ACC filing amended complaint against FSU seeking damages (link)
Link:
ESPN Story
92 Replies
H
HokieZig
2y
Apparently the ACC added the 3 schools without input from ESPN. ESPN is not happy with ACC because they did not want to add 3 schools at a prorated price.
The ESPN contract with ACC turns to renewable each year by ESPN after 2025 season.
ESPN will be losing money with the addition of 3 schools and will not renew the contract. They will be happy with just the SEC.
Apparently the yearly renewing of the contract was not known by the schools.
The GOR will be invalidated and schools will be free to leave.
(In response to this post by Nortazhokie)
I'll give you something equally as likely
Trump wins 2024 and goes after the Mouse for anti trust issues and college sports. The FTC fine ends up at a trillion dollars and the Mouse has to liquidate its parks. DJT then buys Orlando on the cheap, puts DeSantis in charge of the new "Trump World", and Ivanka plays Snow White.
** Edited by MrBayAreaHokie at 1/19/2024, 3:55:45 PM
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
In a kinda warped way, I could see that Orlando scenario play out……
Would be very entertaining to watch.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
why would espn care, there was no $$ to those three
Also, the first couple Stanford vs X and Cal vs Y games will get better ratings than BC vs GT would have by a mile, and the three amigos aren't getting any money for awhile so who cares.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
W
WBGV
2y
informed them that the conference was expanding. I can’t imagine that the executives at ESPN were happy about ACC expansion. The three schools added have a history of poor viewership which is what networks care about the most.
Greg Flugaur, who has a very good track record when it comes to conference realignment, has received information that Clemson will follow FSU’s lead and legally challenge the GOR before the end of February. He feels that others schools are also considering doing the same following Clemson’s announcement.
Probably every member of the ACC has already had multiple discussions with the other three power conference attempting to solidify alternative membership plans if ESPN decides not to exercise their 'unilateral' option and end the media rights deal with the ACC. This option wasn’t even known to the public until recently, but the schools involved certainly would have had this information and acted accordingly.
I believe that the actions of schools like FSU, Clemson, Mag7, and other ACC schools have been and are being driven by the possibility that the conference could be without a media partner in the near future willing to pay them an amount that allows them to remain competitive at the highest level. This was the main reason for the downfall of the 108-year-old conference on the west coast, and could be the downfall of the ACC on the east coast.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
S
SMU Pony
2y
My alma mater certainly does, and Cal's numbers have underwhelmed in recent years (although I wonder what they did back when Tedford had them nationally relevant), but in terms of TV valuation, I recall Bob Thompson (former Fox Sports exec) estimating that Stanford's value was somewhere in the $45M/year range (he had Oregon at $30M).
https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/2022/07/04/stunning-deta...
(In response to this post by WBGV)
2y
underestimate SMU. They can, and will recruit like the best of them now that they are in a power conference, and will raise a lot of eyebrows moving forward.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
2y
The ACC would not have expanded without first getting a guarantee (or at least a very reliable estimate) of what additional money in-state rates for the ACC Network in TX and CA would generate.
Had the ACC just added the three schools unilaterally, it risked bringing down the per-school payout of its existing members.
And as others here have indicated, the expansion gives ESPN access to late-night windows it lost when the PAC imploded.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
2y
(In response to this post by WBGV)
R
ren_hoek
2y
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
V
VTCALS72
2y
I think it fare more likely that ESPN strongly suggested those schools be added.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
2y
There is a lot of speculation about what happened. In its suit the ACC states that the members, including FSU, specifically authorized all ESPN agreements. So, they are saying the yearly renewing was known by the member schools.
There is no solid reporting from ESPN or the ACC about ESPNs opinion concerning the expansion. So that is all speculation.
FSU and its surrogates have been waging a fierce public information campaign on this issue while ESPN and the ACC have been silent.
The GOR is separate from the Media agreements.
