he has to perform for the board but for all of the reasons we have discussed here for years, he does have a point

According to the article, the GOR wasn't even discussed in the Board Meeting, so yes, the "exit fee" from the ACC is $120Mish, but the television rights would still reside with the ACC until 2036. "The grant of rights itself was not discussed during the meeting, and it’s unclear how, or if, FSU would challenge it." I doubt the SEC and B1G want potential members challenging Grants of Rights since both conferences have their members tied up with GOR deals.

I don't know what their arguments will be. Just picking up on the clues coming from Flugaur.

People hear a tidbit like this and run with it seeing the $120M number and running with it, but not seeing that the Board and legal counsel didn't even talk about the GOR which is where the real money is.

The ACC schools must have either been very fearful of poaching or very smug and comfortable to have signed away all their power so completely. I think they assumed nobody would ever want to leave and that this would help them get more from ESPN during negotiations. Add in the clear friends and family Raycom deal. It all points to leadership who was just self serving while the schools just blindly went along because “ it’s the ACC”. And now here we are all suffering the short sighted consequences.

The SEC wasn't showing any interest in Florida State or Clemson at that time, so there best option was going to be the Big 12 (which they weren't thrilled about). And at that time the B1G seemed to only want UNC and maybe UVA, so most other schools didn't think they had any better options than staying in the ACC. The B1G and SEC had their own networks but the ACC did not, and this was thought to be very important to the future of the conference. To get ESPN to agree to launch the ACC Network, ESPN required the ACC sign over all of their rights for 20 years with a grant of rights to ensure that the ACC would remain intact long enough to justify the investment in a new conference network. At the time, this was the ACC's only realistic option, so they took it. It was the right decision at the time, and it is what is holding the ACC together. ** Edited by tarheelblue at 2/24/2023, 9:51:31 PM

It took forever to roll out the ACCN and even longer for them to eventually get it on cable. By that time, the ACC was getting lapped by the B1G and the SEC, and ESPN didn't really seem to care. Moreover, while the ACC schools were in a bind as you stated, the 20-year contract was nevertheless a bit much. The two positions aren't mutually exclusive. I'm glad you brought up the FSU to the BigXII plan. Some rogue board members and boosters were blowing the bugle and leading the charge. Good times, good times. But It never picked up steam. Ya know, I wonder; If FSU, Clemson, and a hand full of others bolted for the BigXII then, would Texas and OU have stayed? And what would have happened to the remaining ACC schools? We'll never know, but it is something to ponder.

They’re still in the ACC. If they had better options, they’d have been long gone.

Just think all the resources FSU could use for other needed university needs. amazing

They admit that they didn't even discuss the grant of rights at the Board meeting

This has been in the works since as far back as December. They are willing to accept the risk of a financial disaster if they fail in court, because they consider eating a $30 million (and growing) disparity for 13 years an equally damaging situation. They are rolling the dice. Gutsy gamble! I have seen others arguing that even if FSU loses in court, the conference will not be able to collect the damages. (Not a good look for the institution; maybe try for a fractional settlement)

That the ACc did not fulfill the expectations/promises made to them when they laid out the case for signing the GOR agreemen Will be interesting to see what happens in the courts and they must think they have a chance at breaking the GoR agreement

Not much of a legal advisor to give a half butt answer to a question of that magnitude.

Ignored it to a large degree as one must do with a multitude of expansion rumors Doing that public, they are throwing down a gauntlet. The ACC front office must fork over big dollars or they are going postal in search of a new home. I don't know how the SEC will react. I do know Sankey has never even hinted about closing the door on expansion. That door being wide open. One would have to think Florida State would meet Sankey's requirements.

Would ESPN add $50+ to the SEC contract for each new ACC school that joined?

They said that Texas & Oklahoma both approached the SEC in regards to joining several years ago. Sankey said that several times. This all appears as a chess game between the SEC & B1G going back 30 years. Maybe the B1G should be questioned about wanting ACC schools. Maybe FSU just made a bluff today to try to get money. Nothing more. I don't know. However, If I was an administrator at any ACC school. I would be covering bases to see my possible future options as a conference home. Just as insurance. That is probably being done. ** Edited by WarHog38 at 2/24/2023, 11:19:32 PM

Love for someone to basically say to his peer AD to cram it. you are in it FSU you got to pay GOR fees and also ACC separation fees. Since you are crying so much, how about ACC just say, you get only on the ACCNX and you are just another of the 14. FSU is always FSU (and you VT fans) you dislike BC???

used to be. They've still got a good following, but where are they compared to Big Ten or SEC schools? Not a single ACC team was involved in the top 10 rated college football games this year. 9 of the 10 were Big Ten or SEC. That's who he needs to measure FSU against. Not the rest of the ACC, which isn't a draw.

