FSU vs The ACC | Page 105 | Syracusefan.com

FSU vs The ACC

If we are reducing the contract to 2030 then we need to be compensated for it. Otherwise it should be a hard No. If there was an out after 2026 there would be no reason for the lawsuit in the first place. That seems like Kook folklore. Why would ESPN pay those two schools a bonus when they don't have too?
I think everyone agrees now that ESPN has an out in 2026 with the ACC contract.

I would assume that if this happens, that clause gets pulled and the new ESPN-ACC contract has a hard end in 2030.

There is a ton of money involved here. ESPN has leverage and might be telling the ACC schools either take this deal, and have a guaranteed income until 2030 or we will terminate it in 2026.

That seems plausible to me.
 

I think everyone agrees now that ESPN has an out in 2026 with the ACC contract.

I would assume that if this happens, that clause gets pulled and the new ESPN-ACC contract has a hard end in 2030.

There is a ton of money involved here. ESPN has leverage and might be telling the ACC schools either take this deal, and have a guaranteed income until 2030 or we will terminate it in 2026.

That seems plausible to me.
Or it could create another look in at 2030 similar to what we have now with the ultimate contract ending in 2036. I would imagine that there has to be claw backs if FSU and Clemson don’t bring the eyes.
 
I think everyone agrees now that ESPN has an out in 2026 with the ACC contract.

I would assume that if this happens, that clause gets pulled and the new ESPN-ACC contract has a hard end in 2030.

There is a ton of money involved here. ESPN has leverage and might be telling the ACC schools either take this deal, and have a guaranteed income until 2030 or we will terminate it in 2026.

That seems plausible to me.

Who is in agreement, the internet?

Why would ESPN only extend to 2030 when they have cheap content till 2036? They would be killing the ACCN which has been good for ESPN and losing brands to the B18.

Really ESPN has little leverage as most of the ACC can go to the other 3 Power conferences and get a better deal than just 4 years and then fend for yourselves.
 
Also note that the GOR is tied to the current contract. If ESPN had an option and declined the option, the GOR would be void. So offering a new contract till 2030-31 would require a new GOR. Any team could leave after 2026-27 in that case.

Also from the ACC's perspective you are signing to kill off the conference. Ending the contract in 2030-31 gives the ACC no advantage over the B12. They will certainly poach the ACC in that case. Which will leave Wake and maybe others in the same situation as Oregon State and Washington State were. So if you don't think you have a home, you are against the 2030-31 contract. And if you do think you have a home, why not leave in 2026-27 instead? Why wait four more years?
 
Who is in agreement, the internet?

Why would ESPN only extend to 2030 when they have cheap content till 2036? They would be killing the ACCN which has been good for ESPN and losing brands to the B18.

Really ESPN has little leverage as most of the ACC can go to the other 3 Power conferences and get a better deal than just 4 years and then fend for yourselves.
The ACC-ESPN contract was released to FSU. They have an out in 2026. If you haven't heard this, go educate yourself. It is a fact.

I would look at the other link in my first post in this thread today. It lays out what the expected cost is to ESPN to control the ACC content through 2036.

The first column was taken from the ESPN contract. It should be 100% accurate.

The estimate for the profit for the ACCN over time is just that; an estimate. I don't think he included profits from the direct to customer service ESPN is going to roll out. I know the direct product will include ACCN (as well as SECN) and I believe they will have to cut out pieces from this revenue stream for these features to compensate the ACC and SEC (I am not sure they will be called networks any longer by 2036).

But it points out some fundamental problems for ESPN. Their revenues are no longer growing exponentially. I think they are already decreasing and I am not sure anyone knows how successful/profitable their direct to customer product will be.

And worse, they have signed up for astronomical increases in payments to the SEC and a bunch of others.

Having the ability to reduce major dollar commitments that escalate dramatically has to be of great interest to them. If they can limit their commitment to the ACC to only 2030, that is of great benefit to them.
 
The ACC-ESPN contract was released to FSU. They have an out in 2026. If you haven't heard this, go educate yourself. It is a fact.

I would look at the other link in my first post in this thread today. It lays out what the expected cost is to ESPN to control the ACC content through 2036.

The first column was taken from the ESPN contract. It should be 100% accurate.

