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

[baggerbob]

What is the source? The actual agreement in place as of now. Research them, I am not doing the work for you. The work has been done in this and other threads.

Agreed, the issue now is a settlement, Please explain how spending a few million dollars more is not worth several hundred million or more than a billion dollars, should enough teams leave.

As for the exit fee, there is no need to negotiate, FSU was one of the major proponents for the current exit fee, which is well documented. Courts are not likely to allow decrease the amount to their benefit harming the remaining schools. ESPN owns the rights to FSU and must pay the ACC for FSU's rights. ESPN cannot simply move them to the SEC, that would be a criminal act and make the remaining ACC teams very rich. FSU cannot simply play for the SEC as the ACC will receive the revenue.

Anyway, have fun when you get into a contract dispute.

Sure, anything may be agreed to but you have failed to show why any ACC team would vote to reduce the costs to FSU without gaining anything in return from FSU.

It's foolish for schools like Georgia Tech, Pitt, BC, Wake Forest, SMU, California. Stanford, Louisville, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Syracuse to vote to accept this. They should all vote no.

 

[HtownOrange]

It's foolish for schools like Georgia Tech, Pitt, BC, Wake Forest, SMU, California. Stanford, Louisville, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Syracuse to vote to accept this. They should all vote no.

NCState may be added, too. If UNC is the prize, NCState is a participation trophy.

To be sure, Clemson, FSU, UNC, and Miami are not guaranteed anything and with their steps backwards, none is the peach they once were and need to get back to. They should all be careful what they ask for, they may just get it.

 

[Toga]

 

[AcAndAc]

What is the source? The actual agreement in place as of now. Research them, I am not doing the work for you. The work has been done in this and other threads.

Agreed, the issue now is a settlement, Please explain how spending a few million dollars more is not worth several hundred million or more than a billion dollars, should enough teams leave.

As for the exit fee, there is no need to negotiate, FSU was one of the major proponents for the current exit fee, which is well documented. Courts are not likely to allow decrease the amount to their benefit harming the remaining schools. ESPN owns the rights to FSU and must pay the ACC for FSU's rights. ESPN cannot simply move them to the SEC, that would be a criminal act and make the remaining ACC teams very rich. FSU cannot simply play for the SEC as the ACC will receive the revenue.

Anyway, have fun when you get into a contract dispute.

Sure, anything may be agreed to but you have failed to show why any ACC team would vote to reduce the costs to FSU without gaining anything in return from FSU.

I don't think you understand the settlement or the nature of settlements. The settlement is CHANGING the relationship. Forget about the current contracts. Once there is a settlement, those contracts are altered (as any contract can be by mutual agreement of all the parties). There is already a litigation disputing the contract.

The settlement resolution is that FSU/Clemson are getting a reduced exit fee that is quite doable in 2031 and beyond... and the GOR is--upon payment of the exit fee--dead as to those schools. Sorry if reality is too troubling, but it appears to be a done deal.

 

[HtownOrange]

I don't think you understand the settlement or the nature of settlements. The settlement is CHANGING the relationship. Forget about the current contracts. Once there is a settlement, those contracts are altered (as any contract can be by mutual agreement of all the parties). There is already a litigation disputing the contract.

The settlement resolution is that FSU/Clemson are getting a reduced exit fee that is quite doable in 2031 and beyond... and the GOR is--upon payment of the exit fee--dead as to those schools. Sorry if reality is too troubling, but it appears to be a done deal.

Again, you should go back and read the thread and related threads. I fully understand the purpose of a settlement, I do this for a living.

What you fail to understand that the settlement as presented in the ESPN article does NOT benefit most of the ACC schools.

Present:
- Exit fee = 3X last annual payout, or $44.8MM X 3 = $134.4MM
- The Exit Fee increases annually
- The Value of media rights is equal to the payout X number of years remaining on the GOR, presently 11 years (does not include current season) or $492.8MM.
- The Value of rights decreases annually
- FSU was a major proponent of the present exit fee
- ESPN demanded the GOR in exchange for the ACCN
- Past media rights buy backs were valued at 2-2.1X the rights Value.

