Has there been ANY credible reporting that the GOR is not enforceable?
It's an assignment. They aren't complicated. There is no loophole.
Nobody is going anywhere.
135 Replies
T
TDVick
3y
Would that number by EIGHT?
Notice that you see Clemson and FSU seeming to be the most active to stir the pot regarding ACC payouts. They can be the "bad guys" because they won't get in-state political repercussions like the NC or VA schools would if they undo the conference. Clemson is the only ACC member in it's state and regarding FL, FSU is a state school and Miami is not. I suspect that both FSU and Miami want out of the ACC and will have landing spots.
If the bigwigs in the networks and administrators that want to grab the March Madness money want to get moving, then they need to find 8 landing spots. My guess is
B10: UNC, UVA, Duke and Miami
SEC: FSU, Clemson, VT and NCSU
that assumes that 8 votes are needed.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
R
RJHokie
3y
Supermajority usually means at least 75%. In the ACC’s case that would probably mean 12 members.
** Edited by RJHokie at 6/27/2023, 1:53:30 PM
(In response to this post by TDVick)
W
WBGV
3y
realignment is still to come and likely will happen after this football season and before the new expanded playoff. If Oregon and Washington go “somewhere” that in essence means the end of the PAC 12 (similar to what Finebaum was saying). If Clemson, FSU, Miami, and North Carolina go “somewhere” that means that Herbstreit doesn’t think the GOR is going to stop them. It would be difficult to interpret what he said otherwise. Here are his quotes.
“Everybody is bracing for the 12 team playoff but I think people are underestimating how much more movement there’s going to be in the realignment. It’s going to be fascinating to see where a lot of these teams end up.”
. . . .
"I feel like the Big Ten and the SEC, who are the big pillars in this whole thing, I just feel like, I don't know when it's gonna happen. But they're not staying at 16. They're gonna go at least 20 and so who's going where, right?"
. . . .
"Where's North Carolina going? Where's Oregon, where's Washington going? Where's Clemson going to end up? Where's Florida State gonna go? Where's Miami. There's just so much, it's fascinating, that I'm sure it won't happen, maybe it will during the season. But I'm guessing it happens after this year." - Kirk Herbstreit
Herbstreit, McAfee, and Finebaum are better connected to college sports than just about anyone else covering it. You might not agree with what they say at times, but to even suggest that they say what they say for “clicks” is ridiculous.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
D
daveinop
3y
it is impossible to distinguish their personal opinion (if they have one) from their job as shills
find an independent journalist that looks into the GOR and finds a legal or practical out; then you have something that is newsworthy. the rest is for ratings/clicks
(In response to this post by WBGV)
3y
how that would be possible financially. So far no one has given an explanation of how a school could afford to leave. No one has explained how it would be possible to address the GOR. Unless some new information comes forward, the only reasonable assumption is that the ACC stays together for the next decade plus. The only possible exception that has been suggested is that a group would join together to dissolve the ACC conference. But no one has given a good explanation of how that many teams would reasonably get invitations to the P2. So, the only alternative would be for a group to dissolve the conference to form a new, smaller conference without the bottom level ACC football schools. That seems to be the only option for now. Apart from that the status quo seems to be what we should expect, plus unequal revenue sharing.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 6/24/2023, 11:01:25 PM
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 6/24/2023, 11:02:15 PM
(In response to this post by WBGV)
M
Mercury
3y
FSU Miami, Clemson and UNC go and pay the settlement to the remaining conference members, we then cash the check and hope to second round
(In response to this post by WBGV)
T
Truthahn
3y
The teams that get those slots will be seen as elite, regardless of their conference. I wouldn't be surprised to see that being the main driver to result in a P4, rather than a P2 and everyone else.
It should become obvious to the MAG7, esp CU and FSU, that the ACC is a great place to be because we will almost certainly have a bye in the CFP.
IIRC, the CFP quarterfinals will be in major bowl games over New Years day. Four different conference champs will host teams that play-in from one or two weeks earlier. So, the champs will fill those bowls up with their fans, who bought their tickets early. Plus, they won't have to play a top four conference champion, so the odds of the top four conf champs advancing to the semis are at least pretty good, and even if they don't, they played a huge game on New Years day.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
S
Stech
3y
Especially after Texas Oklahoma and USC UCLA join the SEC and B1G!!
(In response to this post by WBGV)
3y
There is nothing random about all of this. They are just setting the stage for what will come.
And it does have a side benefit of giving them a hot topic to discuss throughout the season.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
3y
long term, the money won't really matter when it comes to the ACC's survival. Even if we assume FSU and Clemson stay at the top of the ACC and get unequal bonus revenue every year, it won't matter. Eventually FSU and Clemson will leave because of prestige.
The ACC will never be considered a top tier football conference (at least not if ESPN, FOX, CBS keep pushing the "ACC sucks" narrative). It's basic desire and pride and ego. Clemson and FSU want to be in the cool kid's club and considered part of the elite all the time. They don't want to be just the best of the ACC and have people doubting if they could survive in the SEC. They want to be part of the hype machine and considered equals to Bama, OU, Georgia, etc.