The estimate for the profit for the ACCN over time is just that; an estimate. I don't think he included profits from the direct to customer service ESPN is going to roll out. I know the direct product will include ACCN (as well as SECN) and I believe they will have to cut out pieces from this revenue stream for these features to compensate the ACC and SEC (I am not sure they will be called networks any longer by 2036).

But it points out some fundamental problems for ESPN. Their revenues are no longer growing exponentially. I think they are already decreasing and I am not sure anyone knows how successful/profitable their direct to customer product will be.

And worse, they have signed up for astronomical increases in payments to the SEC and a bunch of others.

Having the ability to reduce major dollar commitments that escalate dramatically has to be of great interest to them. If they can limit their commitment to the ACC to only 2030, that is of great benefit to them.

I am aware of the heavily redacted document. Most of what is and isn't, is open to interpretation.

Even if ESPN wants to reduce their commitment like you suggest, it does nothing but destabilize the ACC. If ESPN declined the option and you are FSU, why not go to the Big 12 after the current ESPN contract is up and get more money? Why stay in the ACC? And that is assuming they do not have a B18 or SEC invite. Same for Clemson. Which could then send UNC/UVA away to either the B18 or SEC. If the option is declined, the ACC will be gutted.

If/when the B18 wants to expand, they will want to announce the schools they are adding by 2027 the latest. That way they can negotiate their next TV contract with the new teams signed on. If ESPN declines the ACC option, the B18 can come in and offer any ACC team they want.

The 2036 date is what is keeping the ACC together and what is making the ACC the #3 conference. You take that away and the conference is #4 and possibly on its way to number #5.
 
Just listened to a FSU podcast that featured an FSU fan lawyer who regularly talks about the FSU-ACC lawsuits.

I think his name is Doug Rohan.

He is under the impression that ESPN has agreed to pay Clemson and FSU more money and that this is what has opened the dialogue. His impression, I think, is that this agreement would not cost any ACC school any money. The extra money for the disgrunted two would come from ESPN.

He makes a few good points. Says the ACC chancellors would not sit through a 6 hour meeting (which they apparently did last week) if they were not close to a resolution.

If you couple this with the projected ACCN revenue and costs to ESPN to pay the ACC, so the contract ends in 2030 instead of 2026, maybe the whole thing makes sense.

I didn't see anywhere that ESPN was okay with paying Clemson and FSU more money though.



When I read the article that's how I took it as well as far as these discussions are about NEW revenue added to the ACC pot. It also sounds like this additional revenue is based on viewers AND performance and not necessarily just extra money for FSU and Clemson.

I'm sure its a combined pool of money from upcoming bumps, look-ins, and other ways to maximize league payouts.

I think performance related bonuses are fair and will absolutely work their way to all conferences soon enough.
 
When ESPN leagues (Longhorn, Old Big East) wanted more, they got reshuffled to another ESPN league (ACC). Ditto for the Fox league (Pac 12).

Question 1: What is most valuable to ESPN in the ACC deal? The ACC network? FSU broadcasts? The 2 or 3 Notre Dame broadcasts? Clemson? UNC-Duke hoops? Serious question as I have a few ideas but what do I know? I'm not asking about the most valuable 'brands' but what is the best ROI for ESPN from the ACC?

Question 2: If/when the ACC goes kaput, where do these items go? I would think that FSU & UNC are Big 10 bound and one never knows what ND would do. If (a big IF) they were to join after the ACC blows up, they most certainly would join Big 10. So, it would seem that the most valuable pieces would move to Fox..

Maybe it all ends up as some have said but why would ESPN gut a money making entity to then lose it to a competitor?
 
If the ACC is toast please get SU into the SEC. I'll take the beatings in football for that cash.
I’d much rather Play in the Big10. It makes way more sense than the SEC. I hope that’s where we eventually end up with Pitt, BC, Virginia and NC. Somehow, some way.
 
Last edited:
I’d much rather Play in the Big10. It makes way more sense than the SEC. I hope that’s were we eventually end up with Pitt, BC, Virginia and NC. Somehow, some way.

I think my ideal woudl be an enlarged Big Ten where there are divisions of 4-6 teams. So we would be with some combo of Notre Dame, Penn State, BC, Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt. I think for tradition five makes the most sense which would have SU, ND, PSU, BC, RU.
 