** Edited by vtfaninnc at 1/18/2024, 7:06:24 PM
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
2y
The Grant of Rights is an agreement between the Conference and its members. The transaction with ESPN, is just selling these rights to the highest bidder. So ESPN bought exclusive rights to the ACC and gives ACC money for broadcasting the spectrum of ACC activities. ACC could go out and solicit bids from other media companies.
Also, one aspect is ACCN.. if ESPN pulls, so does the ACCN. My question was ESPN agreed to up front the cost for the ACCN and the the schools had to build ESPN level studios at each institution. If ESPN pulls out, does these institutions demand pay for the studios from ESPN??
I do think the ACC is prepared to lock down, and this will go to Federal court and perhaps to the Supreme Court.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Maybe in 2025 that deal doesn't renew but the GOR will still be with the ACC as they re negotiate.
(In response to this post by DMV Gobbler)
2y
I’d imagine they would do the same with the ACCN. It already shares space in Charlotte with the SECN so there is little to get rid of. My guess is ESPN would love to not have to bundle it in its package it sells to service providers, which it wouldn’t have to do if they closed it down.
(In response to this post by DMV Gobbler)
2y
(In response to this post by hokieball)
2y
Regardless of conference membership?
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by hokieball)
2y
If ESPN opts to not renew the contract, then wouldn’t the ACCN go with it since ESPN owns the network? I’m not seeing where the ACC would have a say in that.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
they have a good deal paying the ACC schools 40 million, while they pay the SEC schools 80 million. It’s all about the math 💵.
I still think not much happens until pay for play is resolved. The small expensive private schools get huge donations from former Olympic Sports Graduates. Stanford leads the way at making this happen. What does pay for play have to do with pay for play? Well almost all if not all of the College Coaches of Olympic Sports think there will be Sports cut if pay for play happens. Consequently, if there is a way to opt out of pay for play, they take the Ivy League approach, and opt out of pay for play. Because like the ivies they get big donor money from those former Olympic Sports Athletes.
(In response to this post by hokieball)
2
2hhoop3
2y
your info that the small, expensive privates get huge donations from Olympic Sports Graduates?
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
a couple of decades. Small especially expensive private schools function very different from large state schools. Their football and basketball is more of camaraderie tool than a revenue tool. They care more as the SEC likes to say about Olympic Sports. They recruit heavily to other sports and get great donations from former players who go through regular admissions and go on in many cases to become successful as Doctors, Dentist, Lawyers and Business Owners. I had one coach tell me in a sport that usually has 10 on a team, that he has 25 on the team. Most if not all are on scholarship, many times it’s an Academic Scholarship.
PS This is why Notre Dame wanted in the ACC more than any other Power Conference, they gave up some Independence in football to get an Eastern home for their Olympic Athletes, where many come from. It’s also why they lead the ACC in grabbing Stanford etc for the ACC. Olympic Sports in small private schools is a big way they raise money for the school.
** Edited by Stech at 1/20/2024, 10:20:55 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
wasn't whether they get donations from former players but, whether those donations were "huge" in the context of the overall athletic department. I know they are significant to individual programs and I have no doubt the players are successful and their donations are significant.
I just questioned how substantial in relation to the entire athletic department they might be. Having friends in leadership positions and coaching at ND, Duke and Stanford my understanding of their donor situations tells me they are not markedly different from UVA, VT and others in form, not absolute dollars. They have the occasional whale that might carry a non-rev, most have a cadre of loyal former players and friends of the program that sustain a sport in the absence of a whale and absent the first two options they rely on department funds and individual fundraising efforts.
