(10-21-2022 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-21-2022 08:49 AM)GreatDane96 Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 03:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  You're linking two items that aren't connected.

You can have equal revenue sharing and a GOR (as with the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12), equal revenue sharing and no GOR (as with the SEC), unequal revenue sharing and a GOR (as we saw in the Big 12), or unequal revenue sharing and no GOR (several conferences).

Please give up trying to find a loophole for the GOR for the gazillionth time. Your personal wishes or desires as a fan have absolutely zero impact on the law (and I've studied it up and down). If Miami wants to leave the ACC, then they can fulfill the terms of the GOR agreement and pay several hundred million dollars to leave (at a minimum). So, if we want to have a rational non-conspiracy theory "ESPN will step in" discussion about having the ACC waive Miami's GOR obligations (with the emphasis on the ACC waiving it, as they can do or not do in its absolute sole discretion), you need to look in the mirror and calculate the net present value of the TV rights for Miami games for the next 14 years and whether Miami is willing (or can afford) to pay that amount as a minimum. Otherwise, Miami and any other ACC school can stop whining.

I am confused by this post as you seem to understand contract principles pretty well. Firstly, unless I am mistaken, I believe no poster on this board has stated they have seen the amended version of the GOR and therefore none of us can speak in absolutes.

Secondly, would you not agree that consideration is at issue here? Meaning, if the GOR was signed with the consideration that ALL schools would receive EQUAL revenue share, any proposal to reduce the equal revenue share could be an offer of renegotiation to the underlying ACC contract that a university signed when allowing the ACC to execute the GOR.

The key here, however, is found in your last paragraph in that the schools likely to be getting a bigger piece of the pie (Clemson, Miami, Florida State, maybe Louisville) are all the schools that are likely to be poached or would seek to break up the GOR for their benefit; they hold the cards. Schools like BC, Syracuse, Wake Forest, etc. have literally no power so if they want to stay in a league that has some street credibility, they will have less negotiating ability with the schools seeking a larger revenue share.

In the end, I agree with your general principle but to say the GOR can't be broken up because of revenue share renegotiation would be a bit outside of the legal principles of contract law and negotiation.

To me any talk about the termination of the GOR has always centered on what ESPN wants to do-- if ESPN wants out and makes it worth the minnows pain for certain ACC schools leaving, it will happen. Other than that...it's just mediation, arbitration, or court to determine what damages departing schools need to cough up.

About the last paragraph, IANAL but I think a GOR is something that a school can't take with them. Clemson can leave the ACC any time they like, as it is unlikely any judge will order them to remain in the ACC. So that is a case of arguing over the exit fee in arbitration, court, etc

But I believe a GOR is different in that even if Clemson formally joins the SEC, its media rights would still be with the ACC, and the ACC would be under no obligation to negotiate with Clemson for their return. It could just decide to keep them and pocket any media money Clemson is due from the SEC.

I guess the SEC could just collect its money from ESPN and give Clemson its share, but I imagine the ACC would sue the SEC and ESPN, and imo they would want not want to be entangled in that.

Just MO.

There is clear precedent with OU/tx and now USCLA that the p2 don't want any part of legal entanglements from incoming members. And if they wouldn't even get involved over 4 years of a GoR with OU/tx, it's safe to say that they wouldn't want to mess with 14 years left for FSU/Clemson.

(10-20-2022 03:06 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 02:50 PM)eku05 Wrote:  Everyone knows that ESPN is driving a lot of this realignment, and they'd be actively destroying their own property (that they're getting for a bargain basement price I might add) if they allow the ACC to be destroyed.

You mean like actively destroying the Longhorn Network by by moving Texas to another ESPN property?

The Longhorn Network was a quick stop gap that kept Texas and others in The Big 12.

(10-20-2022 02:50 PM)eku05 Wrote:  Everyone knows that ESPN is driving a lot of this realignment, and they'd be actively destroying their own property (that they're getting for a bargain basement price I might add) if they allow the ACC to be destroyed.

ESPN has the SEC as its 'own property', too. That means some moves are not a matter of 'destroying' so much as ESPN deciding how best to arrange its 'own' furniture.