Proposed per the article:
- Less than $100MM
- Includes Exit and rights buy back
- Schools with lower TV ratings (stuck on ACCN, ESPN+, CW) take a cut from the current distributions, per the article, $7MM
- The top schools gain $15MM per the article


The proposed settlement is a terrible deal for any school not expected to garner an SEC or B1G invite. Presently, SU will lose $7MM to bolster FSU, Clemson, UM, and UNC.

It is in SU's self interest to vote against the proposal and force FSU and Clemson to win in court, which is not likely as contract, IP and entertainment law are well established.

Please explain why SU should agree to take less money (up to $77MM through 2036) to benefit others who want to destroy the conference?

Explain what FSU and Clemson are giving up under the new proposal.

 

[TexanMark]

Closing in on 72 hours without a post in this thread so I decided to go real controversial:

If states no longer matter in this new age of internet streaming, markets no longer matter, and brands are end-all-be-all, what does the B1G do with Rutgers? Rutgers does not have influence in in NYC so they cannot "Bring" the Big Apple market and nor does Rutgers carry the state of NJ, further Rutgers" Athletics Department sucks so bad Congress looks like budget geniuses. Rutgers has no brand, unless you consider their entire history as a tomato soup can. What happens to to Rutgers? Do they get a permanent pass on the coattails of real ADs within the B1G or does the B1G cut their losses and look elsewhere?

If you are really brave and think Rutgers gets the Temple Treatment which team replaces Rutgers?

This isn't controversial at all.

This post is like catnip for Otto the Orange Cat

Rutgers is a leech, always has been.
They are not B1G worthy.

 

[orangefog]

This isn't controversial at all.

This post is like catnip for Otto the Orange Cat

Rutgers is a leech, always has been.
They are not B1G worthy.

How dare you, they are a sleeping giant!!!!

 

[AcAndAc]

It's foolish for schools like Georgia Tech, Pitt, BC, Wake Forest, SMU, California. Stanford, Louisville, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Syracuse to vote to accept this. They should all vote no.

Again, you should go back and read the thread and related threads. I fully understand the purpose of a settlement, I do this for a living.

What you fail to understand that the settlement as presented in the ESPN article does NOT benefit most of the ACC schools.

Present:
- Exit fee = 3X last annual payout, or $44.8MM X 3 = $134.4MM
- The Exit Fee increases annually
- The Value of media rights is equal to the payout X number of years remaining on the GOR, presently 11 years (does not include current season) or $492.8MM.
- The Value of rights decreases annually
- FSU was a major proponent of the present exit fee
- ESPN demanded the GOR in exchange for the ACCN
- Past media rights buy backs were valued at 2-2.1X the rights Value.

Proposed per the article:
- Less than $100MM
- Includes Exit and rights buy back
- Schools with lower TV ratings (stuck on ACCN, ESPN+, CW) take a cut from the current distributions, per the article, $7MM
- The top schools gain $15MM per the article


The proposed settlement is a terrible deal for any school not expected to garner an SEC or B1G invite. Presently, SU will lose $7MM to bolster FSU, Clemson, UM, and UNC.

It is in SU's self interest to vote against the proposal and force FSU and Clemson to win in court, which is not likely as contract, IP and entertainment law are well established.

Please explain why SU should agree to take less money (up to $77MM through 2036) to benefit others who want to destroy the conference?

Well, you might be disappointed if/when Syracuse does sign that agreement.
It is not just a proposed agreement... it is one that the lawyers for the ACC will be recommending that all other schools sign/agree to...

The reality is that the G of R was never going to be extended beyond 2036. Several programs will test the water first.

Now... this will force the B1G to pay FSU a full share or very close to it in 2030. If the B1G can do so, then FSU can pay the exit fee... which will match up nicely with what ESPN would otherwise reduce from the media deal due to FSU exiting... thereby giving the ACC schools what the G of R intended to do... protect the schools through 2036.

FSU fans think they could pay a $200M exit fee. With the deal Texas A&M just got from its Learfield competitor, maybe they are right. If so, have a nice day... so long and thanks for all the fish...

 

[TexanMark]

According to the ESPN article, it would cost any school leaving the ACC after the 2029/2030 season "less than $100 million" to exit the ACC including both exit fees and GORs.

Sources: FSU, Clemson, ACC expected to settle

Makes no sense unless the ACC lawyers expected to lose or they were not acting for the benefit of all schools

 

[TexanMark]

NCState may be added, too. If UNC is the prize, NCState is a participation trophy.

