(02-26-2023 10:52 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 09:52 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 09:16 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 08:52 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 08:49 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  https://thespun.com/.amp/more/top-storie...acc-rumors

Multiple sites reporting this. $120 million seems very low to me especially given OUTs numbers for one year.

FSU can take.it to court and risk it and potentially win, but if they lose they're gonna be broke.

Nope.

FSU has little to lose taking it to court.

Well, that's not true. First of all, legal fees in the millions, maybe tens of millions, exit fees in the tens of millions.

Second of all, if they lose the case, the ACC is still going to own FSU TV rights. But FSU isn't still going to be a member of the conference -- this only goes to court if FSU has left the ACC.

So either the new 18 or 20 team SEC all take a haircut to give FSU a share, or FSU doesn't collect for their TV rights.

Quote:They can spend up to the cost of being in the ACC rather than SEC before it was a mistake to challenge.

The ACC schools trying to hold up the GOR, particularly the BC types? A lot to lose. An unfavorable ruling, and they lose the one thing keeping the P2 from taking 4-6 schools.

Espn likely wants to avoid this going to court.

That's easily arranged. In the last 2 rounds of SEC expansion, the SEC office was crystal clear that they were not getting involved in the internal politics of another conference. Prospective SEC members have to get themselves clear of their previous conference.

So the SEC's habit is not going to be to move forward. And if their ESPN paymaster doesn't want this to happen, how does it happen? FSU is fighting not just the ACC in court, but ESPN.

ESPN doesn't want to nuke the value of the half-dozen big-time ACC games they have. Sure you'd gain 9 new SEC games with FSU and Clemson, but SEC + FSU, Clemson isn't adding new SEC markets the way Mizzou (St Louis, Kansas City) and A&M (all of Texas) did. And FSU and Clemson are not Oklahoma / Texas level brands.

From ESPN's perspective, they'd rather keep the money rolling in from the ACC and ACC Network as long as they can, and if FSU and Clemson bleed out, that's not really ESPN's problem.

A problem ten years out isn't really a problem for corporate executives. They're likely to be long gone by then.

People who really want FSU and Clemson in the SEC come up with complicated scenarios where, theoretically, P5 schools with 40,000 people in the stands "secure their future" past 2036.

The reality is there is nothing those schools can do that secures their 25 year future. The only security is in having a big whopping fanbase that tunes in to your games in the millions. Even the Illinois's and Mississippi State's aren't *secure*. They're only secure as long as Alabama and Ohio STate tolerate sharing the pie with them.

you're presuming that espn is against this move.

I think they'd be for a structured move that otherwise keeps the ACC intact.

Imagine that the loudest schools get to move to the SEC - FSU, Clemson, NC, and VT.

Yes, they'll be paying them more in the SEC, but it's worth it. And not just for all the reasons JRsec and others have noted. But this prevents a GOR court challenge - something espn likely does not want. And depending on backfill, likely stabilizes the ACC.

And also sets up the dominoes out west, which could lead to espn not spending on the PAC.

There are lots more reasons for espn to favor this as a structured move.

Not the least of which, is that if this turns messy, Fox could end up with FSU's media rights.

You play to win, or you might as well leave the field.

This is one of the very few scenarios that I can get behind for making ACC to SEC moves right now instead of keeping the ACC party/wake going until 2036. Send 2-4 ACC teams to the SEC, backfill them with Cincy, UCF, WV, backfill big 12 with full or nearly full big/Pac merger. Bam, 4 conferences and the Pac isn't causing a ruckus anymore. 2-4 of the Pac teams end up going to the B1G, perhaps now, perhaps in a year, perhaps 2030s, I'm unsure of that but the timing isn't critical, the likelihood of the moves will just need to be accounted for when the big 12 absorbs the Pac schools, or they merge, or whatever they end up calling it.

I'm not calling it likely, but at least it's possible.

(02-26-2023 11:04 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 09:20 AM)Section 200 Wrote:  As long as ESPN pays the ACC the same per school with FSU vs. without FSU, there are no damages. Only the exit fee applies. FSU is leaving the ACC before 2036.

I am not sure that ESPN paying the ACC the same per school with vs without FSU solves the GOR problem -

It solves the damages problem, because if the ACC is making the same money with South Florida replacing Florida State, ACC has no damages, or at most exit-fee damages.

But it doesn't "solve the GOR problem" of how you get FSU and their TV rights out of the ACC in the first place.

