You can say it's biased but you can also say they have an inside, especially if it comes to the ACC's Grant of Rights.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...g-cfp-snub

The article discusses previous ACC meetings over the summer, the "seven" ("Seven universities -- Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Miami, Virginia Tech, Virginia and NC State -- had conversations about their long-term futures in the spring."), but also mentions...

"Any ACC school that wants to leave the conference would have to challenge the grant of rights to be able to get out before joining another league. The grant of rights, which runs through 2036, gives the ACC control over media rights for its member schools -- including the broadcast of games in all sports.

In addition, any school that wants to leave the ACC would have to pay an exit fee of three times the league's operating budget, or roughly $120 million."

In other words, it sounds like ESPN has no interest in letting any ACC schools go at this point ... or can't say anything to cover their butts in case the ACC blames them for the collapse.

(12-19-2023 10:34 PM)schmolik Wrote:  You can say it's biased but you can also say they have an inside, especially if it comes to the ACC's Grant of Rights.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...g-cfp-snub

The article discusses previous ACC meetings over the summer, the "seven" ("Seven universities -- Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Miami, Virginia Tech, Virginia and NC State -- had conversations about their long-term futures in the spring."), but also mentions...

"Any ACC school that wants to leave the conference would have to challenge the grant of rights to be able to get out before joining another league. The grant of rights, which runs through 2036, gives the ACC control over media rights for its member schools -- including the broadcast of games in all sports.

In addition, any school that wants to leave the ACC would have to pay an exit fee of three times the league's operating budget, or roughly $120 million."

In other words, it sounds like ESPN has no interest in letting any ACC schools go at this point ... or can't say anything to cover their butts in case the ACC blames them for the collapse.

I don't think that Thamel gets all of his articles ok'd by Bob Iger. This was very much a "here's what's been leading up to the current situation, here's the new twist" type of article.

You guys know that I was pretty torqued when FSU got screwed by the CFP Committee, and I do think that this is just one more nail in the coffin of their ACC membership, but I'm not sure how more hemming and hawing will get them out. They've already spoken to Phillips about how much it would cost them to escape, they've already spoken to Sankey, they've already spoken to ESPN...as JR likes to say, things get awfully quiet before something happens. Things are decided NOT quiet right now, and, other than a lot of private and some public venting, I'm not sure how the calculus has changed for FSU. It's still an existential risk to arbitrarily withdraw from the ACC and then dare them to go to court to try to enforce the GoR, they'll need allies to make it happen.

(12-19-2023 10:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-19-2023 10:34 PM)schmolik Wrote:  You can say it's biased but you can also say they have an inside, especially if it comes to the ACC's Grant of Rights.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...g-cfp-snub

The article discusses previous ACC meetings over the summer, the "seven" ("Seven universities -- Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Miami, Virginia Tech, Virginia and NC State -- had conversations about their long-term futures in the spring."), but also mentions...

"Any ACC school that wants to leave the conference would have to challenge the grant of rights to be able to get out before joining another league. The grant of rights, which runs through 2036, gives the ACC control over media rights for its member schools -- including the broadcast of games in all sports.

In addition, any school that wants to leave the ACC would have to pay an exit fee of three times the league's operating budget, or roughly $120 million."

In other words, it sounds like ESPN has no interest in letting any ACC schools go at this point ... or can't say anything to cover their butts in case the ACC blames them for the collapse.

I don't think that Thamel gets all of his articles ok'd by Bob Iger. This was very much a "here's what's been leading up to the current situation, here's the new twist" type of article.

You guys know that I was pretty torqued when FSU got screwed by the CFP Committee, and I do think that this is just one more nail in the coffin of their ACC membership, but I'm not sure how more hemming and hawing will get them out. They've already spoken to Phillips about how much it would cost them to escape, they've already spoken to Sankey, they've already spoken to ESPN...as JR likes to say, things get awfully quiet before something happens. Things are decided NOT quiet right now, and, other than a lot of private and some public venting, I'm not sure how the calculus has changed for FSU. It's still an existential risk to arbitrarily withdraw from the ACC and then dare them to go to court to try to enforce the GoR, they'll need allies to make it happen.

