good luck with that FSU.

 

[Bayside44]

Could the ACC ever adopt an unequal revenue sharing model?

Some schools are pushing for a change in the way the ACC distributes revenue, but what needs to be done for that to happen?

theathletic.com

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The revenue issue is pretty simple. ACC lacks brands and large fanbases. It has markets but too many schools within the same market.

It would be idiotic for schools to appease FSU and have uneven distribution. Why give them more money if they will eventually leave anyway? Plus giving them more money will make them a better team and more attractive to the B1G or SEC. There is no benefit whatsoever for the rest of the schools.

 

[FasterCuse]

With the large revenue gap I wonder if a state legislature gets involved somehow to try and illegitimize the ACC GOR in their state. I am not a lawyer, and not sure if this is even possible, but could see a state like Florida or Virginia trying to pull a maneuver like this to get their team out of the conference if the SEC or BIG came calling. You're talking 300-500M over the course of 10 years which a state could argue is detrimental to the financial health of it's citizens.

 

[All4SU]

Let’s base football compensation on graduation rates!

 

[qdawgg]

It’s funny a school with very limited recent successs thinks they should get more revenue. It’d almost be like Rutgers asking the B10 for a bigger cut they tied for a big East championship with like 4 other teams a decade ago or so.

 

[elimunelson]

Haha that guy was wild. I’m sure his life is much calmer now. He seemed close to an aneurism trying to reply to every person telling them he was the expert in a 60 page thread.

I miss it. He was passionate and crazy. Two benchmarks for Syracusefandom.

The board is less fun with the likes of Alsacs, Tristan, et al not roaming the wild wildnerness of anonymous posting

 

[Noexcuse]

With the large revenue gap I wonder if a state legislature gets involved somehow to try and illegitimize the ACC GOR in their state. I am not a lawyer, and not sure if this is even possible, but could see a state like Florida or Virginia trying to pull a maneuver like this to get their team out of the conference if the SEC or BIG came calling. You're talking 300-500M over the course of 10 years which a state could argue is detrimental to the financial health of it's citizens.

Don't put anything past the Florida Legislature. They currently have a bill in committee that will delegitimize the Democratic Party.

 

[orangecuse]

With the large revenue gap I wonder if a state legislature gets involved somehow to try and illegitimize the ACC GOR in their state. I am not a lawyer, and not sure if this is even possible, but could see a state like Florida or Virginia trying to pull a maneuver like this to get their team out of the conference if the SEC or BIG came calling. You're talking 300-500M over the course of 10 years which a state could argue is detrimental to the financial health of it's citizens.

According to the article, it appears there are schools that hired legal counsel relative to the GOR, etc. And, although no obvious loopholes seem to exist, there may be "several compelling" avenues to challenge or "break" the agreement. However, not without protracted litigation.

'Over the past two years, a number of schools have sent teams of lawyers to examine the official grant of rights document, either looking for a potential pathway out or assurances that the biggest brands can't leave without a serious fight.

As one administrator told ESPN, those reviews have established several potentially compelling arguments for breaking the agreement but have uncovered no obvious loophole that would provide a pathway out without engaging in protracted litigation.'

Perhaps, what you've mentioned is one of those potential avenues, or "compelling arguments," especially for a 'state' institution and the like? Perhaps, an argument of an unenforceable contract due to it being against public policy, etc.? As you mentioned, it certainly could be argued that it is indeed a legitimate potential detriment to citizens and future citizens of the state that the state institution serves.

 

[Cuse'91]

It’s funny a school with very limited recent successs thinks they should get more revenue. It’d almost be like Rutgers asking the B10 for a bigger cut they tied for a big East championship with like 4 other teams a decade ago or so.

They have a Natty, and I'm not talking about when TV sets were in black and white, but a Natty during the BCS Era. Do you realize how exclusive a club that is?

 

[Cusefan69]

Florida state to the ACC: Let us out now and will pay you $100 million.
ACC to FSU: LOL
FSU to ACC: But...but if you don't we will take you to court.
ACC to FSU: LOL.
FSU to ACC: You just wait! 12 years from now you will have wished you had done a deal.
ACC to FSU: LOL

 

[baggerbob]

Florida state to the ACC: Let us out now and will pay you $100 million.
ACC to FSU: LOL
FSU to ACC: But...but if you don't we will take you to court.
ACC to FSU: LOL.
FSU to ACC: You just wait! 12 years from now you will have wished you had done a deal.
ACC to FSU: LOL

No one is going to sue the ACC, you also would be suing ESPN, and that is a bad idea. You are a fool if you sue the people who broadcast your games.
TV is where the revenue comes from, and they decide who gets on TV. All the platforms would decide you aren't a good partner and could blackball you being on TV.

 

[Cusefan69]

No one is going to sue the ACC, you also would be suing ESPN, and that is a bad idea. You are a fool if you sue the people who broadcast your games.
TV is where the revenue comes from, and they decide who gets on TV. All the platforms would decide you aren't a good partner and could blackball you being on TV.

Agree, ergo my LOL responses from the ACC in that skit.

 

[Toga]

According to the article, it appears there are schools that hired legal counsel relative to the GOR, etc. And, although no obvious loopholes seem to exist, there may be "several compelling" avenues to challenge or "break" the agreement. However, not without protracted litigation.

'Over the past two years, a number of schools have sent teams of lawyers to examine the official grant of rights document, either looking for a potential pathway out or assurances that the biggest brands can't leave without a serious fight.