Quote: my understanding is that a GOR means the ACC owns the FSU media rights in-toto, such that if between now and 2036 FSU leaves the ACC and then sells its media rights for new money to anyone else, the ACC is entitled to that money. It's not a question of damages, but ownership. But I am not a lawyer and so may well be wrong.

Yeah, that's about it.

Quote:So let's assume I am wrong. What incentive would ESPN have to pay the ACC the full amount,

That's a pretty good question. JRSEC has the least bad answers I've seen, and it's a lot of handwaving about consolidation. A few months to a year ago it was all going to be paid for by the new CFP money and a 72-or-so team P3 breakaway. Lately it's been an ACC-SEC merger with unequal revenue sharing.

Quote:and then presumably pay FSU more to be in the SEC or some other conference?

Right, ESPN would be (in these scenarios) paying the ACC the same money (or at least the same per school), while paying the SEC a lot more money (adding FSU and Clemson, plus the customary per-school bump when the SEC expands). And for this new money, ESPN gets the valuable prize of ....

Quote:One thing that comes to mind is the prospect of a lot more games between FSU and SEC teams - FSU vs Auburn, FSU vs LSU, FSU vs Alabama, etc. But, IMO ESPN would have to pay the SEC considerably more to make them want to take FSU. If more $$$ are going to be made, the SEC will want some of that I think.

That's what ESPN is getting. But these are frankly average SEC games. FSU and Clemson are middle-of-the-pack fanbases in the SEC. I have an old spreadsheet of FBS Attendance 2013-18, because some clickbait site did the math for me and I cut and pasted it. Clemson and FSU are both below the SEC median for attendance over that span. (Both the 14 team SEC and 16 team SEC + UT, OU).

Quote:In the end I don't think ESPN would find the value of these games nearly high enough to be willing to pay the ACC $40m a year, FSU's share, for them.

But maybe we shall see.

I don't even think it's about FSU's share of the ACC contract. We have two examples of P5 programs losing 2 "kingpin" programs. One of them was able to stay at the same level in value, striking a media deal right before a possible market correction. The other is watching its value crash through the floor.

Is an ACC without Florida STate and Clemson inherently more valuable than the PAC-10? You lose 20M people from the footprint (South Carolina, Florida minus Miami metro), you lose your anchor football programs. The still-fledgling ACC Network takes a huge hit, and I'd expect cable systems in areas that are, at best, marginally "ACC Country" like New York City, Philadelphia and Florida-outside-Miami to stop paying "in-market" rates.

On the other hand, the ACC does provide "tonnage", to use the word of the last few weeks. An average of 2 Saturday games to ESPN/ABC every week plus, on average, another ESPN+ game or weeknight game. And in a couple of years the RSN deal finally expires, so another game or two a week (or maybe the Diamond Sports bankruptcy accelerates that). That gives ESPN some leverage when the Big 12 deal is up.

I'd think there's a small negative effect on the value of a Syracuse-Virginia game if they don't have Clemson and FSU in the league, but that doesn't seem to be the case for a Baylor - Iowa State game.

If ESPN could extract Florida State and Clemson from the ACC, then in theory any other school could leave the conference too.
At that point, if ESPN chooses to destroy the ACC, I believe that Carolina, UVa and Duke would be packing for the B1G, more than likely with Notre Dame in tow. Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal would finish a 24 team league.

Carolina would prefer ESPN not to destroy the ACC.

(02-26-2023 10:10 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 09:52 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 09:16 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 08:52 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 08:49 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  https://thespun.com/.amp/more/top-storie...acc-rumors

Multiple sites reporting this. $120 million seems very low to me especially given OUTs numbers for one year.

FSU can take.it to court and risk it and potentially win, but if they lose they're gonna be broke.

Nope.

FSU has little to lose taking it to court.

Well, that's not true. First of all, legal fees in the millions, maybe tens of millions, exit fees in the tens of millions.

Second of all, if they lose the case, the ACC is still going to own FSU TV rights. But FSU isn't still going to be a member of the conference -- this only goes to court if FSU has left the ACC.

So either the new 18 or 20 team SEC all take a haircut to give FSU a share, or FSU doesn't collect for their TV rights.

Quote:They can spend up to the cost of being in the ACC rather than SEC before it was a mistake to challenge.

The ACC schools trying to hold up the GOR, particularly the BC types? A lot to lose. An unfavorable ruling, and they lose the one thing keeping the P2 from taking 4-6 schools.

Espn likely wants to avoid this going to court.

That's easily arranged. In the last 2 rounds of SEC expansion, the SEC office was crystal clear that they were not getting involved in the internal politics of another conference. Prospective SEC members have to get themselves clear of their previous conference.