They are wrongfully thinking that De Santis can ask the State Legislature to give them an indemnity against the GOR contract due to one issued in Texas for Texas Tech to stop a wrongful termination lawsuit by Mike Leach. The one in Texas was against the personal lawsuit (a man and former employee). That's quite different from one against other state schools and the ACC conference which holds the right of venue in North Carolina. This will have to be negotiated out between ESPN the ACC and Florida State. The stink being raised is designed to make the ACC say, "Okay! Enough already! Just shut up!" And yes, the longer there is noise, the less likely it is that any kind of understanding has been reached.

Just another hilarious vent. They deserve better for sure but why did they sign that extension?

The folks at Florida State had better understand that it was ESPN that facilitated the "snub".
It was a "snub" against the FSU "brand" and not against the ACC.
What that means is that Florida State is not worth as much to the broadcast world as FSU thought it was.

(12-20-2023 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  The folks at Florida State had better understand that it was ESPN that facilitated the "snub".
It was a "snub" against the FSU "brand" and not against the ACC.
What that means is that Florida State is not worth as much to the broadcast world as FSU thought it was.

We all know for years the SEC's contract on CBS was a steal for them too. How were they not the ACC all those years and not upset about their financial situation? I guess either ESPN gave them enough to make up the difference and/or the gap between the ACC vs. the SEC and Big Ten has never been THIS wide.

We don't know how lucrative college sports will be in the 2030's but you wonder if the SEC's contract is locked in longer than the Big Ten and the Big Ten goes to contract several years earlier could there be a big gap between the Big Ten and the SEC after the next contracts? Or of course the opposite can happen, the market can correct and the Big Ten could wind up worse than the SEC. The Pac 12 contract looked really good too when they signed it. The Big 10 if I recall has never signed a decade long contract. Why did the SEC sign one after what happened to both the Pac 12 and ACC? As long as Alabama and Georgia keep winning national championships, everyone in SEC land will be happy. But if Michigan or Ohio State get a few and the SEC becomes the next ACC, Alabama and Georgia could be the new Florida State.

(12-20-2023 06:16 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-20-2023 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  The folks at Florida State had better understand that it was ESPN that facilitated the "snub".
It was a "snub" against the FSU "brand" and not against the ACC.
What that means is that Florida State is not worth as much to the broadcast world as FSU thought it was.

We all know for years the SEC's contract on CBS was a steal for them too. How were they not the ACC all those years and not upset about their financial situation? I guess either ESPN gave them enough to make up the difference and/or the gap between the ACC vs. the SEC and Big Ten has never been THIS wide.

We don't know how lucrative college sports will be in the 2030's but you wonder if the SEC's contract is locked in longer than the Big Ten and the Big Ten goes to contract several years earlier could there be a big gap between the Big Ten and the SEC after the next contracts? Or of course the opposite can happen, the market can correct and the Big Ten could wind up worse than the SEC. The Pac 12 contract looked really good too when they signed it. The Big 10 if I recall has never signed a decade long contract. Why did the SEC sign one after what happened to both the Pac 12 and ACC? As long as Alabama and Georgia keep winning national championships, everyone in SEC land will be happy. But if Michigan or Ohio State get a few and the SEC becomes the next ACC, Alabama and Georgia could be the new Florida State.

