No news here, only theory. If you don't want theory, quit reading now. Otherwise, here we go -

We all know the ACC exit fee buyout is an important issue for FSU and CU (and other potential ACC defectors), but we also know it is the ACC GOR that is the overriding blockage for ACC schools interested in leaving the ACC (to make P2 money in the SEC or the B1G).

The problem with the GOR is not away games, right? When I studied the B12 GOR years ago, away games, as I recall, were irrelevant to the B12 GOR. The B12 GOR simply didn't apply to away games, only to home games. At least according to rumor (since the ACC GOR is reportedly a closely guarded document, kept under Tobacco Road lock and key), I have heard that the ACC GOR is based in whole or in part on the B12 GOR. Have you heard that, too?

The potentially ostensible ironclad impregnability of any GOR is based on the self-evident fact that no school can afford to lose its home games, right? That yearly conference GOR TV money is critically important to every school (not to mention that gameday home game proceeds for tickets, concessions, and trinkets are lucrative, too). Dang sure not chump change we're talking about.

Let's follow the logic: Say, FSU (or whichever ACC school) declares "we're out of the ACC". Obviously, once declared "we're out", the ACC exit fee applies. No quibble here. And the ACC exit fee isn't exactly the cost of a NY Strip, but, still, the bigger problem remains the ACC GOR. Even if FSU can afford the exit fee, what to do about the nettlesome, oppressive ACC GOR?

Continuing, assume FSU is in the SEC or B1G. FSU plays its schedule of SEC or B1G away games at the opponent's venue, as per usual (since there's no problem with away games if the ACC GOR is irrelevant to away games). This leaves only FSU's home games subject to the ACC GOR, right?

Thus is sprung FSU's ACC GOR trap: For FSU's "home games", there are none. Zero home games. Yeah, exactly: Zero home games, zero GOR applicability, zero TV money for the ACC viz-a-viz FSU's [considerable] contribution to the ACC GOR. How is that going to work, exactly?

Well, here's once idea: For FSU's customary "home" games, FSU plays all of its home games at a neutral venue. FSU then calls its "home" games "away" games, which is legitimate since the games are not played at Doak Walker Stadium - or even in Tallahassee. Looks like an away game to me. Voilà: No home games, no GOR applicability, and, it's worth repeating, no money for the ACC attributable to FSU's portion of the ACC GOR payout. Take it up with ESPN, ACC.

More specifically, assume FSU gave correct ACC exit notice, etc., leaving FSU available to apply formally for league membership in either the SEC or the B1G. For purposes of easier communication, let's assume arguendo that FSU joins the SEC.

FSU simply plays its allotment of home games at, say, UF's Ben Hill Griffin Stadium in Gainesville on weekends that UF is playing away games. Yeah, this workaround is a hassle for the SEC, UF, and FSU (although merchants in the City of Gainesville would love it), but the relevant question here is, "would it work?". Best I can tell, "why not?".

If so, Gainesville travel is probably manageable for a huge percentage of FSU fandom, I'm thinking. Yes, it's a pain for FSU and FSU fandom (and for UF and the SEC), but FSU's ACC exit is accomplished - and, apparently, only with the exit fee. Furthermore, FSU's lawyers would presumably have previously negotiated down the ACC exit fee during the course of the pending lawsuits.

We know the SEC can add FSU at full SEC share under the SEC's existing ESPN contract. [Can the B1G add more schools without FOX permission?] I'm not sure exactly how an "SEC to FSU TV payout" would work if FSU was playing its home schedule at Gainesville. At worst, I'm thinking, the SEC and FSU would have to negotiate an additional "$X" for "Y attendance" for FSU TV games in Gainesville prior to SEC membership, if necessary, so that FSU gets its full SEC TV share (or as close to it as possible). IOW, FSU immediately gets SEC-level TV money less costs to rent UF stadium. Think of the recruiting advantage UF would gain over FSU during the applicable years. Why would UF complain? Furthermore, FSU gets that SEC $$$ so they can pay off AD debt and/or invest in their football/athletics infrastructure. Win-win for FSU/UF?

As suggested, FSU cuts a deal with UF for stadium rental, relevant concessions, and deals with t-shirt selling folks, etc. Maybe FSU lures the City of Gainesville into various financial incentives, given the value of FSU games to the Gainesville economy, who knows? At any rate, FSU also negotiates an early termination clause with the SEC and relevant associated entities when a full FSU-ACC settlement occurs - and it will occur - which then permits FSU to return to Tallahassee.