I think my ideal woudl be an enlarged Big Ten where there are divisions of 4-6 teams. So we would be with some combo of Notre Dame, Penn State, BC, Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt. I think for tradition five makes the most sense which would have SU, ND, PSU, BC, RU.
Me too. It would be the Big TEN Holdco with the Big East Opco corporate chart.

Eventually i think this is where it's going. The big will own the north east, and the west...the SEC will own the south/southwest (texas).

I mean that's what SHOULD happen. the dream sequence is the BIG is able to bring in basketball onlies to create a real big east hoops conference that is part of their umbrella.
 
If both leave the ACC and are not replaced by a couple of schools that are large state schools with fairly comparable football history and proven TV power, then the ACC will no longer be a Major conference in any meaningful sense.

Will you think that result good for Syracuse or anybody else left in the ACC at that time? If not then you need to back something new that the ACC has not yet tried so that the chances of the ACC surviving intact to get back open the open market are maximized.

So, let's say that Clemson & Fla State leave. Would re-recruiting Maryland and Rutgers be feasible? Those would be pretty good fill-ins IMO - state schools, fill in the map, a couple research universities. Only if you can't get both of those do you ask UConn and/or West Virginia.
 
If the ACC is toast please get SU into the SEC. I'll take the beatings in football for that cash.

It would seem that culturally Pitt & SU fit better in the Big 10 than in the SEC, or the Big 12.
 
Me too. It would be the Big TEN Holdco with the Big East Opco corporate chart.

Eventually i think this is where it's going. The big will own the north east, and the west...the SEC will own the south/southwest (texas).

I mean that's what SHOULD happen. the dream sequence is the BIG is able to bring in basketball onlies to create a real big east hoops conference that is part of their umbrella.

In an ideal world I would like…

Home: BC, Pitt, Navy, Temple, VA Tech, Notre Dame

Away: UConn, WV, MD, RU, Penn State, Army

And then the opposite the year later.
 
So you want to play chicken with ESPN? The frirst problem in that is that Fox cares not one little bit about how gets burn over in such a game. But you seem to think that Syracuse is a must to age saved by Fox because Fox must have as much of the northeast as it can get.

If that is so, then Syracuse and BC must be as valuable a pair as FSU and Clemson, which means Cuse and BC should be willing to walk away and force Fiox to take them into the BT before ESPN gets wise and sticks them in the SEC.

Your position is the same basic fruit as the FSU position, The differences between you on Cuse/northeast and FSU are differences of degree not of kind. You each wish to push envelopes because of your arrogance in what you think you are and its immense value.

The SEC position, which ESPN seems to have accepted largely if not necessarily totally, is that it is long proven that SEC football plays VERY well nationally. SEC games even do top level numbers in the Chicago TV market. The SEC does not want the BT in what it sees as its turf and its adjacent areas, because it feels that such would start to undermine that ability of the SEC to maintain these huge football TV numbers across the nation, including NYC and Chicago. So the SEC began worrying about the BT attacking the ACC to move South, starting with Maryland. The SEC does not want the BT in VA or NC, and does not want FSU and Miami in the BT either. The line of thinking is what led to the SEC plans, which again seem to have been embraced significantly by ESPN, arrange matters so that the ACC schools that the SEC sees as most valuable to keep out of BT hands are in the SEC.

And all that is bound up with the SEC selfish frustration that the ACC also has a network.

The SEC position regarding big time TV audience CFB in the northeast is that for a league to gain it and keep it, it must have PSU. I agree with that. And that belief is the reason that the SEC would be more than fine if the BT could take Cuse and BC out of the ACC, if that facilitated the SEC getting UNC, UVA, and FSU.

And contrary to the FSU hubris, the top desire of the SEC is not FSU, not even close, It is keeping the BT permanently out of VA and NC. That means that the FSU arrogance which is destabilizing the ACC could mean a whole lot of bad for FSU. I say the same about the arrogance you assume should be Syracuse's stance. It only persuades FSU people even more that the ACC is hopeless and as doomed as BE football always was.