So the SEC's habit is not going to be to move forward. And if their ESPN paymaster doesn't want this to happen, how does it happen? FSU is fighting not just the ACC in court, but ESPN.

ESPN doesn't want to nuke the value of the half-dozen big-time ACC games they have. Sure you'd gain 9 new SEC games with FSU and Clemson, but SEC + FSU, Clemson isn't adding new SEC markets the way Mizzou (St Louis, Kansas City) and A&M (all of Texas) did. And FSU and Clemson are not Oklahoma / Texas level brands.

From ESPN's perspective, they'd rather keep the money rolling in from the ACC and ACC Network as long as they can, and if FSU and Clemson bleed out, that's not really ESPN's problem.

A problem ten years out isn't really a problem for corporate executives. They're likely to be long gone by then.

People who really want FSU and Clemson in the SEC come up with complicated scenarios where, theoretically, P5 schools with 40,000 people in the stands "secure their future" past 2036.

The reality is there is nothing those schools can do that secures their 25 year future. The only security is in having a big whopping fanbase that tunes in to your games in the millions. Even the Illinois's and Mississippi State's aren't *secure*. They're only secure as long as Alabama and Ohio STate tolerate sharing the pie with them.

You’re asking a different question- whether FSU has a P2 invite. Many reasons as to why they likely do.

If they don’t, they won’t proceed. That doesn’t even need to be stated. Message boards are for wasting time, but you bringing this up is a waste even for message boards.

The point was clearly that if they do, then litigation makes sense for FSU. They’re not the one facing a big loss. Losing in court just maintains status quo for them, whereas losing in court is a huge loss to the schools trying to uphold GOR. Like most lawsuits successful in getting settlement, it’s asymmetrical.

And although that legal strategy may cost FSU money, they can spend up to their lost SEC earnings before it was not worth it. The schools on the other side without P2 invite? They don’t have that dynamic- again asymmetry that makes settlement appealing to the inherently risk averse administrators.

There are no guarantees but they won’t be as nihilistic as you. Getting realignment value out of the GOR is the best chance many schools have at a tenable outcome. Never mind keeping up with P2, with no changes to ACC through 2036, come 2036, many schools will be firing staff and dropping millions in budget.

Prime example of this poster not taking an L with class.

(02-26-2023 10:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 09:16 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 08:52 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 08:49 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  https://thespun.com/.amp/more/top-storie...acc-rumors

Multiple sites reporting this. $120 million seems very low to me especially given OUTs numbers for one year.

FSU can take.it to court and risk it and potentially win, but if they lose they're gonna be broke.

Nope.

FSU has little to lose taking it to court. They can spend up to the cost of being in the ACC rather than SEC before it was a mistake to challenge.

The ACC schools trying to hold up the GOR, particularly the BC types? A lot to lose. An unfavorable ruling, and they lose the one thing keeping the P2 from taking 4-6 schools.

Espn likely wants to avoid this going to court.

The odds of such ruling is non zero, and administrators are risk averse. Remove the disaster scenario as a possibility by finding a settlement.

If there are 6 ACC schools with P2 offer, the madman approach can also be utilized due to the asymmetrical nature of this

I like your thinking here, but how likely is a disaster scenario for WF/BC type schools in relation to willingness to mitigate it? E.g., the odds of my house being destroyed by a meteor, which would be a true disaster, is non-zero, but IMO too low for me to pay extra to cover as a rider on my home insurance, if that isn't already covered. Well OK, if the rider was a trivial amount, like $10 a year, I'd pay it. But not much more.

OTOH, a flood doing the same to my home is also very unlikely, but enough for me to pay about $500 a year for flood insurance just in case. So which is this ACC thing more like?

My feeling is that BC/WF types will likely believe that the odds are low enough to not be motivated to settle for anything that isn't very close to the money and exposure the GOR currently gives them, which is a price that will be too high for ESPN and/or FSU to pay to free FSU.

But that's just my opinion, maybe the parties involved will feel differently.

Yes, deemed odds are a coefficient.

FSU and others getting around the GOR is non zero and the implications of that would be disastrous. Hence, for the most damaged by collapse of ACC, now or in 2036, conference pride should not be prohibitive to agreeing to a fair offer in settlement.