So, what does the ACC do about it? Well, first, they scream, naturally. Loudly. The ACC amends its pleadings in the various lawsuits employing VERY STRONG LANGUAGE, like "!!! FRAUD !!!", lol. Whatever. Games in Gainesville don't look like home games to me. Since when is Gainesville Tallahassee? Factually, depending on language in the ACC GOR and/or Bylaws, I think FSU might [would?] be in a strong position to bust the GOR. If so, considerable pressure would suddenly be brought to bear on the ACC.

The ACC would almost certainly sue the SEC (or the B1G, as applicable), on some legal theory (tortious interference with contract?), but, goodness, with FSU exiting the ACC, then negotiating with the SEC (or B1G), I'm thinking that kind of ACC interpleader is some pretty weak tea. The answer here is the SEC simply includes an indemnification clause when FSU is added. Query: Do the SEC and B1G have guts or not? Is FSU worth it or not? The answer is "yes" (but this is not the post to prove it).

Also, I get it: FSU doesn't want to play its home games in, say, Gainesville (or whereever), until the year 2036, of course not. And it would take courage for FSU to quit the ACC without a deal in place with the SEC (or B1G). Query: How bad does FSU want out? Does FSU have guts or not? Is the SEC or B1G worth it or not? The answer is "yes" (and the financial difference is notorious for anyone reading this post).

If FSU declares out of the ACC and if the "neutral site away games" theory is correct, then the ACC is staring at the specter of a near valueless GOR viz-a-viz FSU. FSU is in position to do a cramdown from hell on the ACC to settle the pending lawsuits. Sooner or later - and probably sooner - the ACC takes something instead of nothing, right?

Ditto all this for CU, at, say, Williams-Brice Stadium at USCe.

Once FSU and CU exit the ACC - and their respective lawsuits demonstrate their respective determination - I think it will be fairly straight-forward for any other ACC school to exit as well - if they have runway in the P2. Happily, and assuming ND means it, as long as ND stays independent, ND will probably keep the ACC afloat, with the ACC backfilling, if necessary, with schools that are well-discussed among posters on this site.

Given a reasonable theory to escape the clutches of the ACC GOR, I think it helps ACC schools escape the ACC if the ACC enterprise is not destroyed, given ND's public commitment to independence and current ACC association. Also, right now today, I think there's only, at most, up to four schools, in aggregate, that the SEC and/or B1G would like to add to their leagues. The point is that if the "neutral site / home game" theory seems legitimate, even if it may not be perfect, even if it might be wrong, it may be just enough of a theory from which FSU-CU could use to extricate their schools from the ACC, if the ACC feels like it would survive and not become "PAC, revisited".

So, what about the "neutral site away games" theory? I argue that the GOR does not apply to neutral site away games, but does it? Am I wrong? Because if I'm wrong, this whole theory is crap and may this thread die a swift death. Let's criticize it.

Maybe "away game" is defined in the ACC GOR or Bylaws or somewhere, to be "at an opponent's venue", thus seemingly weakening, possibly destroying, my argument, idk. I don't recall reading a definition of "home game", "away game", or "neutral site game" in the B12 GOR or B12 Bylaws back in the day even though Texas and Oklahoma played at a neutral site - Dallas - and I *think* I looked hard at the definitions at the time. Definitions are important to lawyers. Those definitions weren't critical to me, though, since I deemed Dallas to be irrelevant because both Texas and Oklahoma were members of the B12. The SEC has a neutral site game in Jacksonville, right? Anybody got a copy of the SEC GOR and/or Bylaws for purposes of information? We can't see the ACC GOR (for some weird reason) and I haven't seen the ACC Bylaws. Bottom line: If the "no home games" theory is viable, then, ACC, "take it or leave it", FSU cramdown looming?

If the "no home games / no GOR application" theory is viable - if it is - it seems to me FSU's lawyers need to get an enforceable partial settlement agreement for a manageable exit fee out of the lawsuit now, then, later, unleash the "no home games" gambit on the ACC. Negotiate down that exit fee, get the deal enforceable, if possible, then tread water until closer to August 15th (or whatever the exact August date is) when FSU gives formal ACC exit notice.

Checkmate?

Well, even if viable, probably more like "check" than "checkmate". There is still the matter of the rather impressive - [cough!, cough!] - ACC exit fee to pay. It's easy for me to spend FSU's money, lol. The logistics of playing at another school's venue are considerable, too, although not insurmountable. Also, I could see the SEC and B1G demurring on FSU anyway, awaiting a full FSU-ACC settlement. Let's face it: Lawyers are a headache. And they aren't cheap. Seriously, who wants to buy into a lawsuit? I doubt the SEC or B1G do, especially if ESPN adds no additional money to the SEC's TV payout for adding key ACC school(s). ESPN didn't add anything when the SEC added Texas and Oklahoma. Plus, do the SEC or B1G want to play the role of "suspected villain"? These are "ivory tower" types, after all, and outward appearances are important to them. The demise of the PAC is instructive. Finally, this discussion insufficiently factors in our beloved ESPN overlord and ESPN's role in the ACC GOR thicket. So, even if viable, questions abound.