The SEC media contract is over in 2034. The SEC schools make more overall revenue than Big 10 schools every year. So much so that when the Big 10 temporarily had an 11 million dollar advantage over the SEC's media revenue between the last contracts that the SEC still outearned on average by 6 million a year including the media revenue gap. Whether the next media contracts go up or down the SEC won't be worried about the revenue gap, and odds are we've seen our largest media contracts for college sports unless we move to a breakaway tier of the best schools functioning as a league, and even then the increase will be indexed and likely won't exceed 100 million per school at its peak. We'll be somewhere between 75 million for the SEC and about 80 million for the Big 10 when both are operating under their new contracts. Given the financial conditions globally and the devaluation of the dollar and the assault being waged upon it as World Reserve Currency, I doubt the appetite will be there to give any of the conferences a raise by 2030. But if FOX/ESPN could condense it further to about 56 schools in two leagues operating truly on the NFL model then we could see the boost for 56 at everyone else's expense. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that either. The courts are going to finally award the players their rights, and right at the end of the golden era of the sport.

(12-20-2023 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  The folks at Florida State had better understand that it was ESPN that facilitated the "snub".
It was a "snub" against the FSU "brand" and not against the ACC.
What that means is that Florida State is not worth as much to the broadcast world as FSU thought it was.

I disagree. IMO, the FSU "brand" is a top-15 national brand. Better than all but a handful of SEC schools.

So this was definitely a snub against the ACC, I think. The very fact that the CFP would snub arguably the #1 football brand in the ACC in favor of the SEC champ speaks volumes about how little status the ACC has in the new order.

I mean, if it was say Duke or Georgia Tech that was the 13-0 ACC champ who got snubbed, it would be easy to say "well, that wasn't an ACC snub, it was Alabama over low-brand Duke". That would IMO make perfect sense. But FSU is not low-brand by any means. They are a very high football brand, not quite Alabama but not far below.

So to me, this makes it clear that the issue was ACC vs SEC.

You can't help but to laugh at this situation.

It's like listening to someone complain about their student loan debt.

Enjoy the next decade + change, ACC schools. You all signed up for this.

(12-20-2023 10:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2023 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  The folks at Florida State had better understand that it was ESPN that facilitated the "snub".
It was a "snub" against the FSU "brand" and not against the ACC.
What that means is that Florida State is not worth as much to the broadcast world as FSU thought it was.

I disagree. IMO, the FSU "brand" is a top-15 national brand. Better than all but a handful of SEC schools.

So this was definitely a snub against the ACC, I think. The very fact that the CFP would snub arguably the #1 football brand in the ACC in favor of the SEC champ speaks volumes about how little status the ACC has in the new order.

I mean, if it was say Duke or Georgia Tech that was the 13-0 ACC champ who got snubbed, it would be easy to say "well, that wasn't an ACC snub, it was Alabama over low-brand Duke". That would IMO make perfect sense. But FSU is not low-brand by any means. They are a very high football brand, not quite Alabama but not far below.

So to me, this makes it clear that the issue was ACC vs SEC.

Oh, BS.

Their star quarterback is hurt. They looked sloppy on offense for two weeks in a row. Alabama handled the #1 team in the nation.

Travis doesn't get hurt and they cruise, they're easily #3.

(12-20-2023 10:51 AM)thrill_house Wrote:  Enjoy the next decade + change, ACC schools. You all signed up for this.

THANK YOU!

(12-20-2023 11:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-20-2023 10:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2023 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  The folks at Florida State had better understand that it was ESPN that facilitated the "snub".
It was a "snub" against the FSU "brand" and not against the ACC.
What that means is that Florida State is not worth as much to the broadcast world as FSU thought it was.

I disagree. IMO, the FSU "brand" is a top-15 national brand. Better than all but a handful of SEC schools.

So this was definitely a snub against the ACC, I think. The very fact that the CFP would snub arguably the #1 football brand in the ACC in favor of the SEC champ speaks volumes about how little status the ACC has in the new order.

I mean, if it was say Duke or Georgia Tech that was the 13-0 ACC champ who got snubbed, it would be easy to say "well, that wasn't an ACC snub, it was Alabama over low-brand Duke". That would IMO make perfect sense. But FSU is not low-brand by any means. They are a very high football brand, not quite Alabama but not far below.