Flugaur says one of the other news outlets who have this story may release it today. If the news isn't broken by a certain hour, Flugaur will announce it on his channel tonight. Basics: An FSU board member asked for an estimate for the cost of withdrawing. FSU thinks the GoR is invalid and they are willing to pay the ~$120 million exit fee. If FSU is correct, prepare for a jailbreak. Latest: Flugaur will drop more details, but not complete story. ** Edited by 33laszlo99 at 2/24/2023, 3:21:07 PM

A big percentage of Floridians are transplants from B1G states.

FSU being in the Big Ten isn’t going to increase viewership for them.

SEC can't let The B1G start building a footprint in Florida. And the B1G wants a Florida presence badly. The question for The SEC is, Will ESPN protect The Southern monopoly? For The B1G it's: Can they spend money in The Southeast if they also have a shot at ND and three PAC properties? ESPN takes a hit either way. If FSU goes to The SEC, ESPN has to triple their payout. Is that as urgent to the media company as it is to the conference? And if FSU goes to The B1G, ESPN loses them altogether.

Or you think FSU is worth $60 million to the Big10 TV deal? I don't.

of FSU to either the SEC or BIG is based on two entirely different metrics. For the SEC it is all about keeping the BIG from gaining a viable entry to the Florida market and deep within SEC country while the BIG is more about the traditional value of a new subscriber base. You can substitute ESPN and FOX for the SEC and BIG, respectively, with the same objectives. FSU and UM are the only real alternatives in Florida just like Clemson is the only alternative in South Carolina. I doubt GT is a viable option in Georgia. Both Virginia and North Carolina, the states not the schools, are new markets for both the SEC and the BIG.

... sure Alabama or OSU do not take a pay cut?

of the matter and the question that will be impacted by the potential future of ESPN. The answer is likely different depending whether they stay with the Mouse or become something different.

B1G had to pause the expansion out west because it doesn't payoff without ND. ESPN saved a bunch of money when they missed out on B1G content. But ESPN might be reluctant to keep doubling-down on Southeastern schools. The footprint expands a bunch with UNC and UVa, but everything else duplicates a current SEC territory. The SEC thinks that the "brands" outweigh the geography. Does ESPN agree? I don't much like ESPN. But I'm developing some sympathy for them. Fox is showing themselves to be just as ravenous a predator. I always assumed that The SEC could stay at the top of the heap even if ESPN lost their dominant media position. Not so sure now. If The B1G successfully penetrates The Southeast, adds ND, and fills-out their Western division, that will open-up a serious gap between the P2. If The ACC fractures, and some schools migrate to The B1G, the B1G will need more TV windows. They might want to bring ESPN back into the fold. And if ESPN has to pay $100 million for former ACC properties, they might prefer to buy those rights from The B1G rather than the confined footprint of The SEC. By now The SEC can see the folly of entering into a long-term media deal with ESPN. (But maybe The SEC has a pro rata agreement with The SEC. Did they even have pro rata for TX/OK?)

If they DO have a landing sport, who is really begging them at this point to leave the ACC? I don't think ESPN wants them to damage the ACC just to join up with the SEC. And if the B1G can't even find it in themselves to invite Washington, I doubt they are ready to offer FSU.

“Not doable until after 2036. But I'll put it in the file.“ Maybe it is time for all the big boy ACC schools to pressure the HQ to get a solution crafted NOW…rather than wait for more of this …

our current obligations in order to cherry pick the ACC, join up with the PAC, and skim off a few BigXII schools isn't a particularly good solution? No problem. Bring them to me. And ya know, and while I'm at it, I might just ask them why they keep losing to Wake. But I digress. Sorry, but under your such plan, UNC and UVa would head to the B1G first. And with them, possibly Notre Dame. And with Notre Dame, maybe Washington and Oregon. And if it goes down that way, fine. Then we are stuck with a best of the rest national second-tier conference. But I'd prefer this happen in 2036 rather than 2024. There is a reason why USC is all but finishing their obligation and Texas is only getting out a year early. And I'm pretty sure that FSU doesn't have their cachet. But they, somehow want to get out of theirs 12 years early just because they're big mad? I don't know, maybe there are solutions for FSU, but what you are suggesting ain't it. And in fairness to them, they are willing to go it alone in breaking the GOR/TV contract. Something else to consider, after every school pays its buyout to start your recommended conference, there is no guarantee that the new TV contract for this would-be conference will be more than enough money to offset the losses. And certainly this conference you propose would surely not bring SEC or B1G money. And then, we are back where we started.