The GOR may hold things together for awhile, but in the end it won't matter. ESPN controls the money and can keep the ACC just poor enough to make the schools want change. And Clemson and FSU already want that change and I don't expect their feelings to shift. It's just a matter of time.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
had no need to prove themselves against the SEC. FSU seemed to enjoy dominating the rest of the ACC teams every year.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
3y
1. Do we know the SEC or big ten even want fsu or Clemson?
2. If the money was closer, and they were going to the playoff most years, I think they would prefer the easier path.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
O
ombandit
3y
like I said a couple weeks ago, there’s smoke certainly, but the MEDIA is creating the FIRE, it’s a topic and they NEED topics.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
There is a reason that USC and UCLA were picked. Neither one has been great in football for awhile. Some decent teams, but nothing great. And they didn't need both teams to get the LA market.
This is about branding, about collecting schools with lots of recent or historical success under the P2 umbrella. The conferences are no longer driving the bus. They have been bought and are now beholden to their media partners. We have to stop thinking about what the BIG or SEC want to do. That reality is over. We are in the era of media conferences and expansion won't be done until they have finished collecting all the desired pieces. They want big stadiums with big stars, big plays, and big atmospheres.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
Grew the pies enough for their respective acquirers. It's still about money.
And ESPN makes a ton on the acc and it provides a lot of content.
Very few schools left not named Notre Dame grow the pie enough to make further expansion worthwhile.
I know that's a minority take, but TBD. Oregon and UDub are nice brands but the Big passed ...
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2
2hhoop3
3y
the B1G passed as much as just said not yet. ND is likely the only property left that moves the needle under the linear pricing model currently in place, however, things may change once streaming passes linear cable in pricing and/or other factors(power, branding, reach) figure in the valuation model.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
S
Stech
3y
do you still feel that way?
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
Not aware of any school that wants to (a) take a slight pay cut, and (b) triple their travel expenses.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
only school that makes any sense currently, would be Louisville - but I think they too are content being in the ACC.
The same question "Who in the B12 wants to leave for the ACC?" The only one or two that would make sense would be WVU and Cincy - but they are content in the B12, mostly because the ACC didn't want them.
I think the premise of the question is wrong though. Until the ACC resolves the discontent with "the seven?", it's not a conference of the future. Maybe if/when the BIG and SEC poach some teams, things will play out differently - no one knows.
The PAC needs to stay together, but it's currently not looking very good for them - but we don't know where they will land, but they need to figure it out.
Currently, with the moves by the SEC and BIG, there is acute instability and anxiety as to how this plays out. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
BTW, My team KU just went through all of this (they were talking about the mountain west), and they still play basketball and football.
The ACC will be fine. Those that think they will be left behind buy a media contact are just panicked.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
3y
(1) it's only 8 teams needed to dissolve? That seems low for associations. Usually it's a supermajority.
(2) the SEC and BIG want 8 ACC teams? That's a big jump. Will that many teams grow the pie? I don't see any USCs or U Texas left.
Nobody is moving to the big 12 unless they have to
(In response to this post by Stech)
T
Truthahn
3y
I think the MAG7 would be viable all on their own, even with an eighth. That group could generate enough TV $ to be close enough to the B10 and SEC for those three to become the P3.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
S
Stech
3y
it possible IMHO. 30 million a year deficit and growing with the Revenue sports players looking for payment, could make some do things they never thought were possible.
I could see it happening in two ways, the first is the B1G wants the eastern seaboard and it's so much money, that ND can no longer say no. They take the Mag 7 pius ND. Now you are at 24 and Fox owns from coast to coast and may even take Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington too. The non-revenue's play a regional schedule until the Conference Championships. Remember no Divisions for football, and the two highest ranked teams go to the Conference Championship for football. Those two will certainly make the playoff, but just like Duke and UNC in basketball, that ACC Championship means something to them too.
Second way, is that the SEC takes FSU. Clemson, NC State and Virginia Tech, they are a rivalry conference for schools that love football. The B1G takes UNC, UVA, Miami, GT and ND if they can get them. They also pick off some other PAC schools.
Now do I know this is going to happen, no, but I don't think either scenario is outlandish either.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
T
Truthahn
3y
It that comes up short, ND will join them in dissolving the ACC. If not, the MAG7 expands to eight, and forces the issue anyway.
Either way Louisville goes to the B12, unless they are the eighth. But I would expect GT to be the eighth.
IMO, it doesn't matter if they have a P2 home. The MAG7/8 would be in a much better position than the current ACC.
All that assumes that eight universities can dissolve the ACC, of course.
(In response to this post by Stech)
Can't see the B1G taking "The Mag 7" when they can't even bring themselves
to take more than two West Coast schools. Not even if the ACC GOR was about to expire.
(In response to this post by Stech)
M
Mercury
3y
We dont know what is going on
networks do not have a blank check. If fox wants it can they come up for the extra $$$ for the extra 7 and sustain or increase the current big 10 and fox. But that could strategically put a slam and box on disney. It would slam disney espn goal as the network of collegiate sports.
Same for disney / espn - does disney espn repond or compress. To just the sec and the 16 .