Again, I need to assert: if FSU and Clemson leave the ACC, the next TV deal the ACC could get will be even further behind the SEC and BT money than what we now face.
Respectfully, you are far removed from what I stated. While you are free to have and express your own opinion, please do not think you are granted rights to think or speak for me...or anyone else, for that matter.

You attack the concept that the north has some value. Recall, NY start is the fourth largest state and no one carries more weight across the state in football and basketball than SU.

You also forget that hoops is allegedly king in the ACC, if this is true, then you must allocate extra value just for hoops.
Do these points make SU a "must have" (I use quotes because I am unsure what you were typing, not an actual quote. No!. Emphatically. However, it does make SU a property worth having.

You also forget that both SU and Pitt were vetted by the B1G and when they joined the ACC the action caused a knee jerk reaction to solidify anything in the east, forcing them to take Rutgers. Did Rutgers help? Some. Has Rutgers done anything? Not really, other than guaranteeing the top teams and easy win each fall. And I would recommend SU take the duties of a tomato can in the B1G or SEC before considering the Big 12.

Fox has done much to squeeze ESPN out of the northeast, they have the B1G and Big East. So, yeah, Fox has an interest in the northeast and to keep ESPN out of the northeast. You may claim that football is king, but live hoops in the northeast drives revenue in the winter, beyond what you think. It is part of why the ACC wanted SU at the same time they wanted FSU. Does this equate to Fox needing to grab SU, no.

As to forcing their way into the B1G, I have no clue where you got that from. Likewise, the same for BC. If SU goes to the B1G with anyone else in the north, I would guess ND and/or Pitt, long before BC.

As to SU in the SEC, the concept is not as far fetched as you think. The SEC is very top heavy, if ESPN is blowing up the ACC, why not trim fat, merge in eight or ten teams to create the fluff the SEC needs, cover the in-state rivalries, go to nine conference games and lock down the most valuable properties? It's a better concept than leaving good cuts of meat on the table for Fox. This also keeps ESPN relevant along the Atlantic Coast, you know the northeast with the most densely populated area in the country and it will remain so for decades.

How you believe that my position is the same as FSU's is so far out of whack that you are likely a troll. Sorry, no arrogance like FSU. If I was arrogant like FSU I would have recommended joining the lawsuit. I have never done such. No, I simply look at the facts - as many as I can find - then apply reason, business, legal, and thought. I feel bad for you that you have to use personal attacks to push your views, they should stand on their own merit.

Regarding your comments pertaining to the SEC, if the ACC is blown up and forced out of the top 3/4 conferences, does not expand, because you believe they only FSU and possibly Clemson, then the SEC remains a regional conference. If the remaining 1 or 2 power conferences are much more national, over time, the SEC viewership will dwindle. You may even see a scheduling agreement to squeeze out the SEC, not completely, but to devalue them making them play lesser teams more often, keeping more valuable games outside the SEC. Remember, you are asserting the SEC will not grow much more and take on cannon fodder (Vandy, KU's, etc.) for some easy wins. As it is, the SEC has more traditional powers than not which will force the SEC to take action of some kind to get more wins for all of the Big dogs.

Ironically, you pivot and say SU and Pitt to the B1G is a good thing. I have no disagreement. My position is and has been that SU will land on its feet, where I am not sure of but they will land on there feet and if not, I will remain an SU fan. That is not arrogance, that is your messed up thought.

I Also agree that the SEC does not want the B1G in the southeast in general. I am not sure that they will take all of FSU, Clemson, GATech, Miami, UVA, UNC, VATech, and NC State because they leave a lot for the B1G being essentially the only national conference. Plus, I am not sure all of those schools want to be in the SEC as scholastically they fit with the B1G and whether anyone likes it, athletics is a sideline business for universities. GATech, Miami, UVA and UNC may just as easily choose to go north over jumping to the SEC, to me, they are each a toss-up. Even NC State and VATech may lean towards academia if offered the opportunity because research pays much more.

As to your last paragraph, no one disputes your position. Pretending I do is, again, your messed up thought. I do take a stance that isf the ACC holds on until 2036, the top heavy B1G and more top heavy SEC are more likely to expand significantly or break into the regional conferences like what we enjoyed in yesteryear. The former powers are not going to simply cash checks and take beat downs, that is for lesser schools with less $$ in their pockets.