To be sure, Clemson, FSU, UNC, and Miami are not guaranteed anything and with their steps backwards, none is the peach they once were and need to get back to. They should all be careful what they ask for, they may just get it.

The funny thing is UNC and particularly UVA are average football TV draws.

 

[HtownOrange]

Well, you might be disappointed if/when Syracuse does sign that agreement.
It is not just a proposed agreement... it is one that the lawyers for the ACC will be recommending that all other schools sign/agree to...

The reality is that the G of R was never going to be extended beyond 2036. Several programs will test the water first.

Now... this will force the B1G to pay FSU a full share or very close to it in 2030. If the B1G can do so, then FSU can pay the exit fee... which will match up nicely with what ESPN would otherwise reduce from the media deal due to FSU exiting... thereby giving the ACC schools what the G of R intended to do... protect the schools through 2036.

FSU fans think they could pay a $200M exit fee. With the deal Texas A&M just got from its Learfield competitor, maybe they are right. If so, have a nice day... so long and thanks for all the fish...

Thanks for failing to explain how this benefits SU and what FSU and Clemson are offering in exchange for this favorable revised agreement.

You are correct, I will be disappointed if SU votes for this settlement. Unless SU has a side agreement to protect SU, which would involve tortious interference, then this deal is against SU's interests.

Because the ACC has disdained football, the GOR my not be extended (assuming no defections), we will not know, though you present as if you have inside information.

Yor third paragraph makes no sense. If FSU or Clemson failed to garner a full share, a move was not cost effective, better to wait out the ACC agreement and them join with no losses. (Hint: The numbers were worked out in this an other threads). Further, ESPN controls FSU media rights, why would ESPN let FSU go to Fox without getting something in return?

FSU fans can think what they want, but you should remember that FSU is running in the red, couldn't pay the $100MM offer to leave (suggesting FSU would pay out of its new revenue over ten years), still cannot raise sufficient funds for its stadium, etc. Please explain where the FSU money is coming from, FSU does not have it.

Again, SU should not cut of its nose to spite its face.

 

[kcsu]

I would like to read the agreement before passing final judgement.
But for argument sake lets say that the write up by Htown is correct. If that is the case and the result is that some schools leave and the league has to replace them the question is does the ACC retain its path to the championship? Does it keep two automatic bids? Assumimg that it does than the loss of FSU and Clemson might actually end up creating an easier path for Syracuse. What i keep reminding myself is that Syracuse doesnt need to have the same amount of money as an SEC or BIG team as long as we are close. What we need is to be on equal footing with the teams in our league. Bottom line is i don't think this is a bad thing for SU. It gives us 5 to 10 years stability which in today's world is a lifetime.

 

[HtownOrange]

I would like to read the agreement before passing final judgement.
But for argument sake lets say that the write up by Htown is correct. If that is the case and the result is that some schools leave and the league has to replace them the question is does the ACC retain its path to the championship? Does it keep two automatic bids? Assumimg that it does than the loss of FSU and Clemson might actually end up creating an easier path for Syracuse. What i keep reminding myself is that Syracuse doesnt need to have the same amount of money as an SEC or BIG team as long as we are close. What we need is to be on equal footing with the teams in our league. Bottom line is i don't think this is a bad thing for SU. It gives us 5 to 10 years stability which in today's world is a lifetime.

Based on your hypothetical, the ACC would be a G5 level conference unless there is a perennial NC contender. No, VATech, UNC and others do not count as none has done so in recent memory. Even FSU and UM can be discounted somewhat, right now. Thus, the "New" ACC is likely to fall under the same deal as the G5.

Obviously, new teams may obtain the perennial powerhouse (hopefully SU) status before the defections, but that remains to be seen. Prudent planning would not bet on hope.

 

[WoadBlue]

It's foolish for schools like Georgia Tech, Pitt, BC, Wake Forest, SMU, California. Stanford, Louisville, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Syracuse to vote to accept this. They should all vote no.