Interesting fimancials. For teams who are pawns it is essential to deliver great product on as many sports as possible.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
T
Truthahn
3y
No teams left for the SEC and B10 that move their needle. But for the ACC, we have a lower bar. New teams just have to be worth more than our average to be attractive to us. Especially five or six years from now, after several B12 teams have been consistently in the playoffs, and their GOR is ending.
But the B10 will not want them.
** Edited by Truthahn at 6/24/2023, 1:09:10 PM
(In response to this post by Mercury)
3y
Now you want some of them? Not sure it works that way.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
3y
Only way an ACC team goes to the the B12 is if the ACC implodes, and they have no other place to go.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
this very board think that WVU would accept an invite form the ACC? I mean, there are some that are very confident that if needed, the ACC could pick up CINCY, WVU, and UCF - if they just wanted too.
The B12 passed on Louisville when they were available. At the time, it was Texas that didn't want to be agressive with the Big east implosion.
The B12 was lucky that the ACC passed on them. Lucky. And when A&M and Missouri left the B12 because of Texas, TCU and WVU were on the board.
Sometimes, it's just luck of the timing of things. For instance, BYU to the B12 was announced before the USCLA debacle. Boy, i bet the PAC wishes they were available today, but they signed the contract with the B12.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
3y
Unless AFTER the ACC is dead.
ACC will be substantially more money than big 12 post Texas/OU
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
board show me where the ACC makes substantially more money than the B12?
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
W
WBGV
3y
in 2025 - 26 when everything is considered. Conferences don’t put their media right contracts online - why would they. The media partners however release the information through various sources ( many sources working directly for them ), and of course public universities release the conference distribution each year after receiving payments which are then complied by reporters for comparison (see link).
And since conferences don’t release contract information publicly, one poster on this site thinks he is clever by nauseously asking for an official conference document from the conference offices with signatures that he already knows is never publicly released, and then dismissing any and all other credible sources. It is just a game.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
3y
just as soon as you produce that signed Big 12 contract with definitive amounts the math can be done for you.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
3y
as soon as you or little buddy can actually produce the numbers as specified in the "reported" contract that are confirmed anywhere by Big 12 conference or network execs in print. We both know confirmed numbers will come only IF Yormark can ever get a firm number from the network he is happy with and that only happens IF he can persuade several PAC 12 schools to come aboard. Hopefully you will have a better understanding of the contract when it actually comes to fruition. than you do of media rights. One more time, just so you are clear on what I am saying, I am not saying they may not get the previously reported number sometime in the future, I am saying they do not have it yet, did not have it when "reported" amounts were leaked to the press in the end of October 2022 and they will only get to that number IF they actually persuade a few PAC 12 schools to come aboard.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
only have an opinion - or re you really that much smarter?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
the ACC has a documented contract that they have been paid under for a number of years, that has been confirmed by conference and television execs as running until 2036, has a documented payment history and has a stable conference membership with no members coming or going at present. In addition, it is known the current payment history, a virtual dead heat with the Big 12 has only a partial year of the single largest cable carrier which will increase with a full year and has not one but, two remaining lookins that could further adjust the deal.
What do you have? Aside from a contract expiring for which the Big 12 was paid as if they were 12 when they were 10, the two biggest media draws leaving the conference, a "reported" new agreement not confirmed with details yet by any conference or network personnel, and new members joining with substantially lower media values based on history. It is not about being smarter but, it is about realistically and objectively evaluating available information which you have so far exhibited an unwillingness to do.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 6/23/2023, 11:02:37 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
S
Stech
3y
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
Will get paid a boatload of money.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
... essentially dissolving the old Metro. It those people had left the Metro to start a new football playing conference, then VT & VCU would have reaped a huge monetary reward.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2
2hhoop3
3y
the Metro Conference NCAA tourney units and the only way they could do that was to retain the Metro. Since VT was already in Big East for football and VCU did not have football they concocted a story that the 7 that were joining did not want a 14 team conference and the 5 voted VT and VCU out under the 2/3 provision with 5 out of 7. The initially tried to say they were not obligated to pay VT and VCU anything but, out of the goodness of their heart they were willing to negotiate. The courts eventually awarded VT $1.135MM. Louisville and slimeball Denny "Dinner" Crum were the ringleader. At least that is what remains of my memory.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
3y
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
3y
Dissolve the conference would require a vote. I've not seen a definitive number on how many would be required to dissolve the conference. It has been stated that 3/4 vote would be required to change the bylaws. Assuming that is accurate, I doubt a smaller number could dissolve the conference.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3y
I look as much as what they are not saying, as what they are saying.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2
2hhoop3
3y
commissioner have to say anything? You don't think the schools and their lawyers know exactly what the conference bylaws say? I do not understand the stabilizing benefits of him speaking on the matter at all other than possibly quelling idle speculation on a message board.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3y
As I said in another post, he doesn't have to say it, he can have it leaked or even the schools that aren't in the Mag 7 could say it. They have sponsors and many things at risk, if people think they might not survive. I have gotten many sponsors in the past, believe me the worst thing to defend is survival. Good question though.
