(05-10-2020 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 09:24 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 08:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 04:59 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  And that is a key element in this debate: The average SEC fan, for example, perceives the American as vastly "more like" the SEC than he/she does the Big East (not that the average SEC fan remotely considers the AAC like the SEC, so that should all tell us something about the perception of these folks of the Big East as a conference. In fact, the SEC fans, and fans of other P5 leagues, I talk to have basically zero interest in the Big East — though they do respect the hoops quality).

Bill, I guess I have a different take: Sometimes, you don't want a school around that "looks like you" because, well, it might remind you of what you don't like about yourself when you look in the mirror, lol. Yes, the AAC schools like UCF and Houston and Memphis look more like SEC schools than Providence or St John's, but for better or worse, the Big East schools have a cachet that most AAC schools lack. Schools like Georgetown and Villanova and others are "old money" schools, they are more established institutionally, nobody thinks of them as "commuter colleges" or "directional schools" or "little brothers", tags which are frequently applied, and never in a positive way, to many AAC schools. Despite big differences such as size, public vs private, and football vs no football, someone at Ohio State is far less likely to "look down" at a Depaul or a Providence than they would a Memphis or a UCF. A TAMU alum might know a whole lot more about Houston than Villanova, but they can sniff status, and would bristle at being regarded as Houston's equal but have far less trouble rubbing elbows as equals with the latter. This isn't the case with all AAC schools - Tulane and Cincy are obvious exceptions - but for most it does.

It's not fair, because many of these schools, like my USF and (grudgingly) UCF and Houston have really upgraded themselves in important ways. But they just don't have the peer-prestige. They are still looked down the nose at in many ways, which counts a lot in the university world.

You make some very fair points, Quo. As a long-time Memphis fan, I know full well how folks negatively perceive the university and its athletics program — and a good bit of that has been self-inflicted. And after JRsec's post and my pondering it, you and he make a good case for the Big East and, essentially, not the AAC (though he sees, potentially, at least, Cincy and Houston being invited if a breakaway happens).

On a positive note, folks I talk to in Nashville (mainly fans of SEC schools) respect the prestigious AAC schools (specifically, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa, Navy and Cincinnati). Many of them also know that UCF, USF, Temple and Houston are massive universities that offer lots of doctoral programs. So I feel there may be a bit more "cache" (as you say) than you are granting. But I could be wrong.

As to the Big East, the P5 fans I talk to are not "threatened" by the league (for various and obvious reasons) — which goes to your point about how (among other reasons) having the BE as part of the breakaway group could be manageable. As a "DePaul man," I always enjoy the occasional chats here in Nashville I have with fellow fans of Big East programs or with P5 fans who are curious about the Big East "model." From the latter, the perception is positive but the understanding is very modest. Most of these folks could not name more than four Big East members. They just know the BE plays outstanding hoops.

My hope — for countless reasons — is that there is no breakaway.

Those AAC schools you mention are tougher to get into than most of the SEC schools, maybe even as many as 10 of the 14. Certainly tougher than at least 8 of the 14.

My brother, a University of Cincinnati grad, would appreciate your positive words, Bullet.

(05-10-2020 02:46 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 09:24 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 08:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 04:59 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  And that is a key element in this debate: The average SEC fan, for example, perceives the American as vastly "more like" the SEC than he/she does the Big East (not that the average SEC fan remotely considers the AAC like the SEC, so that should all tell us something about the perception of these folks of the Big East as a conference. In fact, the SEC fans, and fans of other P5 leagues, I talk to have basically zero interest in the Big East — though they do respect the hoops quality).

Bill, I guess I have a different take: Sometimes, you don't want a school around that "looks like you" because, well, it might remind you of what you don't like about yourself when you look in the mirror, lol. Yes, the AAC schools like UCF and Houston and Memphis look more like SEC schools than Providence or St John's, but for better or worse, the Big East schools have a cachet that most AAC schools lack. Schools like Georgetown and Villanova and others are "old money" schools, they are more established institutionally, nobody thinks of them as "commuter colleges" or "directional schools" or "little brothers", tags which are frequently applied, and never in a positive way, to many AAC schools. Despite big differences such as size, public vs private, and football vs no football, someone at Ohio State is far less likely to "look down" at a Depaul or a Providence than they would a Memphis or a UCF. A TAMU alum might know a whole lot more about Houston than Villanova, but they can sniff status, and would bristle at being regarded as Houston's equal but have far less trouble rubbing elbows as equals with the latter. This isn't the case with all AAC schools - Tulane and Cincy are obvious exceptions - but for most it does.

