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

[Cheriehoop]

So, basically, UNLV told the Mountain West to "pay us or we're leaving". hmmmm...where have I recently heard this...

If only Sluka had waited, the money was coming.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[orangefog]

These declarations of unity have become nauseating. Every school has one foot out the door despite these carefully worded messages.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

So the MWC is going with uneven distribution between the 7 schools. But they need an 8th school. So whose cut does that come out of? The Top 2? The middle 4? Even between all 7? IN which case Hawaii gets basically no money.

Also why does Air Force even need money? It is a service academy.

 

[GoSU96]

Per reports, TNT/TBS has eyes on buying the Pac 12 sports package once the Pac 12 gets to 8 teams and this current deal ends. So look for movement on them getting to 8 sooner rather than later, and then look for talks with TNT/TBS as their current deal ends in 2026.

Aren’t they under CBS/Paramount?

Doubt they are acquiring anything anytime soon. They are shedding payroll and trying to find a buyer.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Aren’t they under CBS/Paramount?

Doubt they are acquiring anything anytime soon. They are shedding payroll and trying to find a buyer.

Warner Bros. Discovery

 

[GoSU96]

Thanks, again, Tom.

From the link to download, go to Page 164 on your PDF counter, Section 14 of the Amended and Restated Multi-Media Agreement:

14. Extension Option: [redacted]
14.1 Extension Option. ESPN has the exclusive, revocable option (the "Extension Option"), but not the obligation, to extend the Agreement until [redacted] subject to the remainder of this paragraph (such extended term of July 1, 2027 to [redacted] the "Extension Term") by providing written notice to the Conference no later that two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network. {redacted]
14.2 [redacted]
14.3 [redacted]
14.4. [redacted]
14.5 [redacted]
(a) [redacted]
(b) [redacted]


To analyze this paragraph correctly, one must know the redacted information. As the entire section is roughly two pages and we have only a few lines, the bulk of any analysis is in truth mere speculation.

What we can readily discern is that ESPN had an "exclusive, revocable option";* this means that ESPN owned the option and it is revocable. While the option is revocable, the revocation conditions are not disclosed. As FSU mouthpieces and internet blowhards are the source of most claims pertaining to the Option, we can logically discount the credibility and accuracy of their claims. What is clear is that the redacted portions of Section 14 are highly important in explaining ESPN's revocable option.

Next we see ESPN had no obligation to extend the agreement to a specified but redacted time, presumable 2036 as that is the internet rumor and if I recall, has been disclosed by some officials (speculation on my part as I lack evidence to support the claim, others are welcome to prove/discredit and I will defer).

Then we see that all of the above is "subject to the remainder of the paragraph (such extended term of 1 July, 2027 to [redacted] the "Extension Term")..." Thus, my position that the remaining redacted subparagraphs are highly important to the proper understanding of the entire section, the visible language plainly states that the option and everything associated with it are conditioned by the redacted portions.

Finally, we see how and when the extension must occur: "by providing written notice to the Conference no later that two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network. {redacted]" As the ACCN has been on the air several years, well beyond the two years, in which ESPN had to exercise their option, and considering the fact that ACC Commissioner Phillips has expressed the agreement will continue, we can reasonably conclude that ESPN exercised their option within the stated two-year period. Had ESPN not exercised their option, there would be no basis for FSU, and Clemson's, lawsuits. FSU and Clemson merely would need to wait a couple years and complete the agreement in 2027 and based on UCLA, USC, UT, OU, SU, and PITT's prior handling of the matter and act accordingly, a much less costly and surefire method of exiting the ACC. Further, both lawsuits readily recognize that the agreement was extended beyond 2027 claiming the longer date as a part of the damages.

To clarify, this is a revocable option on ESPN's part, but no internet blowhard knows the the conditions on which ESPN may revoke their intent to continue the agreement after 2027 as previously noticed to the ACC. That said, all indications are that ESPN plans to continue the agreement. The look-in will occur, and if I recall, there will be a third look-in around 2030 (this is from memory, I will defer to any substantive proof - No, Locked On Big 12 does NOT constitute proof of most anything!)

With the completely redacted subparagraphs which contain the conditions under which ESPN may revoke the agreement, there is only speculation as to how ESPN may revoke. Without a methodology of how ESPN may revoke, you must apply logic to any claim (until some time when the agreement is fully disclosed) that the speculating party may have a bias. As the speculation is essentially starting with FSU fans, you should seek documented proof before believing anything they report. Equally, if other ACC school fans present speculation you should also seek documented proof. There is nothing wrong with speculation in and of itself, however, if you are to give it credence, you should have supporting evidence.