Long post (disjointed, and, in places, redundant, sorry). I hope it was worth the read to those who got this far, lol. Your turn. If you're of a mind, poke holes in the theory and expose its errors and weaknesses.

I've had this exact thought in the past, and I never saw anyone poke a hole in it. I think that the problem is that it would be extremely painful for FSU Football. No home games = no home game revenue = stadium is a waste of space until 2036. Additionally, attendance, rather than increasing for "home" games, would drop markedly. Until 2036. Recruiting? Um, here, come watch our "neutral site games" on Florida's campus. It would be a nightmare, a bunch of their recruits would end up at UF. I'm not sure if the SEC could or would be held liable for tortious interference, though I'm highly confident that the SEC wouldn't consider adding FSU without a reasonable expectation that there would be no lawsuit from the SEC.

TLDR: no reason that FSU couldn't do this, but they'd be better off paying $50m a year to get 7 actual home games per year with commensurate home game revenue, keep their recruits on campus, make it easier for one of the P2 to accept them, etc.

Imagine, if you will, if Texas would ever consider moving home games to Kyle Field for a decade. I doubt that my Aggies would allow it, but, if we did, I wonder what price we'd demand? Even if this crazy theory turns into reality, which I think would actually be very interesting to watch unfold in real time, FSU would never play home games at UF. When I was thinking about it, I assumed Tampa or Orlando, though, from looking at a map, Jacksonville is closer and would probably be their best bet. I'm sure that Shahid Khan wouldn't mind some extra revenue, and FSU wouldn't have to worry about UF getting in the way of their home neurtral site games.

(03-31-2024 05:43 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I've had this exact thought in the past, and I never saw anyone poke a hole in it. I think that the problem is that it would be extremely painful for FSU Football. No home games .

One problem is that such a schedule would not be compliant with NCAA FBS scheduling rules, which say you have to have 5 "home" games (1 of which can be a neutral site game, but counts as a home game for NCAA and therefore television purposes)

20.10.9.2 Football Scheduling Requirements. [FBS] The institution shall schedule and play at least 60 percent of its football games against members of the Football Bowl Subdivision. The institution shall schedule and play at least five regular-season home games against Football Bowl Subdivision opponents. For purposes of satisfying the home-games
requirement, a contest shall be considered a home contest if it is played in the stadium in which an institution conducts at least 50 percent of its home contests. In addition, an institution may use one home contest against a Football Bowl Subdivision member conducted at a neutral site to satisfy the home-games requirement.

(03-31-2024 05:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 05:43 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I've had this exact thought in the past, and I never saw anyone poke a hole in it. I think that the problem is that it would be extremely painful for FSU Football. No home games .

One problem is that such a schedule would not be compliant with NCAA FBS scheduling rules, which say you have to have 5 "home" games (1 of which can be a neutral site game, but counts as a home game for NCAA and therefore television purposes)

Hmmm, I wonder if the neutral site "workaround" wouldn't just be viewed as exactly that by the P2 and the networks, especially in light of threatened ACC litigation, thus rendering the question moot? That also answers another theory I had, which was that they just play all true road games for a decade, then get back an extra few games a year from the Conference for several decades afterwards. Something like 0h 9road for a decade, then 6home 3 road every year for 3 decades afterwards. It would be a huge mess and everybody would hate it, but it would at least be theoretically possible to do that...until you look at the NCAA FBS scheduling rules. I guess they could even get around those with a waiver, but why would the FBS grant the waiver, and why would either of the P2 go along with such a scheme when they could instead just wait until 2036 and get FSU as a normal member without any drama at all?

(03-31-2024 05:53 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 05:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 05:43 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I've had this exact thought in the past, and I never saw anyone poke a hole in it. I think that the problem is that it would be extremely painful for FSU Football. No home games .

One problem is that such a schedule would not be compliant with NCAA FBS scheduling rules, which say you have to have 5 "home" games (1 of which can be a neutral site game, but counts as a home game for NCAA and therefore television purposes)

Hmmm, I wonder if the neutral site "workaround" wouldn't just be viewed as exactly that by the P2 and the networks, especially in light of threatened ACC litigation, thus rendering the question moot?