That may or may not be what happens… my attempted point is that unless ACC big boy execs and lead big boy schools aren’t exploring NOW some way pre 2036 realign solutions… many may be screwed…and at least that’s what fsu is ‘trying’ (i speculate)…look many here are all trying to propose (just like me) msg board solutions …just as I did…and anyone including you are welcome to say why it won’t work… that’s what we do here…BUT unless the ACC gets ahead of this (and again hoping they are) most can’t possibly predict a positive outcome … for the ACC to go with status quo and my suggested thrust is WE CANNOT WAIT UNTIL 2036 — like YOU suggest…we are just like our US Congress and that’s regardless of who is in control (so not a left/right political statement )…just a finance 101 statement … it would be nice if you don’t put words into my potential solutions as I never suggested we take b12 (unless 1 or so by mistake)… my point is pac needs to do something NOW & NOW is good time to see if a network will buy off on a east- west solution that doesn’t leave big boy teams out… it’s about markets that will command bucks… and whilst I’m not a fan of dropping some of our ACC members… what’s your or anyone else’s idea that makes a better financial appeal to a potential networking, daddy? Waiting until 2036 is suicide. Dreaming that the BC Syracuse or other will magically gain a huge alumni base and a huge market for a network isn’t being realistic. It’s the big gigantic huge state schools and/or bring a new market and or those few select private schools that have national appeal that include a big market. Sorry for redundancy as this cell fone & me at odds…explore and market possibilities now or die later… study the old southern conference and learn how we got screwed in the past from our ‘fellow members’… lead or get out of the way should be ACC exec offices. Frankly the BS move to Charlotte is hilarious insofar as providing a real big time future for what we need

you want to add BigXII teams, you say that I'm putting words into your mouth? C'mon man. And speaking about putting words in people's mouths, when did I ever say the ACC should go status quo and wait until 2036? If you have read my posts over the years, you would know this is a completely false statement. In fact, I said very recently that the ACC should be players in the Pac-12 problems by possibly adding up to 6 schools from six states out west. I have also advocated for a complete blowing up of the system and having a EFL-like system of promotion and relegation. Merit is what is missing in the system. But I'm not naïve enough to think that college presidents would actually go for it, even though the competitiveness and the money would vastly improve the game. Merit and risk aren't their thing, sadly. Moreover, I posted relatively recently that VT should be starting conversations with those schools in the Pac-12, BigXII and ACC we genuinely think are our football and academic peers (solid state universities that are serious about football). The reason for this is because when we approach 2036, VT might best fit into a national conference similar to what you suggest. But it will clearly be second-rate to the B1G and the SEC. But it will also be done later rather than sooner as all parties can plan for it in advance and be free from obligation beyond that date. But I think FSU (and VT for that matter) should consider 2036 as a hard deadline to the existence of the ACC. No, I'm just against certain things in your original plan. Allow me to chronical them: 1. UNC and UVa would not come along with the plan you suggest. If they are going to blow up the ACC, they will almost assuredly bolt to the B1G. 2. How will this new league make SEC and B1G money? Especially when you consider what it is going to take to buyout all the ACC schools you want to dismiss. 3. Will Texas Tech and West Virginia be able to get out of their BigXII obligations? Will it be worth it to them? And even if they would want to link up with us, is this a real game changer? BTW, I am not opposed to this particular option in the big picture, but I don't see it as a huge needle mover. 4. Do you think Notre Dame will go along with this, or do you think they will just say, "screw it, we're off to the Big Ten"? And if the Big Ten takes Notre Dame, will they come calling for other brands that you plan to have in your would-be conference such as Washington and Oregon? ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 2/25/2023, 3:23:54 PM