Let's just say, to keep the comparison oranges to oranges, that having Florida State and Miami move to the SEC allows the ACC to add USF and USF. Now ESPN has expanded its net inventory in that state. It has 'destroyed' no league. All four schools get paid more. The only question left is how Wake Forest is affected. If the whole move happens without damaging the Deacs' interests, everyone can play ball. Why not? Contracts can be modified if all parties agree.

Grants of rights are not 'ironclad.' They are not 'handcuffs.' A grant of rights is a contract. Contracts exist to be honoured, sure. They also exist to be revisited when circumstances change.

There were very serious contracts entered into once to enable an NCAA Tournament to happen in 2020. A pandemic changed the circumstances, and the Tournament didn't happen. Nobody yelled about 'ironclad.' Everyone put their heads together and, working from the best information available, worked out the best solution they could to take care of everyone's needs.

Circumstances in this sport are changing in a big way. There's a new playoff, there's NIL, there's a portal. Presidents aren't interested in running an NFL minor league franchise. They want to run their universities. They need help.

Contracts signed before the storm hit are up for re-evaluation. On all sides. Rest assured these revisits are taking place, whatever the outcome we eventually see.

(10-21-2022 09:42 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 02:50 PM)eku05 Wrote:  Everyone knows that ESPN is driving a lot of this realignment, and they'd be actively destroying their own property (that they're getting for a bargain basement price I might add) if they allow the ACC to be destroyed.

ESPN has the SEC as its 'own property', too. That means some moves are not a matter of 'destroying' so much as ESPN deciding how best to arrange its 'own' furniture.

Let's just say, to keep the comparison oranges to oranges, that having Florida State and Miami move to the SEC allows the ACC to add USF and USF. Now ESPN has expanded its net inventory in that state. It has 'destroyed' no league

Well it destroys the football value of the acc. And it very likely gives the cable providers legal excuse to stop paying for the ACC network.

Quote:. All four schools get paid more. The only question left is how Wake Forest is affected. If the whole move happens without damaging the Deacs' interests,

unless you plan to slide Georgia and Tennessee over the acc, Wake Forest interests are definitely damaged.

Quote:everyone can play ball. Why not? Contracts can be modified if all parties agree.

If this is such an amicable win win for everybody I have a proposal. Instead of Miami and Florida state, let's make it Miami and Clemson going to the sec.

I'm Florida State left behind in the wreckage of the acc. Is there any damage to Florida state? Or is Florida State now looking to the Bold new future in this bold revitalized ACC continue with three or four more paragraphs of meaningless marketing garbage.

Quote:Grants of rights are not 'ironclad.' They are not 'handcuffs.' A grant of rights is a contract. Contracts exist to be honoured, sure. They also exist to be revisited when circumstances change.

No grants of rights are ironclad. Contracts exist to be honored not to be reworked.

Quote:There were very serious contracts entered into once to enable an NCAA Tournament to happen in 2020. A pandemic changed the circumstances, and the Tournament didn't happen. Nobody yelled about 'ironclad.' Everyone put their heads together and, working from the best information available, worked out the best solution they could to take care of everyone's needs.

Yeah a global pandemic is not the same as Florida State fans being sad because the SEC teams are making more money than them.

Quote:Circumstances in this sport are changing in a big way. There's a new playoff, there's NIL, there's a portal. Presidents aren't interested in running an NFL minor league franchise

Lol. They are very much interested in that. And so are you or you wouldn't so desperately be trying to get Florida State into the emerging NFL minor league.

Quote:. They want to run their universities. They need help.

Contracts signed before the storm hit are up for re-evaluation. On all sides. Rest assured these revisits are taking place, whatever the outcome we eventually see.

(10-20-2022 01:09 PM)Chris02m1 Wrote:  Because it makes no sense to share all money equally for postseason. Everyone gets X percent and then a certain amount is performance based

Everyone who thinks this has anything to do with retaining teams is barking up the wrong tree. Unequal sharing is about incentivizing schools to put forth the effort to win.