So to me, this makes it clear that the issue was ACC vs SEC.

Oh, BS.

Their star quarterback is hurt. They looked sloppy on offense for two weeks in a row. Alabama handled the #1 team in the nation.

Travis doesn't get hurt and they cruise, they're easily #3.

I agree that if Travis doesn't get hurt FSU gets in. But I think him getting hurt created an opening for the CFP to snub the ACC in favor of the SEC that would never have happened the other way.

Put it this way - if the situation was reversed, if Alabama finished 13-0, but lost Milroe the last three games and looked fugly winning them like FSU did without their starting QB, would they have been left out in favor of a 12-1 ACC champ FSU?

Not IMO.

The ex-FSU president said the outcome shows FSU is in a "secondary-level conference". I think he is spot on.

(12-20-2023 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  The folks at Florida State had better understand that it was ESPN that facilitated the "snub".
It was a "snub" against the FSU "brand" and not against the ACC.
What that means is that Florida State is not worth as much to the broadcast world as FSU thought it was.

ESPN had a chance to put their baby in the playoffs, and they weren't going to let an undefeated P5 team get in the way of that. Besides, imagine the sound and fury you'd hear if the SEC was left out.

I'm hoping for a split championship if one of the one-loss teams wins out.

(12-20-2023 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  The folks at Florida State had better understand that it was ESPN that facilitated the "snub".

The ACC should be concerned you’re correct.

How well did ESPN cover their tracks?

If true, it wouldn’t take much to have ESPN working with FSU to get them to the P2.

(12-20-2023 10:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2023 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  The folks at Florida State had better understand that it was ESPN that facilitated the "snub".
It was a "snub" against the FSU "brand" and not against the ACC.
What that means is that Florida State is not worth as much to the broadcast world as FSU thought it was.

I disagree. IMO, the FSU "brand" is a top-15 national brand. Better than all but a handful of SEC schools.

So this was definitely a snub against the ACC, I think. The very fact that the CFP would snub arguably the #1 football brand in the ACC in favor of the SEC champ speaks volumes about how little status the ACC has in the new order.

I mean, if it was say Duke or Georgia Tech that was the 13-0 ACC champ who got snubbed, it would be easy to say "well, that wasn't an ACC snub, it was Alabama over low-brand Duke". That would IMO make perfect sense. But FSU is not low-brand by any means. They are a very high football brand, not quite Alabama but not far below.

So to me, this makes it clear that the issue was ACC vs SEC.

I'd go further and say it might be Florida State was the one left out and not Texas. You can say head to head but last year Alabama was ranked ahead of Tennessee and Ohio State got into the Playoff over Penn State in 2016 so while ignoring HTH would be controversial it wouldn't be unprecedented. But Texas is a bigger brand than FSU and UT of course is on their way to the SEC next year while Florida State isn't.

(12-20-2023 01:47 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Just another hilarious vent. They deserve better for sure but why did they sign that extension?

Strangely, the SEC wanted Missouri and NC St more than FSU back then. New markets, right? That shows how the discussion has morphed over the past decade+. It’s no longer “new markets”, at least not completely, but “big brands”, with markets and other factors also important but secondary considerations.

Ideally, you’d have FSU in Virginia, and the SEC could just add UNC and FSU-Virginia Campus, then stop at 18. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that in real life, so we have FSU and UNC as big Brands in great locations, Clemson and Miami as big Brands in good but not great locations, but the Brands in Virginia are very close, and neither really looks like a P2 candidate today (though I hope VT changes my mind on that).

That has me thinking about the recent article that claimed the SEC was looking at UVA and UNC. UVA has to be a smoke screen based upon the old “market” philosophy. The real prizes today are UNC and Miami bc they’re up for grabs so to speak. Both Conferences want them, no extrapolation of desires or breaking with historical precedent necessary, they’re both Brands in good locations, and both fit pretty well culturally with either of the P2.