It's not fair, because many of these schools, like my USF and (grudgingly) UCF and Houston have really upgraded themselves in important ways. But they just don't have the peer-prestige. They are still looked down the nose at in many ways, which counts a lot in the university world.

You make some very fair points, Quo. As a long-time Memphis fan, I know full well how folks negatively perceive the university and its athletics program — and a good bit of that has been self-inflicted. And after JRsec's post and my pondering it, you and he make a good case for the Big East and, essentially, not the AAC (though he sees, potentially, at least, Cincy and Houston being invited if a breakaway happens).

On a positive note, folks I talk to in Nashville (mainly fans of SEC schools) respect the prestigious AAC schools (specifically, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa, Navy and Cincinnati). Many of them also know that UCF, USF, Temple and Houston are massive universities that offer lots of doctoral programs. So I feel there may be a bit more "cache" (as you say) than you are granting. But I could be wrong.

As to the Big East, the P5 fans I talk to are not "threatened" by the league (for various and obvious reasons) — which goes to your point about how (among other reasons) having the BE as part of the breakaway group could be manageable. As a "DePaul man," I always enjoy the occasional chats here in Nashville I have with fellow fans of Big East programs or with P5 fans who are curious about the Big East "model." From the latter, the perception is positive but the understanding is very modest. Most of these folks could not name more than four Big East members. They just know the BE plays outstanding hoops.

My hope — for countless reasons — is that there is no breakaway.

Those AAC schools you mention are tougher to get into than most of the SEC schools, maybe even as many as 10 of the 14. Certainly tougher than at least 8 of the 14.

My brother, a University of Cincinnati grad, would appreciate your positive words, Bullet.

Let me put it this way-- my oldest could not get into the main campus at UC, he had to go the branch campus for two years before transferring. He got offered a discount to match UC's tuition to attend Xavier.

(05-10-2020 02:52 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 02:46 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 09:24 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 08:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bill, I guess I have a different take: Sometimes, you don't want a school around that "looks like you" because, well, it might remind you of what you don't like about yourself when you look in the mirror, lol. Yes, the AAC schools like UCF and Houston and Memphis look more like SEC schools than Providence or St John's, but for better or worse, the Big East schools have a cachet that most AAC schools lack. Schools like Georgetown and Villanova and others are "old money" schools, they are more established institutionally, nobody thinks of them as "commuter colleges" or "directional schools" or "little brothers", tags which are frequently applied, and never in a positive way, to many AAC schools. Despite big differences such as size, public vs private, and football vs no football, someone at Ohio State is far less likely to "look down" at a Depaul or a Providence than they would a Memphis or a UCF. A TAMU alum might know a whole lot more about Houston than Villanova, but they can sniff status, and would bristle at being regarded as Houston's equal but have far less trouble rubbing elbows as equals with the latter. This isn't the case with all AAC schools - Tulane and Cincy are obvious exceptions - but for most it does.

It's not fair, because many of these schools, like my USF and (grudgingly) UCF and Houston have really upgraded themselves in important ways. But they just don't have the peer-prestige. They are still looked down the nose at in many ways, which counts a lot in the university world.

You make some very fair points, Quo. As a long-time Memphis fan, I know full well how folks negatively perceive the university and its athletics program — and a good bit of that has been self-inflicted. And after JRsec's post and my pondering it, you and he make a good case for the Big East and, essentially, not the AAC (though he sees, potentially, at least, Cincy and Houston being invited if a breakaway happens).

On a positive note, folks I talk to in Nashville (mainly fans of SEC schools) respect the prestigious AAC schools (specifically, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa, Navy and Cincinnati). Many of them also know that UCF, USF, Temple and Houston are massive universities that offer lots of doctoral programs. So I feel there may be a bit more "cache" (as you say) than you are granting. But I could be wrong.