To be plain, I have never stated that SU was the most valuable team, only that SU has history, desire, capacity, sits in a large state, garners excellent coverage in hoops and does a good job in four all (check the ratings, not as bad as one would think for what many younger people perceived as a perpetual cellar dweller). Yes, I believe SU to be more valuable in general than Utah - prove me wrong. Nor have I asserted that SU was more valuable than UNC or UVA, just that when the music stops, SU will have a chair in the college sports version of musical chairs.

Regardless, you still have neither right nor authority to present my position, I do so on my own. Further, doing so on such an egregious manner discredits your own postings and devalues your own thoughts and positions.

P.S. I still don't believe FSU is doing as well in court as many intent mouthpieces and click baiters think. You haven't changed my mind.
 
David Hale was on Adam Gold's show Wednesday and basically dismissed any chance FSU and Clemson are going to get their proposal through.

David (an SU guy) is very tapped in to many ACC sources and of course, is an employee of ESPN.

So maybe those FSU fans celebrating a victory are still sniffing some upstate Florida glue?

 
David Hale was on Adam Gold's show Wednesday and basically dismissed any chance FSU and Clemson are going to get their proposal through.

David (an SU guy) is very tapped in to many ACC sources and of course, is an employee of ESPN.

So maybe those FSU fans celebrating a victory are still sniffing some upstate Florida glue?

Thanks. If this is true, it appears that this may be another Alford Hail Mary to save face and possibly come away with something.
 
I will always believe that FSUs actions were largely triggered by influential donors who run the AD. Clemson I'm not sure.
Estimated time frames for continued litigation are at a minimum 2 years and could last much longer.
ESPN and the ACC are 100% in control and will win in court.
Why would ESPN want a valuable media property to become free to negotiate with its competitors 6 years earlier? Why would ESPN risk losing these media rights?
 
I think everyone agrees now that ESPN has an out in 2026 with the ACC contract.

I would assume that if this happens, that clause gets pulled and the new ESPN-ACC contract has a hard end in 2030.

There is a ton of money involved here. ESPN has leverage and might be telling the ACC schools either take this deal, and have a guaranteed income until 2030 or we will terminate it in 2026.

That seems plausible to me.
Why would ESPN want to shorten a good deal unless they knew that 2030 was when a " Super conference " was being formed between Fox and ESPN... oh I meant the Big and the SEC.
 
The ACC-ESPN contract was released to FSU. They have an out in 2026. If you haven't heard this, go educate yourself. It is a fact.

I would look at the other link in my first post in this thread today. It lays out what the expected cost is to ESPN to control the ACC content through 2036.

The first column was taken from the ESPN contract. It should be 100% accurate.
As myself and others have stated here, the mighty GOR wasn't so mighty after all.
 
Just listened to a FSU podcast that featured an FSU fan lawyer who regularly talks about the FSU-ACC lawsuits.

I think his name is Doug Rohan.

He is under the impression that ESPN has agreed to pay Clemson and FSU more money and that this is what has opened the dialogue. His impression, I think, is that this agreement would not cost any ACC school any money. The extra money for the disgrunted two would come from ESPN.

He makes a few good points. Says the ACC chancellors would not sit through a 6 hour meeting (which they apparently did last week) if they were not close to a resolution.

If you couple this with the projected ACCN revenue and costs to ESPN to pay the ACC, so the contract ends in 2030 instead of 2026, maybe the whole thing makes sense.

I didn't see anywhere that ESPN was okay with paying Clemson and FSU more money though.


based on this chart profit margins for ESPN drop significantly the last 6 years of the contract. Does this take into account the new TX and CA viewers?
 
As myself and others have stated here, the mighty GOR wasn't so mighty after all.
I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion.

1) The only thing we know for sure is that Clemson and FSU made a proposal where they get more money and the length GOR gets reduced.

2) If the other ACC schools vote yes on this (and it appears it has to be unanimous), IMHO the driver for them is fear that ESPN will opt out of their contract with the ACC in 2026 (which I believe has to be done by February of 2025) unless they vote yes.

Clemson and FSU making another proposal that asks what they have been demanding for years should not be a surprise.

If something changed, I think it is that ESPN decided it was better to give FSU and Clemson some extra money to guarantee the ACC stays together through the length of the GOR. This is something I suspect the other ACC schools could live with.