** Edited by Stech at 6/23/2023, 8:09:52 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
it would change the conversation anywhere other than message boards. I also believe that if Presidents, ADs or others thought it was that big of a deal they themselves could speak or compel their employee to speak. I also feel certain that any sponsor who might have a concern would ask or have already asked and I am sure they have been answered. You are right, sometimes you have to consider what is not being said but, attendant to that consideration is ensuring you properly interpret the meaning of that silence. It is sort of like being in a deposition, the shortest, simplest answer is always the best because you are much less likely to get in trouble and nothing is shorter and simpler than no answer at all when none is actually demanded.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
for dissolving the conference. They also said that to amend the bylaws required a 3/4 vote. Assuming that is correct, one conclusion would be that in order to dissolve the conference the bylaws would need to be amended to add a process for dissolution, which would require a 3/4 vote. Don't know if that person was accurate, but it was posted a number of months ago.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 6/23/2023, 9:02:12 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
I've read through them before myself and there is no provision in them for dissolving the conference, but amending the constitution and by-laws does require a 3/4 vote, as does adding or expelling conference members. Some people have speculated that you would need to amend the by-laws and constitution to add a procedural mechanism for dissolving the conference, which would require a 3/4 vote. However, other people have speculated that since the constitution and by-laws are silent on the procedure for dissolving the conference, that you could just dissolve the conference with a simple majority vote. I think if a simple majority attempted to dissolve the conference, there would be a lawsuit to block such an action, which would likely be tied up in the courts for years.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 6/24/2023, 1:08:48 AM
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
3y
Conference has to be a choice. Otherwise remaining schools still represent that conference.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2
2hhoop3
3y
at present to make it happen without creating significant risks and liability. Also, eight will not get it done.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3y
break it up? I have seen lots of speculation, but nothing factual saying it has to be more, but if there is something, I would like to see it. That would definitely change the probability greatly.
Again, I am not saying this going to happen, but it's also not out of the realm of possibility if all they need is a majority.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
print that I know of, however, a supermajority is the word from a source that has always proven accurate in the past. Also, common sense and good legal advice would generally argue for something more substantial than a simple majority for certain type decisions to minimize the power/influence of a single swing vote.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 6/22/2023, 9:00:53 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3y
It would stabilize the Conference if it were true and he said that. I look for what is not being said as much as what is being said. He doesn't even have to say it, all he has to do is leak it or have one of the non Mag 7 make that point.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
R
RJHokie
3y
conference and/or GOR agreement.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
3y
Existing conference members colluding with other conferences to dissolve the ACC to avoid having to buyout the grant of rights and pay the exit fees to the other schools would almost certainly be illegal collusion. Schools can leave whenever they want, but they will have to pay the price to do it one way or the other.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
3y
I believe you need a minimum of 6 schools to have/continue a conference. The ACC with 15 (including the Lamers), could make life/finances very miserable for those that leave.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
3y
And ACC schools colluding with other conferences to dissolve the ACC would likely be an illegal conspiracy that would open them all up to major legal liability. University presidents are conservative by nature and I don't think they would be willing to take that kind of a risk.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3y
part I doubt holds up. Teams have been changing conferences for over 100 years without it happening. The Big East lost Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Pittsburgh and Syracuse, and not a peep about collusion. Nothing about it if the B1G went on to grab Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington to go with UCLA or USC either. Not to mention the 4 corners schools to the B12. There is no precedent that collusion would hold up.
Again, I am not saying this will happen, but it is not far fetched IMHO.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
3y
If schools collude with other conferences to dissolve the ACC in an attempt to get around the grant of rights and exit fees, that would be a conspiracy that would be much easier to prove in court. The act of dissolving the conference would make the conspiracy self-proving.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 6/23/2023, 1:00:10 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
Cut out the opposition 1-2 schools at a time and then the Mag 7 could gain full control of the conference that way. There would be no need to worry about who might stay because they would have already been forced out. Basically what the Metro did to VT (from what I've learned on TSL).
Not saying that is what they should do. Just commenting that it seems an easier path to first gain control of the conference through pruning before trying anything dramatic like dissolving the ACC.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
3y
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2
2hhoop3
3y
muster the required votes to dissolve what leads you to believe they could muster the likely votes to prune?
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
S
Stech
3y
a much harder case to prove. For the next couple of years, the difference in TV money is IMHO somewhat exaggerated.
However, when Texas and Oklahoma leave for the SEC, and USC and UCLA leave for the B1G, they will likely make double the ACC. Add that if those two dominate the football playoffs, and it could become triple the money for the playoff schools in the Power 2. So if you are a University President or AD in the ACC, you have to skate to where the puck is going, not where it is currently located. You can’t afford to be conservative when Tier 1 survival is at stake.
Point being, I don’t think this is as far fetched as people are making it out to be. I don’t think it’s going to take 13 years, the Mag 7 plus 1 be it UL, ND or GT, can’t afford to be that far behind for 13 years, especially when many think the deficit will grow more each year. Especially when many think they will start paying the revenue sports players.
It’s adapt or die for Tier 1 athletics.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
2
2hhoop3
3y
exponentially harder to deny the more that are involved and even harder if they all go to the same place.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3y
and they might be able to make a case. However, if 4 go to SEC and 4 go to the B1G and the other 4 go to the B12 just to have a conference, collusion is probably a tough sell IMHO.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
The ACC needs to be creative to save the conf
Our country has new entrepreneurs creating new types of companies every single day in this country. I have written this before, but it boggles my mind that they people can't come up with revenue streams for powerful brands(the schools) with millions of affiliated customers(alumni and students).