Imo Around ACC money and membership in peer conference, likely the only middle class conference- would do it if removing emotion. And that’s very doable. Espn would be thrilled to transfer some of the ACC deadweight burden to Fox, Amazon, Ion (lol). They wouldn’t necessarily lose ACCN either. There’s several paths to win-win for everyone but ACC HQ and the ACC fanboys

It’s some of the middle schools that are less motivated- they likely feel in the case of ACC collapse, they are certain to have an invite somewhere for comparable rate. Similar to 4C in PAC right now. That likely isn’t true, as whatever conference ends up as 3, will at max have 24 spots. Not everyone gets in, and lower ACC schools could steal a spot

ACC is a historic brand and I would have preferred it trade football schools to P2 in exchange to be built into a 20+ school “3” of P3- the other guy in football but THE basketball conference with the critical mass that makes them the steward of CBB postseason. Add best basketball of M3 and the Tier 2 football that P2 doesn’t want, paid for by adding major markets to ACCN and the innate match of elite CBB and streaming inventory.

But like the PAC, the lack of self awareness of their inherent weakness has them sticking to a GOR death march. Meanwhile the Big 12 accepted the M3 status and now Yormark is exchanging unlikely best case fantasies for working with networks to get survivable outcomes

(02-26-2023 11:20 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 10:10 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 09:52 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 09:16 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 08:52 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  FSU can take.it to court and risk it and potentially win, but if they lose they're gonna be broke.

Nope.

FSU has little to lose taking it to court.

Well, that's not true. First of all, legal fees in the millions, maybe tens of millions, exit fees in the tens of millions.

Second of all, if they lose the case, the ACC is still going to own FSU TV rights. But FSU isn't still going to be a member of the conference -- this only goes to court if FSU has left the ACC.

So either the new 18 or 20 team SEC all take a haircut to give FSU a share, or FSU doesn't collect for their TV rights.

Quote:They can spend up to the cost of being in the ACC rather than SEC before it was a mistake to challenge.

The ACC schools trying to hold up the GOR, particularly the BC types? A lot to lose. An unfavorable ruling, and they lose the one thing keeping the P2 from taking 4-6 schools.

Espn likely wants to avoid this going to court.

That's easily arranged. In the last 2 rounds of SEC expansion, the SEC office was crystal clear that they were not getting involved in the internal politics of another conference. Prospective SEC members have to get themselves clear of their previous conference.

So the SEC's habit is not going to be to move forward. And if their ESPN paymaster doesn't want this to happen, how does it happen? FSU is fighting not just the ACC in court, but ESPN.

ESPN doesn't want to nuke the value of the half-dozen big-time ACC games they have. Sure you'd gain 9 new SEC games with FSU and Clemson, but SEC + FSU, Clemson isn't adding new SEC markets the way Mizzou (St Louis, Kansas City) and A&M (all of Texas) did. And FSU and Clemson are not Oklahoma / Texas level brands.

From ESPN's perspective, they'd rather keep the money rolling in from the ACC and ACC Network as long as they can, and if FSU and Clemson bleed out, that's not really ESPN's problem.

A problem ten years out isn't really a problem for corporate executives. They're likely to be long gone by then.

People who really want FSU and Clemson in the SEC come up with complicated scenarios where, theoretically, P5 schools with 40,000 people in the stands "secure their future" past 2036.

The reality is there is nothing those schools can do that secures their 25 year future. The only security is in having a big whopping fanbase that tunes in to your games in the millions. Even the Illinois's and Mississippi State's aren't *secure*. They're only secure as long as Alabama and Ohio STate tolerate sharing the pie with them.

You’re asking a different question- whether FSU has a P2 invite. Many reasons as to why they likely do.

If they don’t, they won’t proceed. That doesn’t even need to be stated. Message boards are for wasting time, but you bringing this up is a waste even for message boards.

The point was clearly that if they do, then litigation makes sense for FSU. They’re not the one facing a big loss. Losing in court just maintains status quo for them, whereas losing in court is a huge loss to the schools trying to uphold GOR. Like most lawsuits successful in getting settlement, it’s asymmetrical.

And although that legal strategy may cost FSU money, they can spend up to their lost SEC earnings before it was not worth it. The schools on the other side without P2 invite? They don’t have that dynamic- again asymmetry that makes settlement appealing to the inherently risk averse administrators.

There are no guarantees but they won’t be as nihilistic as you. Getting realignment value out of the GOR is the best chance many schools have at a tenable outcome. Never mind keeping up with P2, with no changes to ACC through 2036, come 2036, many schools will be firing staff and dropping millions in budget.

Prime example of this poster not taking an L with class.

+1. johnbragg put everything brilliantly and succinctly, only for the guy to be a jerk to him.

10 yrs left on media rights with GOR for the ACC would be 600 million
just write a check

What is the argument for the court to let them out of thee gor? Wasn't the whole point of signing one to lock in schools and make it extremely prohibitive for anyone to leave before 2036 and fsu agreed to that?