As to the Big East, the P5 fans I talk to are not "threatened" by the league (for various and obvious reasons) — which goes to your point about how (among other reasons) having the BE as part of the breakaway group could be manageable. As a "DePaul man," I always enjoy the occasional chats here in Nashville I have with fellow fans of Big East programs or with P5 fans who are curious about the Big East "model." From the latter, the perception is positive but the understanding is very modest. Most of these folks could not name more than four Big East members. They just know the BE plays outstanding hoops.

My hope — for countless reasons — is that there is no breakaway.

Those AAC schools you mention are tougher to get into than most of the SEC schools, maybe even as many as 10 of the 14. Certainly tougher than at least 8 of the 14.

My brother, a University of Cincinnati grad, would appreciate your positive words, Bullet.

Let me put it this way-- my oldest could not get into the main campus at UC, he had to go the branch campus for two years before transferring. He got offered a discount to match UC's tuition to attend Xavier.

I have a son who is a senior. Because Florida has relatively low out of state tuition for the southeast, we looked at the stats on FSU, UCF and USF. We didn't apply because he was highly unlikely to get in. He did get into the 3 SEC schools he applied to (this did not include Florida, Vanderbilt, Georgia or Texas A&M all of which are very hard to get into these days). And the 3 he got into are the middle 3rd of the SEC, below the top 4, but above the bottom group. The one school he applied to but did not get accepted by was Houston.

(05-10-2020 02:20 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 09:13 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 08:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 04:59 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  And that is a key element in this debate: The average SEC fan, for example, perceives the American as vastly "more like" the SEC than he/she does the Big East (not that the average SEC fan remotely considers the AAC like the SEC, so that should all tell us something about the perception of these folks of the Big East as a conference. In fact, the SEC fans, and fans of other P5 leagues, I talk to have basically zero interest in the Big East — though they do respect the hoops quality).

Bill, I guess I have a different take: Sometimes, you don't want a school around that "looks like you" because, well, it might remind you of what you don't like about yourself when you look in the mirror, lol. Yes, the AAC schools like UCF and Houston and Memphis look more like SEC schools than Providence or St John's, but for better or worse, the Big East schools have a cachet that most AAC schools lack. Schools like Georgetown and Villanova and others are "old money" schools, they are more established institutionally, nobody thinks of them as "commuter colleges" or "directional schools" or "little brothers", tags which are frequently applied, and never in a positive way, to many AAC schools. Despite big differences such as size, public vs private, and football vs no football, someone at Ohio State is far less likely to "look down" at a Depaul or a Providence than they would a Memphis or a UCF. A TAMU alum might know a whole lot more about Houston than Villanova, but they can sniff status, and would bristle at being regarded as Houston's equal but have far less trouble rubbing elbows as equals with the latter. This isn't the case with all AAC schools - Tulane and Cincy are obvious exceptions - but for most it does.

It's not fair, because many of these schools, like my USF and (grudgingly) UCF and Houston have really upgraded themselves in important ways. But they just don't have the peer-prestige. They are still looked down the nose at in many ways, which counts a lot in the university world.

Your arguments make little to any sense at all because it is based purely off of your raw hatred for the AAC and your need to think that everyone else must feel the same way as you. Yet you've refused to to respond to or even acknowledge the ratings side of things, which are pure objective numbers. As been stated the AAC over performs in the most important thing of all to the TV execs and p5 members. As you've stated yelling or repeating stupid ideas won't make YOU right. please explain to me what exactly does the NBE offer now that they didn't offer more of when it was the real big east yet was still
kicked out of the power structure? Are you suggesting that because you said so all of the previous objective factors wouldn't come into play.

Whoa, Smokey. Since when does disagreeing with somebody equal hatred? From my point of view Quo's characterization of those AAC schools was so perfect he could have been reading my mind.

You place much value on "objective factors" and declare that the TV execs agree with you. Well the AAC recently took their goods to market and the TV execs made it clear that the objective factors earned the AAC a small fraction of the P5 payout. Why would the AAC accept that? They could have refused the offer and taken their product elsewhere.