As one administrator told ESPN, those reviews have established several potentially compelling arguments for breaking the agreement but have uncovered no obvious loophole that would provide a pathway out without engaging in protracted litigation.'

Perhaps, what you've mentioned is one of those potential avenues, or "compelling arguments," especially for a 'state' institution and the like? Perhaps, an argument of an unenforceable contract due to it being against public policy, etc.? As you mentioned, it certainly could be argued that it is indeed a legitimate potential detriment to citizens and future citizens of the state that the state institution serves.

There is a pdf (don't think I can link pdf) but Google ...
Irrevocable but Unenforceable? Collegiate Athletic Conferences’ Grant of Rights
It's a lengthy piece from Harvard guy (Wilhelm) that concentrates on realignment / GoR.

 

[Willy75]

That’s just the exit fee. They still have to surrender all tv revenue until the GOR expires. They are also banned from tv broadcasts. Who wants a school if their games can’t be broadcast? The total cost could be well over $500 million or more. Good luck with that FSU.

You likely have to discount those cash flows that add up to $500mm (not sure where that number comes from either). Still a very big number but not $500mm

 

[mscanlo]

tough situation. unfortunately, the ACC sort of needs to listen to FSU (and other schools) and try to work with them

If i were the ACC Commissioner, I would go to ESPN and say, we need you to renegotiate the ACC contract or else you are jeopardizing the ACC's existence in 10-13 years... flat out that's what ESPN is doing (which they have a right to, since that was negotiated)

 

[HRE Otto IV]

tough situation. unfortunately, the ACC sort of needs to listen to FSU (and other schools) and try to work with them

If i were the ACC Commissioner, I would go to ESPN and say, we need you to renegotiate the ACC contract or else you are jeopardizing the ACC's existence in 10-13 years... flat out that's what ESPN is doing (which they have a right to, since that was negotiated)

I agree that the ACC should be looking for more money from ESPN. Why do people assume that these talks aren't happening?

Why work with FSU? The ACC has FSU by the footballs. They can give FSU less money than Wake and there is nothing that FSU can do. Yous can't leave for a dozen years. The doors are locked. FSU has zero leverage.

The only way the ACC should give FSU more money is if FSU makes a commitment further than the current GOR. Or if FSU agrees to a larger buyout. You want more money now? Well it will cost you should you want to leave down the road. At least the ACC can get their money back in that case.

Why give up something ($), without getting anything in return? Would more money make FSU happier the next dozen years? Yes, but then they leave anyway should the B1G or SEC come calling. So you give up something and they screw you over, so you lose twice. Actually you lose three times because the extra money makes FSU sports better and makes it harder for you to beat them.

 

[mscanlo]

I agree that the ACC should be looking for more money from ESPN. Why do people assume that these talks aren't happening?

Why work with FSU? The ACC has FSU by the footballs. They can give FSU less money than Wake and there is nothing that FSU can do. Yous can't leave for a dozen years. The doors are locked. FSU has zero leverage.

The only way the ACC should give FSU more money is if FSU makes a commitment further than the current GOR. Or if FSU agrees to a larger buyout. You want more money now? Well it will cost you should you want to leave down the road. At least the ACC can get their money back in that case.

Why give up something ($), without getting anything in return? Would more money make FSU happier the next dozen years? Yes, but then they leave anyway should the B1G or SEC come calling. So you give up something and they screw you over, so you lose twice. Actually you lose three times because the extra money makes FSU sports better and makes it harder for you to beat them.

I'm not assuming they talks aren't happen. I imagine it's a hot topic. I was just phrasing how I would send it.

However, the FSU did talk about unequal sharing in a way that many people interpreted it as a solution to no tv contract, at least for the interim. Whether he is playing a game, (e.g. saying he wants unequal revenue sharing knowing there is a tv negotiation that will likely in parallel), only the ADs, ESPN and ACC execs know.

As for working with FSU, if the ACC doesn't at least reciprocate (or bare minimum entertain) FSU, they lose them. It will just be a matter of when.

 

[qdawgg]

According to the article, it appears there are schools that hired legal counsel relative to the GOR, etc. And, although no obvious loopholes seem to exist, there may be "several compelling" avenues to challenge or "break" the agreement. However, not without protracted litigation.

'Over the past two years, a number of schools have sent teams of lawyers to examine the official grant of rights document, either looking for a potential pathway out or assurances that the biggest brands can't leave without a serious fight.

As one administrator told ESPN, those reviews have established several potentially compelling arguments for breaking the agreement but have uncovered no obvious loophole that would provide a pathway out without engaging in protracted litigation.'

Perhaps, what you've mentioned is one of those potential avenues, or "compelling arguments," especially for a 'state' institution and the like? Perhaps, an argument of an unenforceable contract due to it being against public policy, etc.? As you mentioned, it certainly could be argued that it is indeed a legitimate potential detriment to citizens and future citizens of the state that the state institution serves.

If I’m a law firm looking for good work….. why yes, there is some very compelling avenues. That’s code for b.s. IMO. Pay us a bunch of $ and we’ll be happy to litigate this for a few years and a nice fat paycheck. Many compelling avenues indeed….

 

[qdawgg]

They have a Natty, and I'm not talking about when TV sets were in black and white, but a Natty during the BCS Era. Do you realize how exclusive a club that is?

LOL!!!!

Their record prior to this year is 5-7, 3-6, 6-7, 5-7, 7-6

But yes, try to convince me they’re the team that should be pushing for more revenue. The ACC should take away some of their share of the $ and give it to Clemson. Clemson at least has an argument.