Can you really just go to a judge and say "look, I know what I agreed to, but your honor, the acc never specified no backsies. Therefore, the acc is obligated to grant us a whoopsies and forget about our agreement. Also, we crossed our fingers when signing, so we never really meant it"

(02-26-2023 12:16 PM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  What is the argument for the court to let them out of thee gor? Wasn't the whole point of signing one to lock in schools and make it extremely prohibitive for anyone to leave before 2036 and fsu agreed to that?

Can you really just go to a judge and say "look, I know what I agreed to, but your honor, the acc never specified no backsies. Therefore, the acc is obligated to grant us a whoopsies and forget about our agreement. Also, we crossed our fingers when signing, so we never really meant it"

I think the core argument is that any contract is breakable if you're willing to pay the damages for breaking it.

Then you get into a lot of mental gymnastics about how there really wouldn't be any damages and then you start stacking questionable assumptions on top of each other

In this forum there's a great deal of faith placed in a magical document that NONE of us has seen. Credit where credit is due, our federal government certainly should be studying ACC methods regarding keeping classified materials secure and secret.

On the other hand, we have AD Alford from FSU who didn't mention the GoR when the Board asked about the cost of leaving the ACC. Now if this man hasn't seen the GoR or at least dispatched trusted underlings to do so and report back to him, then he has utterly failed to do the due diligence required by his position and should be removed. Prior to taking the job at FSU, Alford was AD at Central Michigan for 3 years and prior to that was an Associate AD at Oklahoma for 5.

I find it unlikely that just over a year into this job, someone with his background has so utterly failed to look into the relevant contracts OR misled the BoT. Either would, and should, place his job in extreme jeopardy. I think it is far more likely that he knows something we don't know, at least not yet.

(02-26-2023 12:45 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  In this forum there's a great deal of faith placed in a magical document that NONE of us has seen. Credit where credit is due, our federal government certainly should be studying ACC methods regarding keeping classified materials secure and secret.

On the other hand, we have AD Alford from FSU who didn't mention the GoR when the Board asked about the cost of leaving the ACC. Now if this man hasn't seen the GoR or at least dispatched trusted underlings to do so and report back to him, then he has utterly failed to do the due diligence required by his position and should be removed. Prior to taking the job at FSU, Alford was AD at Central Michigan for 3 years and prior to that was an Associate AD at Oklahoma for 5.

I find it unlikely that just over a year into this job, someone with his background has so utterly failed to look into the relevant contracts OR misled the BoT. Either would, and should, place his job in extreme jeopardy. I think it is far more likely that he knows something we don't know, at least not yet.

Well, if the intention is a court case, then I doubt he's bringing up the "how" in public...

(02-26-2023 12:45 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  In this forum there's a great deal of faith placed in a magical document that NONE of us has seen. Credit where credit is due, our federal government certainly should be studying ACC methods regarding keeping classified materials secure and secret.

On the other hand, we have AD Alford from FSU who didn't mention the GoR when the Board asked about the cost of leaving the ACC. Now if this man hasn't seen the GoR or at least dispatched trusted underlings to do so and report back to him, then he has utterly failed to do the due diligence required by his position and should be removed. Prior to taking the job at FSU, Alford was AD at Central Michigan for 3 years and prior to that was an Associate AD at Oklahoma for 5.

I find it unlikely that just over a year into this job, someone with his background has so utterly failed to look into the relevant contracts OR misled the BoT. Either would, and should, place his job in extreme jeopardy. I think it is far more likely that he knows something we don't know, at least not yet.

Speaking of being prepared and due diligence to get a settlement, there are likely a lot of things that many parties rather not have adjudicated or discovered.

At the very least, an out-of-the-money solution has been found before to appease the top breadwinner of a conference. Perhaps this time espn just writes a check rather than start another Longhorn network subsidy

(02-26-2023 12:05 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  10 yrs left on media rights with GOR for the ACC would be 600 million
just write a check

Let's see FSU writes a check for $600 Million to be able to make $30 Million more in the SEC for 10-13 years?
Is that "new math"?

(02-26-2023 09:16 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 08:52 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 08:49 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  https://thespun.com/.amp/more/top-storie...acc-rumors

Multiple sites reporting this. $120 million seems very low to me especially given OUTs numbers for one year.

FSU can take.it to court and risk it and potentially win, but if they lose they're gonna be broke.

Nope.

FSU has little to lose taking it to court. They can spend up to the cost of being in the ACC rather than SEC before it was a mistake to challenge.