Well the AAC was offered more (8 figures per team I believe)if it was willing to sign a gor, but the major programs in the conference refuse. Until the big12 is no longer an option that's just the way it is. If you feel the same way quo does, great have at it but my opinions of his hatred for the AAC goes way farther back than one post.

(05-10-2020 02:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 06:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 06:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  [quote='JRsec' pid='16811708' dateline='1589064452']

Remember if there is a breakaway all GOR''s which were written for NCAA play will have to be signed anew. The window for change would be a given. Departures would be likely.

************************************************************

Is that bolded statement something you know to be true, or is it your assumption that it is? I haven't actually seen any GoR contracts to be sure one way or the other.

If it is true then that might lead the ACC to oppose a breakaway. Their GoR, and their resulting contract with ESPN, is by far the longest term of any conference media deal. I believe both of those things were done to insulate the ACC from poaching, and they are IMO one of the biggest barriers to realignment within the P5.

If the ACC's media contracts, including their GoR, are deemed to still be in force in the event of a breakaway, we could very well see their validity challenged in court - a stone nobody has been willing to turn over up to now.

Most contracts may be broken if the substance they govern materially changes. It is an assumption on my part. However I disagree with you about the ACC challenging such. The ACC is locked in long term with their hands tied to act on their own behalf because of a the contract. I'm sure there would be some antsy member of the ACC if they had to resign a new GOR for a new governing organization with new bylaws, new structure, etc. But I equally assure you there would be many ACC schools who would welcome being able to forge new contracts. And consider this, the property is substantially changing. It is moving from an amateur status to other. I'm not sure how best to classify it yet, but it will be other. All it would take to break the GOR is for anyone in the conference to determine they were unwilling to make the move, or for the courts to say the substance had materially changed. And if it changes as to its nature I don't see how they could claim that it substantive change had not occurred.

I might add you are also making an assumption that all parties would enter the breakaway with the same composition and the same compensation. What if the new unit bargained as one? What if the media payouts were ameliorated? There would be less incentive to oppose the move for the lower paid conferences. We are all assuming the conferences would remain the same and the composition of the conferences change if we all just lose 1 private. Let's say Vandy, Northwestern, and Wake Forest pack it in for pay for play and players who are free to sign contracts with boosters and lets say on the West Coast Washington State just decides they can't afford to keep up, would that not substantively change the composition of the conferences?

Would not a breakaway be the right time to re-organize the conference structures to fit an on field playoff deciding structure? If we make such a move I think some flexibility to change will be a given. But as with all new frontiers we won't know the exact lay of the land until we get there. Just don't make too many assumptions that 4 or 5 of the P conferences move wholesale without change. Everything is changing. Regional conferences make sense, but how many divisions of how many schools and who exactly is with whom is another matter. I think we can count on them changing as little as possible, but I would think some changes would have to be made for the sake of structure. Form follows function. Playoffs will be the function.

**************************************************************

There are a lot of important points to consider in your response, many of which are interconnected. And assumptions made with respect for one piece can affect all of the others in different ways. Let me just address some of these piecemeal for now because putting them all together might take a whole book to examine all the possibilities.

This is a second piece.

"All it would take to break the GOR is for anyone in the conference to determine they were unwilling to make the move"

I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe that is true. Let's say that Wake Forest decides they don't want to play in this new environment. Note that they can't say that they unwilling to make the move to allow NIL compensation. That isn't something that is within their control. But the only thing that would result if they were to drop football or drop down to a lower classification is that they would cease getting paid.

The ACC would still own their broadcast rights for the duration of the GoR. Since the remaining ACC members could not show that this has caused them harm, (indeed it could be argued that the opposite would be true) they are still bound to the GoR unless the ACC members acting in accordance with their bylaws (and with the approval of ESPN) decided to release them from the GoR. I believe if Wake Forest (or, say Boston College) asked to be so released, their request would be granted. If Clemson were to do the same, I suspect they couldn't get 75% of the members to agree to it, because that would harm the remaining schools.

In any case, the GoR itself would remain intact, IMO.