Also be in politics because you really do the ‘sway’ with whatever seems to be right approach and clearly contradict yourself more than a little…. But alas, unless I want to totally dedicate myself to challenge your points, I need to do it full time on this damn iPhone (cause I’m not getting over to my large screen) as my TSL time is after my workout time… But just for grins, let me start with this — holy biscuits!!! You are correct — I failed to recognize TT IS in B12 (I get a stupid star on that one)…but the WVU suggestion - as a POSSIBILITY - was just my attempt to silence all the pro mountaineers on this forum 🫣 Here’s what started me on you regarding this way too long word skirmish was you responding to my suggestion…with —> “Not doable until after 2036. But I'll put it in the file.“ I don’t have the energy to hoist with your frick & frack about what you think you meant now, then or whatever whenever …you do seem to evolve on this as you did above … again all good & you’re much more skillful than I at this …but in my day I think I wouldve thumped you in chess🤣 Don’t agree with you at all that the HOOS & Heels would leave IF THIS WAS done CORRECTLY — they would value a Stanford & Berkeley & probably also Ducks & wash Seattle presence — PAC WOULD also see value in being able to travel mostly west coast instead of majority cross country as in a Raiding1G conference & Az brings good quality schools also…and maybe the pac just couldn’t negotiate as well versus espn and or with others like Amazon or apple — times are different and networks have more to fight for now and a Conf cross country that DOESNT require regular cc travel has value yet still offering 4 time zone viewing … As for the Domers, I’m so over them, they can have the raider 1 G Conf and let’s see how well they fare there 🤣🤣🤣…I would help them pack for the move …watch their auto bid go away also🤪 Ok, for now, later. If we beat Duke tonight I’ll increase your b to an A just because I can smirk at our dukie fam members

And we can certainly agree about Notre Dame. After they worked for a 12-team playoff with the SEC--which was was basically the final signal that they would never join the ACC--I too am completely over them too. I was not a fan of the partial membership deal from the start TBH. I think it just made the ACC look watered down and compromised. And some of the same ACC people who thought this sweetheart partial membership deal for ND was just fine are now tisk-tisking FSU for suggesting unequal revenue sharing. To me, the ideas are one in the same.

I link the post below (from earlier this week) Problem is, it's not a realistic solution right now. And I responded in kind, albeit somewhat cavalierly, So I think he as a bit of an axe to grind with me.

Say is “cavalierly” is close enough to what some may also suggest is a bit worse, but thanks for that anyway…👌

Clemson in football. UNC and Duke in basketball. GT in the Atlanta market (plus academics). UVA and/or VT for virginia market. FSU is not the prize they used to be. Still a solid brand, but they are not the target. They are a useful path to get to other schools. I'm sure FSU has a guarantee from one or both of the P2 so they are probably confident in playing this role.

...wouldn't be saying this loud in public. Only the Pac-12 and B12 does that...

So I'd be curious who would have made that verbal. I don't know if the Big Ten has FSU in their plans. Kevin Warren kept mentioning Miami. But he's now gone to the Chicago Bears. The FSU people kept saying something needs to be done. To get more revenue something must be added to generate it. But I didn't hear them suggest what to add. ** Edited by HOO86 at 2/24/2023, 8:00:19 PM

Since we have no rumors or leaks, maybe they chose an in-house guy like BTN boss Mark Silverman. He could already be on the job quietly coming up to speed on all those irons-in-the-fire. He's a realignment veteran. I think The B1G has the PAC schools in ice until they're ready for them. Meanwhile they are looking for activity in The Southeast (and ND.)

They are already talking about competing in the SEC. They are weighing themselves against Alabama and declaring themselves as equals in opportunities. Big thinking when you look at their recent history. The future with Norvell is not yet that clear.

and easily leadable shill for the BIG propaganda machine, nothing more and nothing less. FSU on the other hand is doing exactly what they have done since the latter days of Bobby Bowden, trying to prop their program up and overcome inept administrators, meddling boosters and puppet trustees. The revenue differential is a growing problem for the ACC that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. However, giving FSU more money does not solve their real problem it just makes them another version of Texas and Texas A&M. The FSU problem is about much more than money and conference address. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 2/24/2023, 3:29:54 PM

I might have to start using that one.

Always have a bunch of crazies on the board, with no experience in major universities but full of opinion. University President doesn't lead, and university runs a little crazy. Even the Seminole club (the organization of contributors) have no chain of command with the AD and the chain with the president. NO accountability That is why you dont see much partnership of state programs with Florida.

But I think he is truly devoted to all of college football. Watch ranking episodes or standings predictions. He exhibits a thorough knowledge of team talent and depth across the country. I also agree with your idea that simply increasing FSU's revenue won't cure what ails them. But isn't that a common flaw across The ACC. Swofford surrendered all of the content to ESPN and had no sense of what he should get in return. The presidents rubber-stamped is ineptitude. Instead of hiring consultants they relied on their long-time media partner Raycom to supervise ESPN. Raycom saw an opportunity, and helped themselves. When/if ACC schools break from their current situations let's hope they don't allow ESPN to work both sides of the negotiating table.

and I did not mean nor do I believe that Flugar is not knowledgeable. I just believe that he is a willing tool in the BIG propaganda machine.