The ACC schools trying to hold up the GOR, particularly the BC types? A lot to lose. An unfavorable ruling, and they lose the one thing keeping the P2 from taking 4-6 schools.

Espn likely wants to avoid this going to court.

The odds of such ruling is non zero, and administrators are risk averse. Remove the disaster scenario as a possibility by finding a settlement.

If there are 6 ACC schools with P2 offer, the madman approach can also be utilized due to the asymmetrical nature of this

Sigh.

The armchair lawyers exhaust me on this issue.

It’s NOT a no-risk situation for FSU.

Challenging the GOR would mean that FSU has announced its intention to withdraw from the ACC.

This would give the right for the ACC to immediately suspend payments to FSU.

If the FSU loses its GOR challenge, that doesn’t mean that FSU can just say, “My bad! We’ll just go back to the ACC and pretend this never happened!”

The fact that FSU attempted to leave the league and breach the GOR agreement would in and of itself breach the ACC by-laws and give the ACC the legal leverage to claim that they can continue to withhold all payments from FSU going forward. So, not only is FSU unable to go to the SEC in that situation, but they’d risk not getting paid for their rights in the ACC until 2036. FSU would get *zero* TV revenue until 2036 and *still* be stuck in the ACC.

The Internet “experts” (invariably all people that have a self-interest in seeing the ACC break apart) that think that you can push the nuclear button from a legal perspective and think that it’s “no risk” and you can avoid the fallout are sorely mistaken.

(02-26-2023 12:45 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  In this forum there's a great deal of faith placed in a magical document that NONE of us has seen. Credit where credit is due, our federal government certainly should be studying ACC methods regarding keeping classified materials secure and secret.

On the other hand, we have AD Alford from FSU who didn't mention the GoR when the Board asked about the cost of leaving the ACC. Now if this man hasn't seen the GoR or at least dispatched trusted underlings to do so and report back to him, then he has utterly failed to do the due diligence required by his position and should be removed. Prior to taking the job at FSU, Alford was AD at Central Michigan for 3 years and prior to that was an Associate AD at Oklahoma for 5.

I find it unlikely that just over a year into this job, someone with his background has so utterly failed to look into the relevant contracts OR misled the BoT. Either would, and should, place his job in extreme jeopardy. I think it is far more likely that he knows something we don't know, at least not yet.

We haven’t seen the current ACC GOR. However, we do have access to the ACC GOR from 2013 along with the current Big 12 GOR and they both effectively state the same thing. It’s a simple document. The employment contract paying minimum wage to the locker room attendant is legitimately going to be more complex and several pages longer than the GOR agreement.

The “faith” is coming from the Internet sleuths thinking that the top lawyers in the country being paid over $1000 per hour haven’t already pored over this document for hours and hours on end and didn’t already think about concepts like sovereign immunity, an unenforceable grant, whether damages even exist, various state laws, etc.

(02-26-2023 01:12 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 12:45 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  In this forum there's a great deal of faith placed in a magical document that NONE of us has seen. Credit where credit is due, our federal government certainly should be studying ACC methods regarding keeping classified materials secure and secret.

On the other hand, we have AD Alford from FSU who didn't mention the GoR when the Board asked about the cost of leaving the ACC. Now if this man hasn't seen the GoR or at least dispatched trusted underlings to do so and report back to him, then he has utterly failed to do the due diligence required by his position and should be removed. Prior to taking the job at FSU, Alford was AD at Central Michigan for 3 years and prior to that was an Associate AD at Oklahoma for 5.

I find it unlikely that just over a year into this job, someone with his background has so utterly failed to look into the relevant contracts OR misled the BoT. Either would, and should, place his job in extreme jeopardy. I think it is far more likely that he knows something we don't know, at least not yet.

Speaking of being prepared and due diligence to get a settlement, there are likely a lot of things that many parties rather not have adjudicated or discovered.

At the very least, an out-of-the-money solution has been found before to appease the top breadwinner of a conference. Perhaps this time espn just writes a check rather than start another Longhorn network subsidy

I litigated civil cases for a living for 32 years.

I cannot recall a single client who wanted to pay a settlement merely to avoid the discovery process in the litigation.

Settlements are agreed to and paid solely because of a balancing of the risks of losing vs. winning a jury trial and the cost of litigation versus the amount of the negotiated settlement.

I keep seeing the "Party X will be afraid of what will be revealed in discovery" line on message boards, but that was never my reality as a litigator.