"Let's say Vandy, Northwestern, and Wake Forest pack it in for pay for play and players who are free to sign contracts with boosters and lets say on the West Coast Washington State just decides they can't afford to keep up, would that not substantively change the composition of the conferences?"

Yes, it would substantively change the composition of those conferences. But so would Texas deciding to move to the ACC. Would that invalidate their GoR? I would argue that those schools deciding to withdraw would not materially harm the other members of those conferences, and therefore would not give those members cause for relief of their own obligations to their conference under a GoR, or to any media partner that relied on that GoR.

(05-10-2020 04:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 02:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 06:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 06:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  [quote='JRsec' pid='16811708' dateline='1589064452']

Remember if there is a breakaway all GOR''s which were written for NCAA play will have to be signed anew. The window for change would be a given. Departures would be likely.

************************************************************

Is that bolded statement something you know to be true, or is it your assumption that it is? I haven't actually seen any GoR contracts to be sure one way or the other.

If it is true then that might lead the ACC to oppose a breakaway. Their GoR, and their resulting contract with ESPN, is by far the longest term of any conference media deal. I believe both of those things were done to insulate the ACC from poaching, and they are IMO one of the biggest barriers to realignment within the P5.

If the ACC's media contracts, including their GoR, are deemed to still be in force in the event of a breakaway, we could very well see their validity challenged in court - a stone nobody has been willing to turn over up to now.

Most contracts may be broken if the substance they govern materially changes. It is an assumption on my part. However I disagree with you about the ACC challenging such. The ACC is locked in long term with their hands tied to act on their own behalf because of a the contract. I'm sure there would be some antsy member of the ACC if they had to resign a new GOR for a new governing organization with new bylaws, new structure, etc. But I equally assure you there would be many ACC schools who would welcome being able to forge new contracts. And consider this, the property is substantially changing. It is moving from an amateur status to other. I'm not sure how best to classify it yet, but it will be other. All it would take to break the GOR is for anyone in the conference to determine they were unwilling to make the move, or for the courts to say the substance had materially changed. And if it changes as to its nature I don't see how they could claim that it substantive change had not occurred.

I might add you are also making an assumption that all parties would enter the breakaway with the same composition and the same compensation. What if the new unit bargained as one? What if the media payouts were ameliorated? There would be less incentive to oppose the move for the lower paid conferences. We are all assuming the conferences would remain the same and the composition of the conferences change if we all just lose 1 private. Let's say Vandy, Northwestern, and Wake Forest pack it in for pay for play and players who are free to sign contracts with boosters and lets say on the West Coast Washington State just decides they can't afford to keep up, would that not substantively change the composition of the conferences?

Would not a breakaway be the right time to re-organize the conference structures to fit an on field playoff deciding structure? If we make such a move I think some flexibility to change will be a given. But as with all new frontiers we won't know the exact lay of the land until we get there. Just don't make too many assumptions that 4 or 5 of the P conferences move wholesale without change. Everything is changing. Regional conferences make sense, but how many divisions of how many schools and who exactly is with whom is another matter. I think we can count on them changing as little as possible, but I would think some changes would have to be made for the sake of structure. Form follows function. Playoffs will be the function.

**************************************************************

There are a lot of important points to consider in your response, many of which are interconnected. And assumptions made with respect for one piece can affect all of the others in different ways. Let me just address some of these piecemeal for now because putting them all together might take a whole book to examine all the possibilities.

This is a second piece.

"All it would take to break the GOR is for anyone in the conference to determine they were unwilling to make the move"

I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe that is true. Let's say that Wake Forest decides they don't want to play in this new environment. Note that they can't say that they unwilling to make the move to allow NIL compensation. That isn't something that is within their control. But the only thing that would result if they were to drop football or drop down to a lower classification is that they would cease getting paid.

The ACC would still own their broadcast rights for the duration of the GoR. Since the remaining ACC members could not show that this has caused them harm, (indeed it could be argued that the opposite would be true) they are still bound to the GoR unless the ACC members acting in accordance with their bylaws (and with the approval of ESPN) decided to release them from the GoR. I believe if Wake Forest (or, say Boston College) asked to be so released, their request would be granted. If Clemson were to do the same, I suspect they couldn't get 75% of the members to agree to it, because that would harm the remaining schools.