I agree some will opt for the Ivy League approach. The issue is not all have Ivy League endowments and funding sources to create a team situation like you recounted.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
schools, or Duke, ND or even a public ivy. That said, if you think that I think there is no worry about pay for play, and how it affects Olympic Sports, nothing could be further from the truth. However, it seems like a run away freight train right now (hope that’s not true), but if it is, I could see donors redirecting their money. Maybe that’s wishful thinking on my part, but do you have another solution? I’m all ears if you do, and I would love to hear it. I’m very invested in Olympic Sports, is an understatement. You don’t know who I am or what I do, but if you did, this conversation direction would be totally different.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
how I interpreted your huge donor comment and my understanding of the make up and my original post was literally to understand your source and perspective on the comment you originally made. I did not make any judgement, or at least I do not think I did as to your opinion or worry on pay for play. You're right I don't know who you are or what you do aside from the inklings and allusions to you considering yourself very important and tied into information that others have no idea on. I asked the original question and pisted the subsequent reply just sharing my rationale. I am sorry you seemed to have taken offense as my intention was not trying to pick a fight.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
few in the college arena.
Your description of considering yourself a very important person, is insulting, but you know that and just can’t help yourself with your insults when you feel insecure. Too bad, IMHO, I thought the insults had stopped, but evidently not. I see your opinions even when I don’t agree with them, as valuable, but there is no doubt in my mind you have proven that people that disagree with you are going to take a shot. Too bad, intellectually I enjoy our post, until you take another shot. I don’t know who taught you to act that way, but I have no doubt you can do much better with your intelligence.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
Texas network never made money.
(In response to this post by hokieball)
2y
Deal was so bad that wouldn't surprise me.
My thought is ESPN holds more cards than the ACC.
(In response to this post by DMV Gobbler)
2y
an established sports channel.
(In response to this post by DMV Gobbler)
2y
No more underwater spurdle tac shaving devices with super led lighting.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
M
Marooned
2y
Haven’t been back east in many years and it’s been a blessing.
(In response to this post by VTNuke)
2y
that people would watch. There is an entire G5 and the B12 without a network.
(In response to this post by VTNuke)
2y
At Pro Rata rates. The SEC has the same clause. Anything after 4 would have to be negotiated with ESPN.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
T
Truthahn
2y
But just them. And replace them with several top B12 teams. Four would be fine with me.
There will be several CFP teams in that group by then. Let FSU pay their exit fees for them.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
2y
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
S
Stech
2y
never seen where he has said that, but would like to see it if he has said it. TIA
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
2y
with the unilateral right to cancel the contract in 2025. ESPN will be able to renegotiate and likely get the terms they want. If they don't like the addition of the 3 new schools they will reduce the payment for those schools.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
D
daveinop
2y
The ACC is screwed because they have to wait until 2036 to renegotiate
The ACC is screwed because they can renegotiate in the next couple years
(In response to this post by Dbl Eagle)
T
Truthahn
2y
Conventional wisdom is that the ACC media deal is undervalued.
I think we would love to have our TV contract cancelled, especially if we are considering bringing in some CFP teams. By then, someone from the AAC will even have been a CFP team. USF might look great by then.
(In response to this post by Dbl Eagle)
2y
They have all foregone payment.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
H
HokieZig
2y
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2y
gets more money from ESPN because it added more schools.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
T
Truthahn
2y
The ACCN will be much better for it. Everyone wins with those additions, IMO.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
Agree, I think ESPN likes the SF Bay additions...
since ESPN had no major presence in California with USC and UCLA joining the Big 10 and having TV deals with Fox Sports/NBC. I'm not a fan of adding those two schools (because of traveling issues) but it won't hurt the ACC or the ACC Network.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
H
HOO86
2y
ESPN doesn't have the Mountain West, and they were offering $100 million to the PAC12. ESPN wants west coast presence. The ACC gives it, and the Big12 gives Arizona.
ESPN doesn't object to the ACC additions. If travel can be limited as promised, then the ACC can also address your concern too.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
T
TerryD
2y
...the ACC doesn't pay full shares to Stanford and Cal for a set number of years and pays nothing to SMU during that same time period.
The existing members divvy up the extra pro rata payments received by the ACC from ESPN for the new additions.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
2y
B12. If FSU considers themselves worth more than everyone else in the conference, then by God, cut them loose, It's toxic.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Why cut them loose for less than they think they are worth?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
All they have do to is pay up
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
FSU estimates this would be around $572 million. That sounds about right. The problem is that FSU doesn't want to have to pay that to leave the conference early.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
They are receiving half shares until the Big 10 signs a new contract in 2029.