Here's a layup, a chain of restaurants like Mellow Mushroom. It's not hard to create a business that throws off millions a year in cash flow when you have brand + customer + affinity. Try to create ten business ideas, and half of them will work and be huge.
Hell, create a VC fund and fund university affiliated bio tech programs. The ACC should be the conference the school rake it in as members.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
T
Truthahn
3y
There was a 10 Spot sports bar restaurant near me for a while. I don't think anyone knew the 10 referred to the B10. It failed, BTW, but we are in Leesburg, VA, outside of B10 territory, regardless of PSU and Maryland.
But beers and ACC sports at a Tobacco Road BBQ. I'm in for that.
EDIT: Dang someone already took the name. It looks like fun.
** Edited by Truthahn at 6/23/2023, 1:57:39 PM
Link:
Tobacco Road BBQ
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
T
TDVick
3y
I just want us to land in a good spot - SEC or B10. Throw out the trash and burn it down.
** Edited by TDVick at 6/23/2023, 1:52:00 AM
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
3y
(In response to this post by TDVick)
yeah, we aren't getting invited to SEC or B1G, so the ACC is what we have
If we were as good in football as we where when Tyrod was on the team, then yeah we would get a look ....but that is a very long time ago now....
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
3y
Business conglomerate in order to fund athletics at the highest level. That's just moving too far away from their purpose of education. Presidents and boards are already struggling with the direction college athletics are going.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
well, they are already in up to their necks
The ESPN contracts are major business contracts that have nothing to do with academics or research or the community. It's money for providing entertainment to people nationally.
They've already crossed the bridge imho
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
3y
Athletes, it's easy to justify. But the more we move from student athletes, to professional athletes receiving salaries, the more problematic it becomes. Paying college athletes a salary will cause some schools to reconsider their athletic programs.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
3y
Suppose FSU leaves the conference next year. anyway. What are the consequences? Let's play it out.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
For the next 9 years plus a $150mm penalty?
It's impossible math.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
3y
First of all, there are 13 years left on the media contract and the GoR. Second, the exit fee will equal the latest media payout times three, so, ~$120 million. What else?
The conference can retain the rights granted for FSU's home games. But if they choose to retain those rights, they still have to compensate FSU. They don't keep the rights for free. Since the GoR does not include any reference to monetary compensation, just "consideration", this is where a court may be asked to determine the monetary damages. Is it just the ESPN media payout, media payout + ACCN split, or none of these. Maybe some other "consideration." This may seem like an issue that could go back and forth, but once FSU walks-off the end of the dock and starts swimming, ESPN will react.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
They would not pay FSU anything. The media rights stay with the ACC conference, the funds go to the ACC conference, FSU is no longer part of the ACC conference in that scenario. Therefore they get nothing. That is why nobody is leaving, unless they can find a way to break the GOR.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
3y
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
3y
Conference. That media payout would go to the ACC not to FSU. That media payout would be based on money the conference makes, which would include away games that FSU played in conference , home games for FSU, bowl games, playoff games, and every other game for which the conference gets paid. The reason for that payment to the ACC, is because the ACC owns all the media rights for FSU. Therefore, the ACC would benefit from FSU away games and home games and bowl games and any game FSU plays that benefits the SEC, or any other game for which FSU receives a media payment.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 6/23/2023, 10:15:00 AM
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 6/23/2023, 10:17:01 AM
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
3y
the ACC Grant of Rights runs its course in 2036. New schools having to wait several years to get a full conference share is very common, and I have to think that would be the case for FSU or any ACC team leaving for a new conference without any media rights to bring with them until 2036.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
3y
game against Alabama, or any P5 school, they get paid for that game, and that money is not shared with the conference. The MAC receives nothing if Bowling Green plays a road game at VT, all rights to that game belong to the ACC.
It's different if games are a 1-1, or a 2-1, as there are no payouts from VT to a bowling green, because there is a road game scheduled, and while all contracts are a bit different, you get yours, and we get ours when it's a 1-1.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2
2hhoop3
3y
with media rights.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
3y
Game appearance fees are for out of conference games only because in conference games, in total, are set up to balance as 1 to 1 with home teams getting the gate. Media rights are paid to conference and are the right to be the broadcaster for conference home games. @wwhokie1 explains it well above. You should read it to clear up your obvious confusion.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
The ACC through ESPN own the rights to FSU's home games. Period. Any other revenue that they would get if they changed conferences, would be between them and their new conference.
ND is trying to get their media deal for football, and it's only for the rights to their home games.
What I was trying to convey, is that the ACC owns the media rights to FSU's athletic home games, and they could still make media revenue if another conference (ESPN) wanted to give them a slice of their new conference games.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
and before you start lecturing somebody about getting caught up in the weeds you probably need to dig yourself out.