In any case, the GoR itself would remain intact, IMO.

"Let's say Vandy, Northwestern, and Wake Forest pack it in for pay for play and players who are free to sign contracts with boosters and lets say on the West Coast Washington State just decides they can't afford to keep up, would that not substantively change the composition of the conferences?"

Yes, it would substantively change the composition of those conferences. But so would Texas deciding to move to the ACC. Would that invalidate their GoR? I would argue that those schools deciding to withdraw would not materially harm the other members of those conferences, and therefore would not give those members cause for relief of their own obligations to their conference under a GoR, or to any media partner that relied on that GoR.

I think you will find that departing members and adding members requires a renewal. Wake might be able to leave without affecting the GOR, but if they were replaced I think everyone has to renew. But I invite rights attorneys to chime in on this.

I've never been able to find anyone's GOR in college athletics.

It would seem to me that individual schools with full rights are like Class A partners in a LLC. I would think that the Grant of Right is given to the Conference which then gives it bundled to ESPN. Otherwise GORs would be individual contracts between individual schools and ESPN.

I would think the GOR between the Conference and ESPN would not need renewal if a member exited or entered, but could be renewed or renegotiated if such a move triggered a right by one of the parties based on the change.

The way I read the ACC Constitution and Bylaws, any member school has to toss their TV rights into the conference as part of their membership, meaning that the ACC's offer of admission and acceptance by the party is an automatic grant to the Conference.

ARTICLE X. TELEVISION POLICY
[Note: See Article XII for provisions regarding the University of Notre Dame.]

Section X-1. Conference Package Contracts.
The Television Committee is authorized to negotiate the terms and conditions of contracts involving telecast of packages of football games and men’s basketball games. Such contracts shall be submitted to the member institutions for
approval, disapproval, or suggestions and recommendations, consistent with the terms of Conference contract policy as
described in Section X-3 (Conference Television Contract Policy).
2017-18 ACC MANUAL 39
BYLAWS | ACC

Section X-2. Revenues From Sale of Rights to Package.
All revenues from sale of rights to the Conference television packages referred to in
Section X-1 (Conference Package
Contracts) shall be deposited with the Conference office.

Section X-3. Conference Television Contract Policy.
Negotiations for future television contracts shall be conducted by the Commissioner with input from a television subcommittee appointed by the Commissioner, in consultation with the Conference President. The subcommittee shall be comprised of representatives from faculty athletics representatives, athletics directors, and senior woman administrators.
Discussions and recommendations from the television subcommittee will be reported out to the full Television Committee. The Television Committee will review the proposed terms and conditions of the agreement(s) and make their
recommendations to the faculty athletics representatives for their consideration and approval by two-thirds vote of the
members of the Conference.
If practicable, television contracts should be in written form and signed by the participating parties within 60 days of the
time of the agreement. If possible, said contract(s) shall be signed no later than 30 days prior to the first televised event
of sports covered within this agreement. (Adopted: 5/1992, Revised: 1/2010)

Section X-4. Good Faith Effort not to Compete with Package.
The Conference members will make every good faith effort not to participate in a football or men’s basketball game that
will be televised in conflict with any of the Conference television packages of games. “Televised” and “television” mean
over the air or by cable. If a Conference member is to participate in a non-package televised game which conflicts with
or overlaps with one of the Conference football or men’s basketball packages of games, the Conference member may
participate in such non-package televised game only if (a) such non-package game is not distributed on television in the
Conference area (defined as Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida), or
(b) if the non-package game is to be televised in the Conference area, such game may be televised only during a time
period which does not substantially overlap the time during which a Conference package game is being televised. When
it appears there will be an overlap, the matter shall be promptly referred to the Commissioner, who shall then consider
all relevant factors and make a final determination, in his sole discretion, as to whether or not the overlap is substantial.

Section X-5. Member Institution Contracts.
Individual member institutions may enter into contracts for the telecasts of football and men’s basketball games which
are not a part of the Conference packages, but only if such contracts do not conflict with Conference package contracts
referred to in Section X-1 (Conference Package Contracts) and also comply with all other provisions of this Article.