In doing so, they would be voting to see the ACC gutted ASAP. Just like the BT and SEC want. I should know better but I am still; amazed by how fans of Cuse and BC and - slightly smaller kn scale - Pitt hang into the just plain erroneous views about the power of being located with tens of millions of people whop usually pay 0 attention to CFB and then the do pay attention, it is ND or PSU or games between Top 10 teams where they are from. Such a region is totally incapable of supporting a Major college on football (as Dave Gavitte knew) unless there is a system in which it gets revenue from conferences based in regions that do watch a whole lot off CFB. and do so passionately.


Once you put that understanding with the knowledge that leagues defined by having larger state flagship and land grant schools have massive advantages over leagues that are defined as having many private schools and small state schools, you should be able to to do the simple arithmetic about who has most value and why.

I encourage all Syracuse fans who think they know better to start demanding that Syracuse be the northeastern hero and leave the ACC while begging BC and Pitt to join them, so Syracuse can then get northeastern schools Temple, UMass, and Buffalo with them and then start to woo Wake and WVU and Cincy. Maybe JMU. Then, because the Northeast is so beloved by the networks, even for CFB, that new Super Northeast FL would find is easy to add VT and GT, meaning even Miami would want that.

Again, here is a prediction ion for you: when this all stops there either will be 2 or 3 Major conferences l;eft standing. The BT and SEC are assured. Either ACC or Big 12 could be the 3rd, but to become that 3rd, each must take valuable pieces from the other and finish reducing it to a level like today's Pac. Whether the final Major conferences are 2 or 3, neither Wake nor BC will be around. In order for the ACC to strengthen its TV numbers nationally and survive long term as Major, it must cut dead weight. If for example, ESPN will up the money if the ACC can take value from the Big 12 and ESPN says that it do that for no more than 20 members, the ACC will make the most bang by being ab le to add 5 schools rather than just three that are larger state schools (UofA, AZ ST, Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech, Cincy, even WVU) than by keeping two small privates, one of which is located in the dreads region for Major CFB and the other the smallest school in any Major conference since the dissolution off the SWC and in state that simply cannot. adequately support 4 Major conference football programs.

Realism is here. FSU and Clemson and Miami and UNC and UVA all are going to be in a Major conference even if there are only 2.

 

[WoadBlue]

I would like to read the agreement before passing final judgement.
But for argument sake lets say that the write up by Htown is correct. If that is the case and the result is that some schools leave and the league has to replace them the question is does the ACC retain its path to the championship? Does it keep two automatic bids? Assumimg that it does than the loss of FSU and Clemson might actually end up creating an easier path for Syracuse. What i keep reminding myself is that Syracuse doesnt need to have the same amount of money as an SEC or BIG team as long as we are close. What we need is to be on equal footing with the teams in our league. Bottom line is i don't think this is a bad thing for SU. It gives us 5 to 10 years stability which in today's world is a lifetime.

The Big 12 is not going to sit idle. If major ACC members leave for BT and SEC, then the Big 12 will be culling the rest. Should that happen, what is left of the ACC will be no better than what is today's Pac. And maybe worse off. It will not have even 1 auto bid to football playoffs.

 

[AcAndAc]

Thanks for failing to explain how this benefits SU and what FSU and Clemson are offering in exchange for this favorable revised agreement.

You are correct, I will be disappointed if SU votes for this settlement. Unless SU has a side agreement to protect SU, which would involve tortious interference, then this deal is against SU's interests.

Because the ACC has disdained football, the GOR my not be extended (assuming no defections), we will not know, though you present as if you have inside information.

Yor third paragraph makes no sense. If FSU or Clemson failed to garner a full share, a move was not cost effective, better to wait out the ACC agreement and them join with no losses. (Hint: The numbers were worked out in this an other threads). Further, ESPN controls FSU media rights, why would ESPN let FSU go to Fox without getting something in return?

FSU fans can think what they want, but you should remember that FSU is running in the red, couldn't pay the $100MM offer to leave (suggesting FSU would pay out of its new revenue over ten years), still cannot raise sufficient funds for its stadium, etc. Please explain where the FSU money is coming from, FSU does not have it.

Again, SU should not cut of its nose to spite its face.

Syracuse may have to sign because it (and other schools of no interest to the SEC/B1g) have no choice... only way to try to keep the ACC at an arguable #3 is to survive and merge with B12 one way or another.