And that Rutgers and Maryland only received what they were supposed to receive from the Big East(AAC) and the ACC for the first years of their membership in the Big 10.
SMU isn't complaining because they will be receiving more in NCAA tourney payouts and CFP payouts than they received in total from the AAC.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
2y
you get the leftovers. You join at the beginning, you eat at the grownups table.
People will really get upset when they learn that conferences used to make unequal payouts 25 years ago, and that in the ACC that meant that Duke and UNC got the largest payouts because the tv contract was based on basketball.
Oh, and that when FSU was looking to join a conference, the SEC and B1G were not the conferences that paid out the most, it was the ACC, so for all of FSU's football prowess in the 90's, they were living off the backs of Duke, Maryland, and UNC basketball.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
Arizona State and Utah that think they should be in the Big 10, and didn't want to be in the B12. Except for them, everyone else is on the same page, with a chip on their shoulder. I wouldn't want FSU in the B12 any more than I'd want texas back - as I don't think either one of them are worth the headache.
The 4 corners, and the 4 before them, all came in at full share. Now, they don't receive the exit fees, but at the same time, all eight were welcomed as full members.
The new B12 contract does not start until 2025, yet they all get full shares until then. If VT would go to the BIG or SEC for a lower share - even if it's for a period of time, then they too are grabbing their ankles, and I don't see why any university would do that - including Oregon and Washington - or even Maryland and Rutgers.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
V
VTCALS72
2y
the income trend for the P2 is upward. The income trend for everybody else will be sharply downward. Yourmark did a great job with the perfect timing of the P2/advertisers/media not being able to complete their expansions, due mainly to the ACC and GOR.
Once the teams that the Big and SEC can't get to right now because of GOR, is done, expect both the ACC and Big 12 to get way less simply because the P2 will be the only national football and everybody else will only be regional conferences that won't get what the G5 gets now.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
overpaid for the BIG. College ball is regional, and while they do have the national brands consolidated in two conferences, the luster of those natchus will fade as they are conference games now.
Unless Nebraska is actually competing for a playoff berth, their ratings will continue to be dismal. If Oregon falters like Nebraska, they too will be irrelevent unless they are competing for a playoff berth. The matchups between USC and Penn State will only bring ratings if one or both are vying for a conference championship.
You watch - whichever G5 team is vying for that playoff berth late in the season will get the same kind of ratings as a mid or low conference matchup in the BIG. The same goes for the ACC and B12.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
to major bowls, or the final four, they might be able to justify those expenditures - but they really are not competitive in anything, are they?
Where are all the big time donors? Or even the fan base making donations? Rutgers was not a really good fit in the BIG from the get go, maybe they should consider going to the AAC.
(In response to this post by vtfaninnc)
No kidding, Big 10 pays boat loads of money
Why Maryland left.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
2y
(In response to this post by VaTechHokiesACC)
2y
The Grant of Rights document was written by some of the best attorneys in the nation who graduated from some of the best law schools in the country. Duke, UNC, UVA and Miami. (and now bringing in Stanford), how many supreme court justices came from these schools.
ACC has been preparing for this. (FSU is going to string this, like another ex-president is doing, and make it a public forum. ACC will just work the process, with no press.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
there are opinions all over the place. What I think will happen, is that FSU and the ACC will end up with a figure that FSU is willing to pay, but high enough that it would not be feasible for many to follow - P2 invite or not.
What I do know is that in 2014 a Big 12 network was proposed, and Texas led the fight to not get one. In fairness, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and even KU thought they would be better off not tying themselves down for a long term contract. So I have lived this once, and if there are teams in a conference that think they are better than the rest, it's time to cut bait, as I don't see this ending well if it actually goes to trial.
(In response to this post by DMV Gobbler)
2y
FSU is crappy when it comes to raising money. They, Louisville, and Clemson are in the bottom 3 in endowment in the ACC with Clemson coming in at just over $1 billion and Louisville and FSU coming in under $900 million.