Further, the language proves FSU and Clemson would need to sue ESPN to get out of the ACC, with one exception. If FSU and/or Clemson could cause enough disruption to destroy/damage the ACC enough to the point that ESPN would no longer wish to continue the agreement and revoke their option. This tactic has failed miserably. Thus, the suits are likely frivolous. Ironically, their actions serve as proof that ESPN was not the impetus of moving more valuable properties to the SEC to make more money and dump the ACC deadweight; a fact that discounts the very basis that they "need" to change conferences, as perpetuated by many FSU mouthpieces.** And without ESPN being the impetus for FSU and Clemson changing conferences and ESPN's notice that they would extend the agreement, we can justifiably question why ESPN would destroy the ACC, especially when the ACCN has proved to be a profitable entity, making an action in which ESPN destroys the ACC and ACCN a very bad business decision.

We can reasonably conclude that most of the "information" coming from FSU and FSU related sources should be viewed through a skeptic lens. Further, when the "information" contradicts known facts, this "information" is false.

We know that that the majority of the Power 4/5 schools and likely many of the G5 schools have had their legal departments and contracted law firms search for means of breaking the agreements and GORs. All have concluded the same thing, as have independent firms looking for ways to generate new revenue. No one figured a means of defeating statutory and case law in well-resolved areas of law, namely IP, contract, and entertainment.

For another perspective on the FSU lawsuit against the ACC, see the following link and the internal links to our new ACC Member Cal:

Guest Post: FSU vs. ACC - Florida State's Amended Complaint

FSU has gone back to the drawing board to find reasons why the ACC is bad. Did they turn up anything good?

writeforcalifornia.com

For any deeper analysis on ESPN's Option, we would need to know the actual language of the redacted portions.


*On the existence of the Option, I stand corrected. However, the major point stands that the Option is highly controlled and is not merely a whimsical decision as portrayed by FSU.
**FSU and Clemson's desire for more money remains valid, as every school wants more money; however, the claim of the "need" and ESPN as the impetus for conference change have been destroyed.

Just scanned this. If it’s ESPN’s option, but it is revocable, wouldn’t it be the ACC that would have the revocation right?

If ESPN has the option, they don’t need to revoke it, they just don’t need to exercise it.

 

[GoSU96]

Warner Bros. Discovery

Ah, that’s right. They were part of turner .

my bad

the whole ncaa tournament and sharing staff got me confused

 

[HtownOrange]

Just scanned this. If it’s ESPN’s option, but it is revocable, wouldn’t it be the ACC that would have the revocation right?

If ESPN has the option, they don’t need to revoke it, they just don’t need to exercise it.

The 2016 agreement was written with the requirement that ESPN exercise the option within two years of launching the ACC. If ESPN exercised this right, they had a conditional right to revoke; we don't know the conditions.

SUTomCat has identified credible reporters stating that there was a follow-up agreement in which the right to exercise the extension was kicked down the road to 2025. If this is correct, then ESPN can decide next year.

Either way, there is a window in which ESPN has/has to exercise their right to extend the agreement. If they don't exercise the right to extend the agreement, the agreement ends at a time certain, believed to be 2027. If ESPN had/does exercise the extension, they still hold the right to revoke the agreement, under specified - but heavily redacted - conditions. It is presumed that the make up of the ACC is one such condition, and the apparent source of FSU's hope.

Hope this clears things up a little.

 

[Moontan]

Funny that the three conferences that have numbers in their names can't do the math.

 

[HtownOrange]

Funny that the three conferences that have numbers in their names can't do the math.

...and are made up of institutes of higher learning!

 

[GoSU96]

The 2016 agreement was written with the requirement that ESPN exercise the option within two years of launching the ACC. If ESPN exercised this right, they had a conditional right to revoke; we don't know the conditions.

SUTomCat has identified credible reporters stating that there was a follow-up agreement in which the right to exercise the extension was kicked down the road to 2025. If this is correct, then ESPN can decide next year.

Either way, there is a window in which ESPN has/has to exercise their right to extend the agreement. If they don't exercise the right to extend the agreement, the agreement ends at a time certain, believed to be 2027. If ESPN had/does exercise the extension, they still hold the right to revoke the agreement, under specified - but heavily redacted - conditions. It is presumed that the make up of the ACC is one such condition, and the apparent source of FSU's hope.

Hope this clears things up a little.

The phrasing doesn’t make sense but whatever. Sounds like the have a conditional unilateral right to terminate the contract early. They would be terminating the contract, not revoking some right of the ACC.

The use of the word revoke in that context after exercise of an option to extend the term by ESPN is odd.

 

[Moontan]

The 2016 agreement was written with the requirement that ESPN exercise the option within two years of launching the ACC. If ESPN exercised this right, they had a conditional right to revoke; we don't know the conditions.

SUTomCat has identified credible reporters stating that there was a follow-up agreement in which the right to exercise the extension was kicked down the road to 2025. If this is correct, then ESPN can decide next year.

Either way, there is a window in which ESPN has/has to exercise their right to extend the agreement. If they don't exercise the right to extend the agreement, the agreement ends at a time certain, believed to be 2027. If ESPN had/does exercise the extension, they still hold the right to revoke the agreement, under specified - but heavily redacted - conditions. It is presumed that the make up of the ACC is one such condition, and the apparent source of FSU's hope.