Your first paragraph is just dead wrong. The ACC owns all of FSU's media rights and ESPN through the agreement with the ACC has broadcast rights for FSU home games. ND is irrelevant because it is not tied to ACC for football. I have no idea what you are trying to convey in your second paragraph and seriously doubt you do either. B Based on your latest post, it is questionable how much understanding of media rights you actually have and I would suggest you read @wwhokie1 again as well as do some more research to improve your understanding.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
it's my guess (guess) that FSU will find a way out, but may be further down the road as soon as the money makes sense.
Don't discount that FSU could offer the ACC a deal, and the other schools would take the money, and have one less school to share the media deal with.
If FSU leaves the conference, goes independent, or joins another conference, the ACC only has the rights to their athletic home games. What part about that am I wrong on? They also would keep any post season money they get, and their gate receipts are theirs as well.
There is also the possibility that they could get enough payout from their new conference to get close enough to the ACC payout to make it worth it to them.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
and have been told so, you just do not want to hear it. Gate receipts have always belonged to the school and bowl games are conference property. Media rights payments are an entirely different thing and include ALL the media rights not just home games. Like I said you should educate yourself(or not) but, every time you are wrong you damage any credibility you might still have. Your latest post, guesses included, show you really have very little understanding of the mechanics or math of media rights and conference realignment, which really is a little surprising given your ties to the Big 12 and all that went on there.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
understand it.
You have told me, so if i continue my ignorance, it's on me.
let it go.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
been told you are wrong why would you choose to continue and/or post in ignorance as opposed to giving yourself an accurate understanding? I am fine letting it go, however, letting it go does not involve failing to challenge any misinformation you continue to post.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
3y
to the conference. The only thing home or away determines is what network has priority for broadcast selection. Whatever a team earns as their media rights goes to the conference holding the GOR.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2
2hhoop3
3y
in addition to the exit fee the conference retains all television rights which means that wherever they land they contribute "0" to the new conference. Second, how do you know what the GOR says with respect to monetary compensation, if any, that might be due? I expect the answer is you don't. There is a reason OU and UT stayed in the Big 12 and ultimately had to negotiate the buyout and the same would be true for FSU IF they had a landing spot. They do not have one at present for a variety of reasons and they recognize that even were they to get one the financial cost would be so onerous as to handicap them right out of the gate. The first rule of jumping off a dock is to KNOW how deep the water is and FSU has no idea at present what that depth might be and likely possesses neither the resources or stomach to find out.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
3y
that in the GoR's we have seen previously the use of "considerations" is inserted to avoid specifying monetary value. It's a critical feature of the agreement.
Please understand that I am not entirely sure FSU will jump ship. But I think it's a realistic possibility. On this board there are plenty of optimistic views of the future for The ACC. They are outnumbered, I think, by the pessimists. But even the pessimists seem unwilling to take a long examination of the very real chance that FSU and/or others are unwilling to stand idly by as their athletic departments starve. There is no question that all ACC schools could hang together for the duration of the GoR. But extrapolate the projected payout figures put forth by Navigate. Now imagine what the disparity will be after the new Playoff System is installed for 2026. Add in the cost of paying wages/salaries to college athletes. Schools like Texas, Ohio State establishing remote recruiting offices in Florida, Georgia, California. Coaching staffs being expanded with analysts and individual mentors. The costs will cull the herd. I am not even sure Alabama will be able to keep up with the NIL race. Saban seems to see it.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
long examination of your position, specifically the post I am now responding to, as you claim pessimists are unwilling to. As you do that you should keep a few things and questions in mind.
The consideration language you reference was likely inserted not to avoid specifying monetary value or even a potential future court proceeding but, rather to be the opening toward a negotiation prior to any court action. Judges are generally hesitant to get involved until all remedies or pathways in an agreement have been exhausted.
You challenge people that do not believe FSU walking is likely and you believe it to be a realistic possibility. What do you base that on? Navigate projections? Have you studied Navigate's historical accuracy or their actual client relationships which could impact those projections? You talk about the disparity after the new system is installed in 2026. How do you project that disparity when the people drawing up the plan have not finalized things yet? Nobody really has a clue where the collegiate landscape is headed with questions surrounding media partners and regulatory involvement being two of many large elepants in the room. Anybody following collegiate football history realizes the folly of thinking Alabama will not keep up or die trying.
I think there are lots of questions all around. I also believe the volatility of ALL those moving parts could serve as just as much of an impediment to move as a motivation. Finally, the hyperbole of athletic departments being starved is at least premature until the results of the next look in are known.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
3y
"unofficial NIL" which requires money measured in thousands of dollars. The new NIL set the bar at amounts that are measured in millions of dollars. Different game.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
there is at least one AD and one assistant AD in the SEC not at Alabama that do not doubt Alabama will play whatever the game turns out to be and they consider Saban to be doing nothing more than his best impersonation of a "poormouthing" Lou Holtz.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 6/22/2023, 2:18:07 PM
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
3y
know what it would look like if FSU actually made a move. I'm theorizing, hypothesizing, cyphering, noodling, whatever you want call it.
The reason I consider it a real possibility is because Alford deliberately made those public comments a few months ago. Bohn did the same thing at USC in 2021. Look what happened. (Before you say it, I know, the GoR... ) The "Mag 7" came out of the shadows after those comments. That's (those seven schools) who thinks the current situation can't work.