Section X-6. Revenues From Non-Package Games.
The revenues derived from participation by any Conference member in any televised game outside the Conference television packages shall be deposited with the Conference office.

Section X-7. Conference Non-Package Contracts.
In appropriate circumstances, the Commissioner’s office may negotiate television contracts for events that are not part
of the Conference television package of games referred to in Section X-1 (Conference Package Contracts). However,
such non-package contracts may, in the Commissioner’s discretion, be negotiated by the Television Committee and/or
submitted to the member institutions for approval.
40 2017-18 ACC MANUAL
ACC | BYLAWS

Section X-8. Rights Fee.
The Television Committee shall establish a rights fee for any football game or men’s basketball game being televised
which is not part of any of the Conference television packages of games.

Section X-9. Distribution of Revenues.
The revenues derived under Sections X-2 (Revenues From Sale of Rights to Package) and X-6 (Revenues From Non-Package Games) of this Article resulting from the ACC-ESPN Multi-media Agreement and the ACC-ESPN Network Agreement
shall be divided equally among the Conference members, unless otherwise noted (see Article XII). (Revised: 7/2016)

(05-10-2020 06:18 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I've never been able to find anyone's GOR in college athletics.

It would seem to me that individual schools with full rights are like Class A partners in a LLC. I would think that the Grant of Right is given to the Conference which then gives it bundled to ESPN. Otherwise GORs would be individual contracts between individual schools and ESPN.

I would think the GOR between the Conference and ESPN would not need renewal if a member exited or entered, but could be renewed or renegotiated if such a move triggered a right by one of the parties based on the change.

The way I read the ACC Constitution and Bylaws, any member school has to toss their TV rights into the conference as part of their membership, meaning that the ACC's offer of admission and acceptance by the party is an automatic grant to the Conference.

ARTICLE X. TELEVISION POLICY
[Note: See Article XII for provisions regarding the University of Notre Dame.]

Section X-1. Conference Package Contracts.
The Television Committee is authorized to negotiate the terms and conditions of contracts involving telecast of packages of football games and men’s basketball games. Such contracts shall be submitted to the member institutions for
approval, disapproval, or suggestions and recommendations, consistent with the terms of Conference contract policy as
described in Section X-3 (Conference Television Contract Policy).
2017-18 ACC MANUAL 39
BYLAWS | ACC

Section X-2. Revenues From Sale of Rights to Package.
All revenues from sale of rights to the Conference television packages referred to in
Section X-1 (Conference Package
Contracts) shall be deposited with the Conference office.

Section X-3. Conference Television Contract Policy.
Negotiations for future television contracts shall be conducted by the Commissioner with input from a television subcommittee appointed by the Commissioner, in consultation with the Conference President. The subcommittee shall be comprised of representatives from faculty athletics representatives, athletics directors, and senior woman administrators.
Discussions and recommendations from the television subcommittee will be reported out to the full Television Committee. The Television Committee will review the proposed terms and conditions of the agreement(s) and make their
recommendations to the faculty athletics representatives for their consideration and approval by two-thirds vote of the
members of the Conference.
If practicable, television contracts should be in written form and signed by the participating parties within 60 days of the
time of the agreement. If possible, said contract(s) shall be signed no later than 30 days prior to the first televised event
of sports covered within this agreement. (Adopted: 5/1992, Revised: 1/2010)

Section X-4. Good Faith Effort not to Compete with Package.
The Conference members will make every good faith effort not to participate in a football or men’s basketball game that
will be televised in conflict with any of the Conference television packages of games. “Televised” and “television” mean
over the air or by cable. If a Conference member is to participate in a non-package televised game which conflicts with
or overlaps with one of the Conference football or men’s basketball packages of games, the Conference member may
participate in such non-package televised game only if (a) such non-package game is not distributed on television in the
Conference area (defined as Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida), or
(b) if the non-package game is to be televised in the Conference area, such game may be televised only during a time
period which does not substantially overlap the time during which a Conference package game is being televised. When
it appears there will be an overlap, the matter shall be promptly referred to the Commissioner, who shall then consider
all relevant factors and make a final determination, in his sole discretion, as to whether or not the overlap is substantial.