Hope this clears things up a little.

ESPN ain't cancellin' nothing!

The ACC Network makes them money. Blowing things up will lead to several schools hopping over to Fox $$.

Better to expand with a larger Western contingent. Expand to 21 schools (3 7-team divisions) for an 8-game conference schedule or 24 (3 8-team divisions) for a 9-game conference schedule (those with SEC partners [GA Tech, Loserville, FSU, Clemson] won't like this).

 

[GoSU96]

ESPN ain't cancellin' nothing!

The ACC Network makes them money. Blowing things up will lead to several schools hopping over to Fox$$.

Better to expand with a larger Western contingent. Expand to 21 schools (3 7-team divisions) for an 8-conference schedule or 24 (3 8-team divisions) for a 9-conference schedule.

Play an 11 game schedule and a four team conference tournament for the championship. The division and best highest wild card.

Everyone else plays a crossover game TBD to end the year. Have a marker team signed up to play the last odd team.

 

[longtimefan]

Both the PAC and the MWC need one more team. Finding suitable candidates in the West will not be easy.

 

[texascpa]

Both the PAC and the MWC need one more team. Finding suitable candidates in the West will not be easy.

I got an idea - They should Merge! Problem Solved. I'm so smart.

 

[HtownOrange]

ESPN ain't cancellin' nothing!

The ACC Network makes them money. Blowing things up will lead to several schools hopping over to Fox $$.

Better to expand with a larger Western contingent. Expand to 21 schools (3 7-team divisions) for an 8-game conference schedule or 24 (3 8-team divisions) for a 9-game conference schedule (those with SEC partners [GA Tech, Loserville, FSU, Clemson] won't like this).

I tend to agree with "ESPN ain't cancellin' nothing!"

The ACC is a profit center for the Mickey Mouse network and there are not many profit centers within the Mickey Mouse network at this time.

 

[longtimefan]

I got an idea - They should Merge! Problem Solved. I'm so smart.

I think egos got in the way. And probably money.

 

[Orangefizz]

Both the PAC and the MWC need one more team. Finding suitable candidates in the West will not be easy.

NDSU and Texas St.

Done… EASY haha

 

[sutomcat]

The phrasing doesn’t make sense but whatever. Sounds like the have a conditional unilateral right to terminate the contract early. They would be terminating the contract, not revoking some right of the ACC.

The use of the word revoke in that context after exercise of an option to extend the term by ESPN is odd.

I am guessing that ESPN wanted to be protected in case the rollout of the ACCN was a disaster, a lot of major cable systems did not pick it up and it turned out to be a big money loser.

That is surely why the term option was 2 years after the ACCN went on air.

Why the ACC agreed to allow them to retain that and push it out 5 years (or whatever the extension length was) is beyond me. The ACC commissioner apparently did this on his own and it was stupid.

 

[WoadBlue]

I think egos got in the way. And probably money.

Oregon ST and Wazzou both wanted to keep the Pac alive somehow. The people running the MWC felt that the PAC should just die in every sense with the last 2 schools happily embracing all things MWC.

The insufferable arrogance there is obviously on the MWC. The MWC is quite new and has never been Major. The Pac has a very old and very grand history. Wise MWC leadership would have worked with the 2 Pac to make certain that its survival wa with the MWC. If that means all but a couple MWC schools get to be in the Pac, accept that, including the death ion the MWC even in name, and Mae certain that the new Pac helps settle the leftover MWC schools somewhere.

 

[GoSU96]

I am guessing that ESPN wanted to be protected in case the rollout of the ACCN was a disaster, a lot of major cable systems did not pick it up and it turned out to be a big money loser.

That is surely why the term option was 2 years after the ACCN went on air.

Why the ACC agreed to allow them to retain that and push it out 5 years (or whatever the extension length was) is beyond me. The ACC commissioner apparently did this on his own and it was stupid.

Regarding the ACCN, that would be something that within the deal I could see be subject to revocation, as in if ESPN didn’t hit certain numbers they could revoke their obligation to have a dedicated network. They might want to do that without terminating the entire agreement.

 

[Moontan]

Play an 11 game schedule and a four team conference tournament for the championship. The division and best highest wild card.

Everyone else plays a crossover game TBD to end the year. Have a marker team signed up to play the last odd team.

That's not going to work for the schools with an annual SEC game.
It would also affect all schools (?) that normally have an FCS game.

 

[All4SU]

C'mon over, Utah, and give us that lacrosse AQ!

It’s inconceivable to me that the ACC has t put pressure on the non-lax schools to add the sport.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

It’s inconceivable to me that the ACC has t put pressure on the non-lax schools to add the sport.

It's only 48 more scholarships.

SMU can afford it. Lots of LAX talent in Texas.