If the other ACC schools agree to shortening the GOR to 2030, IMHO, it is because they prefer a guaranteed source of income through 2030 to a source of income through 2036 that can be ended in 2026 if ESPN feels like doing this.

It should be noted that a number of conference insiders like David Hale are saying this proposal has no chance of getting accepted.

It should be noted that the same people who knew the GOR was weak and would get crushed in court are the same people who are sure this proposal is going to get accepted any day now and FSU and Clemson will get everything they want.

I could see where something like this could happen but if it does, it isn't because the GOR was weak. Now, there are what 5 lawsuits left right now undecided on ACC vs FSU/Clemson.

Maybe all the legal experts are wrong, and when you sign a long term contract, take your money for decades and get what you paid for, then change your mind and want out of the contract because you decided it was a bad deal, it is perfectly fine.

I will be the first to apologize to you Kirb if the courts find the GOR null and void.

My money is on hundreds of years of law and precendents.
 
So, let's say that Clemson & Fla State leave. Would re-recruiting Maryland and Rutgers be feasible? Those would be pretty good fill-ins IMO - state schools, fill in the map, a couple research universities. Only if you can't get both of those do you ask UConn and/or West Virginia.
Buyouts would be too big. I don't think those two would be that big of a loss its the other schools that would want to join them. But that would put the Big Ten and SEC at 20 teams.

One got Texas and OU and the other got the best of the Pac 12 and an entire time zone. The ACC is a distant third and struggles to have anyone ranked in the top 10. The 2 programs that have shown any pulse in the playoffs are collapsing rapidly. Why on earth would they want more mouths to feed especially schools with the ability to get good and challenge the top. Clemson and FSU might struggle in the SEC but they would step in and become Ohio State and Michigan automatically.

Of course the SEC and Big Ten want as many playoff bids as possible in theory but realistically do they want/need more than 4 a year each? Quarterfinal conference matchups between conference members? SEC getting 5 is going to happen and people will be pissed. Why give up a spot to FSU or Clemson?

8 SEC/Big Ten teams
3 ACC/Big 12
1 G5
+ND some years

Why do the SEC and Big Ten need or want to destroy the Big 12 and ACC again and what is their gain? Other than a total dissolution of the NCAA that would risk everything I don't see any upside.
 
I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion.

1) The only thing we know for sure is that Clemson and FSU made a proposal where they get more money and the length GOR gets reduced.

2) If the other ACC schools vote yes on this (and it appears it has to be unanimous), IMHO the driver for them is fear that ESPN will opt out of their contract with the ACC in 2026 (which I believe has to be done by February of 2025) unless they vote yes.

Clemson and FSU making another proposal that asks what they have been demanding for years should not be a surprise.

If something changed, I think it is that ESPN decided it was better to give FSU and Clemson some extra money to guarantee the ACC stays together through the length of the GOR. This is something I suspect the other ACC schools could live with.

If the other ACC schools agree to shortening the GOR to 2030, IMHO, it is because they prefer a guaranteed source of income through 2030 to a source of income through 2036 that can be ended in 2026 if ESPN feels like doing this.

It should be noted that a number of conference insiders like David Hale are saying this proposal has no chance of getting accepted.

It should be noted that the same people who knew the GOR was weak and would get crushed in court are the same people who are sure this proposal is going to get accepted any day now and FSU and Clemson will get everything they want.

I could see where something like this could happen but if it does, it isn't because the GOR was weak. Now, there are what 5 lawsuits left right now undecided on ACC vs FSU/Clemson.

Maybe all the legal experts are wrong, and when you sign a long term contract, take your money for decades and get what you paid for, then change your mind and want out of the contract because you decided it was a bad deal, it is perfectly fine.

I will be the first to apologize to you Kirb if the courts find the GOR null and void.

My money is on hundreds of years of law and precendents.
spot on. Anyone with a subscription to the Athletic should read todays article this. I doubt that the deal gets done unless it is something that applies to every member. Meaning if Syracuse gets good ratings they also are paid in accordance with the deal. I also doubt that the term is reduced.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,218
Messages
4,877,898
Members
5,990
Latest member
su4life25

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
1,534
Total visitors
1,734


...
Top Bottom