(And really, what do people think that discovery will reveal that will so shock and embarrass the litigant? Murder? Rape? Cross dressing by the university president? A letter from the university to the conference commissioner with harsh language in it? Its a silly concept in reality).

(02-26-2023 01:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 09:16 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 08:52 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 08:49 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  https://thespun.com/.amp/more/top-storie...acc-rumors

Multiple sites reporting this. $120 million seems very low to me especially given OUTs numbers for one year.

FSU can take.it to court and risk it and potentially win, but if they lose they're gonna be broke.

Nope.

FSU has little to lose taking it to court. They can spend up to the cost of being in the ACC rather than SEC before it was a mistake to challenge.

The ACC schools trying to hold up the GOR, particularly the BC types? A lot to lose. An unfavorable ruling, and they lose the one thing keeping the P2 from taking 4-6 schools.

Espn likely wants to avoid this going to court.

The odds of such ruling is non zero, and administrators are risk averse. Remove the disaster scenario as a possibility by finding a settlement.

If there are 6 ACC schools with P2 offer, the madman approach can also be utilized due to the asymmetrical nature of this

Sigh.

The armchair lawyers exhaust me on this issue.

It’s NOT a no-risk situation for FSU.

Challenging the GOR would mean that FSU has announced its intention to withdraw from the ACC.

This would give the right for the ACC to immediately suspend payments to FSU.

If the FSU loses its GOR challenge, that doesn’t mean that FSU can just say, “My bad! We’ll just go back to the ACC and pretend this never happened!”

The fact that FSU attempted to leave the league and breach the GOR agreement would in and of itself breach the ACC by-laws and give the ACC the legal leverage to claim that they can continue to withhold all payments from FSU going forward. So, not only is FSU unable to go to the SEC in that situation, but they’d risk not getting paid for their rights in the ACC until 2036. FSU would get *zero* TV revenue until 2036 and *still* be stuck in the ACC.

The Internet “experts” (invariably all people that have a self-interest in seeing the ACC break apart) that think that you can push the nuclear button from a legal perspective and think that it’s “no risk” and you can avoid the fallout are sorely mistaken.

Get real Frank. You really think they could withhold revenues for 14 years?!
Now you are the one making up ridiculous scenarios.

(02-26-2023 01:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 12:45 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  In this forum there's a great deal of faith placed in a magical document that NONE of us has seen. Credit where credit is due, our federal government certainly should be studying ACC methods regarding keeping classified materials secure and secret.

On the other hand, we have AD Alford from FSU who didn't mention the GoR when the Board asked about the cost of leaving the ACC. Now if this man hasn't seen the GoR or at least dispatched trusted underlings to do so and report back to him, then he has utterly failed to do the due diligence required by his position and should be removed. Prior to taking the job at FSU, Alford was AD at Central Michigan for 3 years and prior to that was an Associate AD at Oklahoma for 5.

I find it unlikely that just over a year into this job, someone with his background has so utterly failed to look into the relevant contracts OR misled the BoT. Either would, and should, place his job in extreme jeopardy. I think it is far more likely that he knows something we don't know, at least not yet.

We haven’t seen the current ACC GOR. However, we do have access to the ACC GOR from 2013 along with the current Big 12 GOR and they both effectively state the same thing. It’s a simple document. The employment contract paying minimum wage to the locker room attendant is legitimately going to be more complex and several pages longer than the GOR agreement.

The “faith” is coming from the Internet sleuths thinking that the top lawyers in the country being paid over $1000 per hour haven’t already pored over this document for hours and hours on end and didn’t already think about concepts like sovereign immunity, an unenforceable grant, whether damages even exist, various state laws, etc.

As if David Boren and the Big 12 and ACC lawyers 10 years ago were all big dummies. The big 12 grant of rights was created in the first place to keep Texas in the conference for the entire length of the TV contract.

People really hope there's some oopsy claws in there that lets the grant of rights not do the one thing it was supposed to do

(02-26-2023 01:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 12:45 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  In this forum there's a great deal of faith placed in a magical document that NONE of us has seen. Credit where credit is due, our federal government certainly should be studying ACC methods regarding keeping classified materials secure and secret.

On the other hand, we have AD Alford from FSU who didn't mention the GoR when the Board asked about the cost of leaving the ACC. Now if this man hasn't seen the GoR or at least dispatched trusted underlings to do so and report back to him, then he has utterly failed to do the due diligence required by his position and should be removed. Prior to taking the job at FSU, Alford was AD at Central Michigan for 3 years and prior to that was an Associate AD at Oklahoma for 5.