I doubt that FSU has an invitation to another conference. But I fully believe that they have had indirect contact with The B1G and SEC over the course of years. (Nope, I can't prove it.) I think for FSU to survive a GoR fight, they would need some sort of help from other like-minded schools and at least, a couple of lucky court decisions. It is a huge risk. But they have made that long examin ation and found that staying-put carries an ugly risk as well. I think they may have already made the decision to leave, and if that's the case, the sooner they act, the better.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
you to actually think about the questions I asked you. I do not believe Alford's motives and circumstances are the same as Bonn's. Alford and the others were merely greasing the skids for the league meetings and unequal revenue sharing discussions. I have no doubt FSU and ACC schools and other leagues have held various conversations and discussions over the years. I doubt your belief of the sooner the better is fully informed or realistic for a variety of reasons both economically and competitively related but, I am guessing your ties as either a Big 12 guy and/or FSU fan make you believe so.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
3y
solution. My ties are Alabama since childhood. And frankly I worry about our ability to navigate the new landscape as easily as Georgia, LSU, Texas, A&M, and some others. I also think that ESPN is going to give The SEC a dose of reality, now that TX/OK are in the fold. I honestly think the future belongs to The B1G and their huge schools, huge markets, and OTA media partners.
Am I an ACC hater? Nope, full respect, also since childhood. But The ACC is facing a choice between extreme changes in the near future, versus a gradual slide into irrelevance.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
is absolutely a band aid at best and the first dose of morphine putting the conference out of its misery at worst. I am surprised you are that pessimistic as a Bama native both on the Tide's ability to respond and the SEC's ability to compete. The B1G has to actually prove they can win something IMO, otherwise they are the conference version of Texas and Texas A&M, lots of resources dumped down a black hole. Until the B1G starts beating the SEC for coaches I think the pecking order remains the same. The ACC powers that be have recognized for many years their days were likely numbered given the makeup of its conference members, a fate made all the more clear when it became clear football would be driving the bus. The basketball issue must still be resolved and now the waters are muddied further with the student/athlete/employee issue and a few other things. I think the ACC's motivation for quite a while now has been survival for as long as competitively feasible and then an orderly dissolution and soft landing for as many of its members as possible.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
3y
Based on my limited knowledge here, I'm guessing the GOR is enforceable and that the best way put is to dissolve the ACC. And I don't see that happening anytime soon. We don't know for sure that FSU, Clemson or Miami have invites, but even if so, they are locked in.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
I'm not sure that the SEC and the B1G want to be a part of setting a
precedent for breaking GORs. For who? For what? To bring FSU in a decade early? And if FSU (or any other ACC school) doesn't have a hard invite, I doubt they vote to dissolve the conference or challenge the GOR in court. But I'm just speculating here.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/22/2023, 1:32:37 PM
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
2
2hhoop3
3y
does not work as you say. There is a reason Texas/OU and then USC/UCLA pulled the triggers within sight of media deal expiration dates.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
I referred to media deal expiration dates for exactly that reason. Be it an absolute GOR or penalties associated with exit fees without proper notice the math does not work.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
The good news is nobody can leave, The bad news is the revenue gap will grow over time to a riduculous delta - we are not on a sinking ship but our engine died and we will be adrift for up to 13 years. I’m not sensing loyalty and it’s only going to get worse over time. Our football programs need to win and hey maybe one or two of us can snag some natties in the meantime. If so, the ACC will have greater value and leverage during the next negotiation and the gap will close. If not, the moods will be so bad as we get closer to 2036 - schools will be crazy not to jump at an offer to make 30 to 50 million more a yr. The ACC made this bed - and well we have to sleep in it.
** Edited by Hokie12thman at 6/22/2023, 6:11:36 PM
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
(In response to this post by Hokie12thman)
3y
With the growth of streaming and the loss of customers being faced by cable/satellite ESPN may have to come up with a new model to replace lost revenue. A lot of the cable/satellite customers that have been subsidizing them in a hostage system are not live sports fans. And they are not choosing to fork over the large sums for TV coverage that includes expensive items they don't want. Disney has a lot of things to work out to make streaming pay for them.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
Disney has a lot of issues now
Does this look like the 5 year chart of a company with a 40 PE ratio?
No, it doesn't imho.
(In response to this post by SemperFiHokie)
3y
The ACC isn't going to make SEC money, but it has good brands and good markets. FSU and Miami are putting a lot of money in football and let's see what happens.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
M
Mercury
3y
They are interested in top market games with successful teams. wake versus GT just does not drive viewers. and at the same time, the established Football brands Miami FSU, Clemson and VT/NC need to not say we are back but actually being back. when 9=10 games, when those OOC events with the other power 5 confereneces and get into the playoffs and perhaps 2 teams.
Lets see Clemson vs ND, Miami FSU UNC and South Carolina
FSU LSU?? again, Miami Fla clemson??
UNC Clemson and Miami??? South carolina??
Miami well miami just quick saying we are back be back.
VT show significant improvements
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
that a short term football run will get them into the BIG. SMH - maybe?????
It appears it works for the G5 moving up to the B12, but c'mon, those are apples and oranges.
Oregon has had a good run for 25 years now, and they weren't invited to the popular kids party. Washington has a tremendous history, and a relatively recent natty, and they weren't invited to the popular kids party either.