Very much so. The games may not be played in Tallahassee, but FSU is collecting ticket revenue (or collecting a big fat check from Ray Jay or the Citrus Bowl or the Jacksonville NFL stadium). And Florida State would be moving the even-numbered-year Florida-FSU games from Tallahassee to "neutral sites" while the odd-numbered-year games stay in Gainesville.

Navy has never hosted Notre Dame in Annapolis (according to wikipedia) and hasn't hosted Notre Dame in Baltimore since 2008. Still counts as a Navy home game in even numbered years.

(03-31-2024 05:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 05:43 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I've had this exact thought in the past, and I never saw anyone poke a hole in it. I think that the problem is that it would be extremely painful for FSU Football. No home games .

One problem is that such a schedule would not be compliant with NCAA FBS scheduling rules, which say you have to have 5 "home" games (1 of which can be a neutral site game, but counts as a home game for NCAA and therefore television purposes)

20.10.9.2 Football Scheduling Requirements. [FBS] The institution shall schedule and play at least 60 percent of its football games against members of the Football Bowl Subdivision. The institution shall schedule and play at least five regular-season home games against Football Bowl Subdivision opponents. For purposes of satisfying the home-games
requirement, a contest shall be considered a home contest if it is played in the stadium in which an institution conducts at least 50 percent of its home contests. In addition, an institution may use one home contest against a Football Bowl Subdivision member conducted at a neutral site to satisfy the home-games requirement.

Hmmm. This scheduling language seems like a problem, all right.

EDIT: After thinking longer on it, [i]20.10.9.2 seems to cast much shade on the "neutral site" theory. We're not talking penumbra type shade here; we're talking full-scale eclipse total darkness shade. In law, the devil is sometimes in the details, true, but he lurks more often in the definitions.

Swift response, johnbragg. Good job. Also a great example with Notre Dame at Navy.

So, in light of [i]20.10.9.2, it seems the legal issue becomes longer and more complicated - not a good sign: "If neither the ACC GOR nor Bylaws define "home" and "away" games [and maybe they do, idk], does the NCAA Football Scheduling Requirements appearing in [i]20.10.9.2, which have been interpreted to mandate that a game played away from a "home" venue can nevertheless count as a "home" game, to realize the requirements of [i]20.10.9.2, control the "neutral site" theory set forth in the OP?

By any reasonable and rational interpretation, I think the answer is almost certainly "yes". Thus, is [what I consider to be] an exquisite and lovely legal theory demolished into dust, lol. The mill of the law grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly fine, or so goes the ancient shibboleth.

The FSU mouse remains in the ACC maze.

Sorry, FSU folks, I tried. As the Bard might say, "'Twas merely a tempest in a teapot, signifying nothing - and the tea, it cooleth quickly", lol.

(03-31-2024 05:26 PM)XOVERX Wrote:  FSU then calls its "home" games "away" games, which is legitimate since the games are not played at Doak Walker Stadium - or even in Tallahassee.

Doak Walker played at SMU. Doak Campbell was the namesake of the stadium.

(03-31-2024 07:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 05:26 PM)XOVERX Wrote:  FSU then calls its "home" games "away" games, which is legitimate since the games are not played at Doak Walker Stadium - or even in Tallahassee.

Doak Walker played at SMU. Doak Campbell was the namesake of the stadium.

Doak Campbell was also the FSU president that donated the land for the stadium.

(03-31-2024 05:26 PM)XOVERX Wrote:  No news here, only theory. If you don't want theory, quit reading now. Otherwise, here we go -

We all know the ACC exit fee buyout is an important issue for FSU and CU (and other potential ACC defectors), but we also know it is the ACC GOR that is the overriding blockage for ACC schools interested in leaving the ACC (to make P2 money in the SEC or the B1G).
....

Long post (disjointed, and, in places, redundant, sorry). I hope it was worth the read to those who got this far, lol. Your turn. If you're of a mind, poke holes in the theory and expose its errors and weaknesses.

This is an entertaining thought experiment and we do see people do run it from time to time. As the P2 revenue gap has grown, we have definitely seen ideas that were previously regarded as unthinkable become more affordable.

In real life, a major problem for any university that sends games away from its home field for years on end would be the impact of this strategy on the local economy—full as it is of otherwise happy team supporters.

We're past this kind of calculation in the ACC litigation anyway. The conference has already proposed, in writing, the buyback of rights as a resolution. We now know the ACC grant of rights is not the 'forever' document people previously thought; it supports a media deal that is only in effect until 2027. Both Clemson and Florida State are arguing, with some cred, that after a school leaves the league the rights to its future home games revert to the school. The exit fee, meanwhile, is also being contested; it is not something about which 'no quibble' exists. A number of interesting questions about how grants of rights intersect contract law are emerging.