I find it unlikely that just over a year into this job, someone with his background has so utterly failed to look into the relevant contracts OR misled the BoT. Either would, and should, place his job in extreme jeopardy. I think it is far more likely that he knows something we don't know, at least not yet.

We haven’t seen the current ACC GOR. However, we do have access to the ACC GOR from 2013 along with the current Big 12 GOR and they both effectively state the same thing. It’s a simple document. The employment contract paying minimum wage to the locker room attendant is legitimately going to be more complex and several pages longer than the GOR agreement.

The “faith” is coming from the Internet sleuths thinking that the top lawyers in the country being paid over $1000 per hour haven’t already pored over this document for hours and hours on end and didn’t already think about concepts like sovereign immunity, an unenforceable grant, whether damages even exist, various state laws, etc.

There was a report that the ACC GOR was copied from the Big 12 GOR.

From the OUT to SEC several things have been demonstrated:

1) SEC is keeping its hands clean and not getting involved until the schools have solved the issue with their old conference.
2) Its not happening unless the TV partners (ESPN/Fox with OUT, ESPN only with the ACC) are satisfied.
3) It is going to cost money.
4) It isn't going to happen until the remaining schools have gotten over their anger and are willing to let go. Negotiations apparently didn't get serious until Yormack was in place and the Big 12 had a new TV deal.

Just leaving and taking it to court is not at all a realistic scenario. That puts the future league's conference games at risk. Even if FSU is willing, the SEC or Big 10 simply will not do that.

(02-26-2023 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 01:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 12:45 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  In this forum there's a great deal of faith placed in a magical document that NONE of us has seen. Credit where credit is due, our federal government certainly should be studying ACC methods regarding keeping classified materials secure and secret.

On the other hand, we have AD Alford from FSU who didn't mention the GoR when the Board asked about the cost of leaving the ACC. Now if this man hasn't seen the GoR or at least dispatched trusted underlings to do so and report back to him, then he has utterly failed to do the due diligence required by his position and should be removed. Prior to taking the job at FSU, Alford was AD at Central Michigan for 3 years and prior to that was an Associate AD at Oklahoma for 5.

I find it unlikely that just over a year into this job, someone with his background has so utterly failed to look into the relevant contracts OR misled the BoT. Either would, and should, place his job in extreme jeopardy. I think it is far more likely that he knows something we don't know, at least not yet.

We haven’t seen the current ACC GOR. However, we do have access to the ACC GOR from 2013 along with the current Big 12 GOR and they both effectively state the same thing. It’s a simple document. The employment contract paying minimum wage to the locker room attendant is legitimately going to be more complex and several pages longer than the GOR agreement.

The “faith” is coming from the Internet sleuths thinking that the top lawyers in the country being paid over $1000 per hour haven’t already pored over this document for hours and hours on end and didn’t already think about concepts like sovereign immunity, an unenforceable grant, whether damages even exist, various state laws, etc.

There was a report that the ACC GOR was copied from the Big 12 GOR.

From the OUT to SEC several things have been demonstrated:

1) SEC is keeping its hands clean and not getting involved until the schools have solved the issue with their old conference.
2) Its not happening unless the TV partners (ESPN/Fox with OUT, ESPN only with the ACC) are satisfied.
3) It is going to cost money.
4) It isn't going to happen until the remaining schools have gotten over their anger and are willing to let go. Negotiations apparently didn't get serious until Yormack was in place and the Big 12 had a new TV deal.

Just leaving and taking it to court is not at all a realistic scenario. That puts the future league's conference games at risk. Even if FSU is willing, the SEC or Big 10 simply will not do that.

Well, you may have stumbled on the secret word Bullet, as the duck drops from the ceiling.
New TV deal.

That bribe worked for the Big 12, it's possible it could work for the ACC too.

(02-26-2023 08:49 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  https://thespun.com/.amp/more/top-storie...acc-rumors

Multiple sites reporting this. $120 million seems very low to me especially given OUTs numbers for one year.

The ACC has a grant-of-rights deal in place through the 2035-36 season that guarantees, essentially, that even if a school jumps ship for another league, its television revenue still goes to the ACC.

So while the buyout to leave the ACC is only 120M. The GOR buyout is another story, as the conference's grant of rights makes it untenable financially for a school to leave, guaranteeing in the 20 years of the deal that a school's media rights, including revenue, for all home games would remain with the ACC regardless of the school's affiliation. (probably another 500M to get out of the GOR) Also if the Irish forgo football independence in the next 20 years, they are contracted to join the ACC.

Link
https://abc11.com/sports/acc-network-to-...9/1432489/