Perhaps FSU’s issue is not that the SEC isn’t ready, but rather that we want FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC in one fell swoop. If we bring in just FSU, or just FSU and Clemson, we risk losing Miami and UNC.

(12-20-2023 10:51 AM)thrill_house Wrote:  You can't help but to laugh at this situation.

It's like listening to someone complain about their student loan debt.

Enjoy the next decade + change, ACC schools. You all signed up for this.

FSU had a choice back around 2013-14. They were too snooty to consider the Big 12 or SEC. I remember the Virginia Tech president denigrating the SEC as well.

(12-20-2023 10:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2023 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  The folks at Florida State had better understand that it was ESPN that facilitated the "snub".
It was a "snub" against the FSU "brand" and not against the ACC.
What that means is that Florida State is not worth as much to the broadcast world as FSU thought it was.

I disagree. IMO, the FSU "brand" is a top-15 national brand. Better than all but a handful of SEC schools.

So this was definitely a snub against the ACC, I think. The very fact that the CFP would snub arguably the #1 football brand in the ACC in favor of the SEC champ speaks volumes about how little status the ACC has in the new order.

I mean, if it was say Duke or Georgia Tech that was the 13-0 ACC champ who got snubbed, it would be easy to say "well, that wasn't an ACC snub, it was Alabama over low-brand Duke". That would IMO make perfect sense. But FSU is not low-brand by any means. They are a very high football brand, not quite Alabama but not far below.

So to me, this makes it clear that the issue was ACC vs SEC.

It does, but there just isn't anything to be done about it outside of FSU engaging in forms of civil disobedience with regards to the CFP.

Next year, there will be more than enough slots to guarantee the conference champs will get an automatic bid. It doesn't solve "this year" as a problem, but the die is cast.

FSU can talk all they want, but there isn't a known method of breaking the GOR so they would be swimming alone in dangerous waters going with any legal theory to try and break the GOR. If they are wrong, it is a BIG TIME problem that would impact the university beyond athletics.

There is also very little leverage in identifying where FSU could incentivize a collaborative settlement between FSU, the ACC, the rights holder in ESPN, and whatever new organization and new rights holder they would be dealing with.

OUT only was able to leave due a mutual release of obligations from all parties, that was part of a negotiated exit. The Big 12 was able to come to an arrangement due to the following:

• Mutual interest in resolving the departure of OU/Texas from OUT, the Big 12, the SEC, ESPN, and Fox.
• The Big 12 had an interest in continued survival and negotiated a decent media deal at the expense of the PAC-12.
• A release of Texas/OU was an item to bring to the negotiation table for the Big 12 . This was used to create favorable terms for expansion under the Big 12 contract.
• The time frame at issue was one year, rather than a decade.
• There was incentive to get Texas and OU onto the SEC media package, driving up value for the SEC media deal for ESPN.
• Fox didn't have much incentive to release Texas/OU, but was able to be incentivized via other content being moved to their network package (Texas @ Michigan), enhanced basketball content from the Big 12, and monetary settlement.
• OUT and the Big 12 wanted to avoid a prolonged "lame duck" period before moving into their next chapters. It is almost always better to make a move sooner once the move is known to be inevitable.
  

FSU has an interest in moving. The ACC does not have interest in their release. ESPN does not have an interest in FSU moving to the SEC at this time. So until the calculus changes, we are left with the current arrangement.

“No one is getting an invite from another league until they know media rights are accessible.”

Translation: ESPN is not letting FSU to go to the B10 and is not ready to release FSU to the SEC.

(12-20-2023 12:13 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

“No one is getting an invite from another league until they know media rights are accessible.”

Translation: ESPN is not letting FSU to go to the B10 and is not ready to release FSU to the SEC.

No. Its just that the Big 10 and SEC aren't going to get in the middle.

On the other hand, FSU will know if the two are interested if they get disentangled. They probably already know.

But there is no value in adding a school with no media rights.