 

[AcAndAc]

The Big 12 is not going to sit idle. If major ACC members leave for BT and SEC, then the Big 12 will be culling the rest. Should that happen, what is left of the ACC will be no better than what is today's Pac. And maybe worse off. It will not have even 1 auto bid to football playoffs.

Where is the B12 getting its money? For the most part, the same place that the ACC is getting its money.

 

[WoadBlue]

The funny thing is UNC and particularly UVA are average football TV draws.

Yes, in most years that is true, and the history for why goes way back to the WW2 era days when colleges were hit with the 2nd craze to stop 'professionalism of college sports' by focusing all their energies in ringing in football. The 2 state schools in the South that bought that bug hardest were UVA and UNC.

That craze, by the way, is why the Ivy League was officially formed playing no scholarship sports.

The value of both schools today is what it is because of overall athletics departments and the immense value of each institution's prestige and clout, as well as ideal location within one of the 2 regions that are SUPER for CFB.

 

[WoadBlue]

Again, you should go back and read the thread and related threads. I fully understand the purpose of a settlement, I do this for a living.

What you fail to understand that the settlement as presented in the ESPN article does NOT benefit most of the ACC schools.

Present:
- Exit fee = 3X last annual payout, or $44.8MM X 3 = $134.4MM
- The Exit Fee increases annually
- The Value of media rights is equal to the payout X number of years remaining on the GOR, presently 11 years (does not include current season) or $492.8MM.
- The Value of rights decreases annually
- FSU was a major proponent of the present exit fee
- ESPN demanded the GOR in exchange for the ACCN
- Past media rights buy backs were valued at 2-2.1X the rights Value.

Proposed per the article:
- Less than $100MM
- Includes Exit and rights buy back
- Schools with lower TV ratings (stuck on ACCN, ESPN+, CW) take a cut from the current distributions, per the article, $7MM
- The top schools gain $15MM per the article


The proposed settlement is a terrible deal for any school not expected to garner an SEC or B1G invite. Presently, SU will lose $7MM to bolster FSU, Clemson, UM, and UNC.

It is in SU's self interest to vote against the proposal and force FSU and Clemson to win in court, which is not likely as contract, IP and entertainment law are well established.

Please explain why SU should agree to take less money (up to $77MM through 2036) to benefit others who want to destroy the conference?

Explain what FSU and Clemson are giving up under the new proposal.

They have 80K stadiums they can and do fill. If you cannot grasp how that matters immensely, then you are hopeless.

 

[dasher]

My rule on this is that nothing makes no sense at all. If you look more in to something, it will make sense. We don't know what we don't know.

 

[HtownOrange]

They have 80K stadiums they can and do fill. If you cannot grasp how that matters immensely, then you are hopeless.

1) You comment has nothing to do with the discussion
2) Doak Campbell is being renovated and will have 60K-70k seating when completed, defeating your point completely
3) Under the current agreements, the FSU and Clemson are included, your argument serves no point whatsoever. As they are part of the current deal, they are not giving up anything new, this is called consideration under contract law, every contract MUST have consideration. What is the consideration the FSU, Clemson and others are providing?

 

[Newhouser]

so the reports that Clemson and FSU were killing their programs by filing a unwinnable legal challenge were...wrong?

 

[Scooch]

Is it reasonable to think that the league office brokered this settlement without conducting a straw poll of membership beforehand to determine its likelihood to be ratified?

Is a vote to accept it a simple majority, or a higher threshold?

I can see 10 yes votes from members who believe they have clear paths to the B1G or SEC.

 

[HtownOrange]

Syracuse may have to sign because it (and other schools of no interest to the SEC/B1g) have no choice... only way to try to keep the ACC at an arguable #3 is to survive and merge with B12 one way or another.

Why? The new agreement allows FSU to leave early. If the agreement is not signed, FSU must stay until 2036. The deal benefits SU and others through 2036.

Again, what are FSU and Clemson giving up in consideration for this favorable agreement?

 

[oldpinepoint]

Is it reasonable to think that the league office brokered this settlement without conducting a straw poll of membership beforehand to determine its likelihood to be ratified?

Is a vote to accept it a simple majority, or a higher threshold?

I can see 10 yes votes from members who believe they have clear paths to the B1G or SEC.

Or have side deals, how schools vote will be interesting