Section X-5. Member Institution Contracts.
Individual member institutions may enter into contracts for the telecasts of football and men’s basketball games which
are not a part of the Conference packages, but only if such contracts do not conflict with Conference package contracts
referred to in Section X-1 (Conference Package Contracts) and also comply with all other provisions of this Article.

Section X-6. Revenues From Non-Package Games.
The revenues derived from participation by any Conference member in any televised game outside the Conference television packages shall be deposited with the Conference office.

Section X-7. Conference Non-Package Contracts.
In appropriate circumstances, the Commissioner’s office may negotiate television contracts for events that are not part
of the Conference television package of games referred to in Section X-1 (Conference Package Contracts). However,
such non-package contracts may, in the Commissioner’s discretion, be negotiated by the Television Committee and/or
submitted to the member institutions for approval.
40 2017-18 ACC MANUAL
ACC | BYLAWS

Section X-8. Rights Fee.
The Television Committee shall establish a rights fee for any football game or men’s basketball game being televised
which is not part of any of the Conference television packages of games.

Section X-9. Distribution of Revenues.
The revenues derived under Sections X-2 (Revenues From Sale of Rights to Package) and X-6 (Revenues From Non-Package Games) of this Article resulting from the ACC-ESPN Multi-media Agreement and the ACC-ESPN Network Agreement
shall be divided equally among the Conference members, unless otherwise noted (see Article XII). (Revised: 7/2016)

Still, if the nature of college athletics changes, as with the rights to image, or stipends representing pay for play, if a school cannot or will not continue under what the law has changed, I believe we'll be in uncharted waters as far as what a GOR actually covers and can compel.

If Vandy, Northwestern and Wake leave, I can see where the value of the contract wouldn't be affected to the negative and that might not trigger any breach. The conference and network could agree to simply let them go. However, what if the ACC replaced Wake with West Virginia, the SEC replaced Vandy with Oklahoma, and the Big 10 replaced Northwestern with say Colorado. Wouldn't all three want to re-negotiate because their cumulative value had increased? And those are hypotheticals not meant to open debate on the schools involved. What if the departure included Boston College and the ACC could land Texas with T.C.U. and Baylor to move to 16 with N.D. remaining a partial? I would think that with substantive change and one party wanting a renegotiation that would open the GOR for renewal.

Usually in a contract both parties have to be in agreement and if ESPN didn't want to renegotiate and the ACC demanded it, what happens?

It seems to me if I recall that with additions a resigning must take place. T.C.U. and West Virginia generated one.

Anyway, it's an interesting and intriguing set of circumstances not involving a raid. Instead, it involves a change wrought by a legal ruling and I have a feeling that will require a new signing. We'll see.

I agree completely that a conference would likely want to renegotiate if a weak TV partner was replaced with a strong partner. The way I understand the GOR is that all they are is an umbrella for the overall TV contract that is sitting out there a separate document in case it needs to be separate. In most scenarios the GOR is no different than the membership in the Conference except the GOR allows a public institution to enter into a TV contract to sell images. I could be wrong. The ballyhoo around the GORs and that the ACC was predicated in part because of the language in the ACC Constitution and former TV contracts. The way I understand it, to sign the GOR is to acknowledge a contract with ESPN that is also with the ACC at the same time. Prior to the GOR, the way the ACC Constitution and Bylaws were written, I'm not sure that ESPN would have been in privily of contract with a member school.

The ACC's long standing relationship with Jefferson Pilot/Raycom likely resulted in contracts that not only did not favor member schools, but did not favor the ACC as a whole from a legal perspective. That's what 50 years of buddy - buddy will do.

I'm old enough to remember when C.D. Chesley was doing us a favor to televise games and Channel 2 in Greensboro, 3 in Charlotte, and 5 in Raleigh all made be ad money on ACC games. With four in-state schools that was seen as part of the schools jobs - drive the local economy. The entire UNC System has been run for that purpose since the 1930's and Duke, WF, Campbell, Elon, and Davidson all play along with the general scheme.