We'll see what happens.

(03-31-2024 07:39 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 07:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 05:26 PM)XOVERX Wrote:  FSU then calls its "home" games "away" games, which is legitimate since the games are not played at Doak Walker Stadium - or even in Tallahassee.

Doak Walker played at SMU. Doak Campbell was the namesake of the stadium.

Doak Campbell was also the FSU president that donated the land for the stadium.

Ah yes, the Mustang in me comes out to play. You can take SMU and Texas out of the SWC, but you can't take the SWC out of the memory of this old SMU and Texas alumnus. Brain lock.

Thank you for the correction, Doak Campbell stadium, of course.

And SMU? They're the ACC's right soon now, even if FSU doesn't much like it.

(04-01-2024 01:16 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  We're past this kind of calculation in the ACC litigation anyway. The conference has already proposed, in writing, the buyback of rights as a resolution. We now know the ACC grant of rights is not the 'forever' document people previously thought; it supports a media deal that is only in effect until 2027. Both Clemson and Florida State are arguing, with some cred, that after a school leaves the league the rights to its future home games revert to the school. The exit fee, meanwhile, is also being contested; it is not something about which 'no quibble' exists. A number of interesting questions about how grants of rights intersect contract law are emerging.

We'll see what happens.

Indeed, the highlighted FSU-CU theory is a simple and elegant legal argument, and, most importantly, it apparently arises from within the four corners of the language of the documents. Nice. I admired the lawyering the first time I read the argument.

Is FSU entitled to a jury trial under Florida law? If so, I could see a jury buying off on FSU's interpretation. A NC jury might well buy off on it, too, since juries really do try to be fair (in my experience), but yeah, if possible, you'd want the trial venue in Florida. I think it's a harder sell to a Judge, though.

Of course, AFAIK, the exact language of the relevant documents is not yet out in the public record, so there's that unknown as well.

I disagree with your "exit fee" comment. These exit fees have been around forever. They seem legal to me, why not? Given the hassle of a school leaving a conference, throwing league contracts and scheduling into confusion, there is a rationally related application of a contractually agreed exit fee IMO. The amount of the exit fee might be contestable under various theories, sure, but the application of an exit fee per se seems legitimate to me.

Anyhow, yes, I agree, we'll see. It's only a matter of time. Question is: How much time?

(04-01-2024 02:06 AM)XOVERX Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 07:39 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 07:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 05:26 PM)XOVERX Wrote:  FSU then calls its "home" games "away" games, which is legitimate since the games are not played at Doak Walker Stadium - or even in Tallahassee.

Doak Walker played at SMU. Doak Campbell was the namesake of the stadium.

Doak Campbell was also the FSU president that donated the land for the stadium.

Ah yes, the Mustang in me comes out to play. You can take SMU and Texas out of the SWC, but you can't take the SWC out of the memory of this old SMU and Texas alumnus. Brain lock.

Thank you for the correction, Doak Campbell stadium, of course.

And SMU? They're the ACC's right soon now, even if FSU doesn't much like it.

And to bring the topic full circle, SMU will soon be hosting occasional home conference games for FSU (in non-revenue sports) against west coast opponents.

(03-31-2024 05:53 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 05:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 05:43 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I've had this exact thought in the past, and I never saw anyone poke a hole in it. I think that the problem is that it would be extremely painful for FSU Football. No home games .

One problem is that such a schedule would not be compliant with NCAA FBS scheduling rules, which say you have to have 5 "home" games (1 of which can be a neutral site game, but counts as a home game for NCAA and therefore television purposes)

Hmmm, I wonder if the neutral site "workaround" wouldn't just be viewed as exactly that by the P2 and the networks, especially in light of threatened ACC litigation, thus rendering the question moot? That also answers another theory I had, which was that they just play all true road games for a decade, then get back an extra few games a year from the Conference for several decades afterwards. Something like 0h 9road for a decade, then 6home 3 road every year for 3 decades afterwards. It would be a huge mess and everybody would hate it, but it would at least be theoretically possible to do that...until you look at the NCAA FBS scheduling rules. I guess they could even get around those with a waiver, but why would the FBS grant the waiver, and why would either of the P2 go along with such a scheme when they could instead just wait until 2036 and get FSU as a normal member without any drama at all?

There's also the local economy to consider. I know there are a lot of St College businesses that depend heavily upon 7 saturdays in the fall, and I presume the FSU/Talahassee situ is similar.