Moving up from the G5 to the B12 is a bit different than moving up from the ACC, PAC, or B12 to the BIG and SEC.
You guys in the ACC may have some time to work things out, but the writing is on the wall. A look in to the contract? Do you REALLY think that ESPN will give you SEC type money? we won't even talk about BIG money.
More than the B12??????? Really? Probably, but do you really think it will be enough to make a difference? Maybe the PAC gets a deal that is better than the B12 (which apparently, we don't really know how much that is) - might be enough to keep them together, but will it actually change anything? Will ratings go up because you get more money? Do you BECOME a national brand because you are invited to the BIG?
You guys are right in that you need to start winning, but it won't be enough for anyone but the already established national brands.
(In response to this post by Mercury)
H
hokieZ71
3y
Viewership bases are already established and aren’t really changing much in the next 10-20 years. And that’s the only timeframe that matters.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
other conferences compete and win in the expanded playoffs - and I think they will, the eyeballs will shift to the teams that are playing for a playoff berth - and it won't batter a bit to the casual fan how much media monies those schools make.
The blue bloods became blue bloods because they win games and natty's. The expanded playoffs mean that they will now have to beat the best of the rest instead of winning the polls.
There is a reason the big boys schedule a lot of cupcake home games, because their exposure to solid teams that could beat them is lessened.
So you are right for now, but it's my contention that the "P3" will be very competitive, even without the guaranteed media contract. The kids being recruited would rather play for a contender than an Indiana or Illinois. Nothing will change that - we just need different contenders, and things are going to change a bunch with auto's and 12-16 teams in the playoffs.
Now that they have to play the best of the rest instead of a guaranteed bowl tie in, it's not as easy.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
3y
make Indiana and Illinois "contenders." Those are two very large alumni groups.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
rich alumni does not equate a successful football program. The gap in the media money will not prevent dedicated enthusiastic passionate fan bases from smaller a alumni groups from competing in that area.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
3y
they control 75% of the playoff slots and everyone else is fighting over the remaining 25%.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
each conference gets 3 bids each, that is only 50% of the expanded playoffs.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
I'm not sure history will be a good indicator of future predictions. Particularly since we don't know what will happen in a P2 World. At least I think there will come a time when the media and public will refer to DI-FBS football in terms of P2 and G8 or P2, Leftover 3, and G5 to try to more accurately reflect that the P5s don't exist anymore because the Big Ten and SEC have created too much separation from the other 3 quasi power conferences.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
dominated by one or conferences, like it has been recently, it won't be as much fun to watch. If the expanded playoffs bring variety, and parity, it will be fun to watch. Which way it goes, who knows, but if it's the money that wins on the field, then maybe the "G8" needs to break away from the P2, not the other way around.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
from the P2. What I don't know is how much money would follow the G8 under this scenario. It may depend on if the money views the G8 as being on par with the P2 or viewed more like how DII, DIII, and even the NAIA is viewed now. If the G8 (including all the other existing DI conferences) are not viewed as being on par with the P2 for whatever reason, then it could be very hard for the G8 to pull the trigger.
Even if the P2 decide to go semi-pro or pro, the money may not stick around for the G8 like we are seeing now which would be strange given that the G8 would still be the top collegiate level. Given that the US is the only place in the world that values collegiate athletic at a high level, I wonder if at some point the media will view this as an opportunity to try to influence how Americans view collegiate athletics. Basically, the American viewpoint would be reshaped over time so it is more align with how the rest of the world views collegiate athletics (as a club sport). American fans could still cheer for their school like they do now. However, the athletes wearing that school's kit would be pro athletes instead of student-athletes. For the schools that don't wish to participate in pro sports, it could be a golden opportunity to eliminate athletic scholarships which would free up money to be spent elsewhere. Plus, Title IX would no longer be the elephant in the room which could be a huge weight lifted off the schools' shoulders. At least DIII schools don't seem to have to worry about Title IX like you see with DI and DII schools.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
I'd question if ESPN type $ will exist by the mid 2030's a few points to
support this are
1. aging viewership that are the bread & butter currently for ESPN ratings. Many will be dead, don't care etc.
2. continued generational decline interested in attending CFB games. sure, there are plenty of students that do attend but everywhere including places like Alabama the decline continues. If that population isn't interested while attending school, why does anyone think that same set of individuals will care in their 30's & 40's?
3. evolving modes of viewership - can anyone really know how and what media platforms will prevail in 10 to 15 years.
4. Will ESPN even be a dominant player? They are presently in more and more of a downsizing mode.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
(In response to this post by anotherdamnyankeehokie)
3y
Close the gap enough for feasibility. Maybe! Remember the SEC will be a group of great schools beating up on each other. The ACC has much easier way to playoffs. Ask Clemson. Even if lets say CU, FSU, The U and a VT get good. 4 teams competing for title is the way compared to the NFL type scheduling the SEC will take on. Sure they will rule still. They always have though.
IMHO and only mine. The ACC MAG7 desire one thing. ACC that can close gap and move on . See what happens. Time will tell.
In 20 years i desire to hear the happiness from TEXAS and OU. We shall see.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)