At the other end you have UNC, Pitt, UVA, ND, and Duke all over $5 billion, so who do you think can raise the funds needed to buy out the GOR?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
some schools could or couldn't come up with that kind of money - it's more like how many of them would pay that kind of money.
It's my guess, spitball, opinion, grabbing it out of my ***, that the settlement will come in around $200M - $250M.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
2y
$200 million / 14 remaining schools / 12 years left on the GoR = $1.2 million per school per year. That's peanuts to the rest of the remaining schools' athletic budgets. Especially for the smaller private schools in the ACC it's worth much more to defend the GoR in court to keep the conference intact for as long as possible.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
trial has risks. The all or nothing stance might be good for the fans, but schools that could really use their chunk of an extra $250M might think otherwise.
Risk vs reward. Do you really want an FSU in the conference that doesn't want to be? from my perspective, FSU's public outcries have put the ACC at risk, not the media of GOR agreements. They will not pay $500M++, but would they pay 1/2 of that? I don't know, it seems that the conference should want schools that want to be in the conference, otherwise, it's just a matter of time.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
2y
The top ACC schools would all be heading for the exit. So there really is no risk in fighting the case in court all the way, because if they lose in court it would just be the same outcome as settling the case. The only way the ACC remains as a power conference into the 2030s is if they win the case and FSU is forced to stick around.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 1/19/2024, 1:17:30 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
2-4 do have P2 invites for the sake of argument. We already have a template of schools joining a new conference in the middle of a contract. Oregon, Washington, Cal, Sanford and SMU come to mind. None of those schools had a $250M exit fee on top of getting what, 1/2 the revenue for most?
I'm not at convinced that it pencils out for many - as a matter of fact, I have FSU as the only one. UNC could get an invite, but I'm still not convinced they would go. Miami is a private, but I'm not convinced they have an invite. I'm not convinced Clemson has an invite either.
There are a lot of ACC schools that make sense in the P2, but say FSU is willing to pay 250-300M, would the others fall all over themselves to leave the ACC? Even if they did, the ACC remains a power conference that can compete, no different than the B12.
Fear of the unknown is tough as a fan, but there will still be football, and an expanded playoff. As a fan of the B12, I like all the schools in the league except ASU and Utah - and that is because they think they are too good for us.
Next year, an Oklahoma State, or a K-state, or a Utah, or a few others, will be in the playoffs. Maybe 2 of them. it's my contention that Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, A&M, and Oklahoma will be sitting at home watching them. How cool will that be?
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
2
2hhoop3
2y
that fantasy world you reside in if you think the Big 12 will have multiple playoff teams while Texas and OU sit home but, you do have 2 more years to fantasize before all conference autobids gets scrapped in favor of the Top ranked teams.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
at a VT home game in two years. Lane is on my bucket list, and i don't care which conference VT is in, I'll be there.
Wouldn't it be fun if the KU VT game wasn't a conference game, but a playoff game. (will need help getting tickets if it's a playoff game).
I have no doubt that several former B12 teams will be watching 1, 2, or 3 current B12 teams in the expanded playoffs in the very near future. You heard it here first.
BTW, if I'm right, the bar tab is on you, if I'm wrong, it will be first class all the way.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
R
RJHokie
2y
about the three new schools. I seem to remember news about ESPN providing some TV money relative to the new schools.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
H
HokieZig
2y
They have to pay at a prorated price and those schools don't bring in the tv viewership. Go look at the TV numbers for those schools. They will take a bath on those schools. There is no way ESPN approved it. ESPN is trying to cut costs. Not increase spending with little in return.
Phillips kept this from the ACC schools and FSU is learning all this now. FSU has an out, and they don't even have to fight the GOR.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
Without the additions of Stanford and Cal, ESPN would effectively be shut out of the state of California, and for the most part the Pacific time zone.
With Stanford and Cal, ESPN now has that late night window for games and has now added a late night window on the ACC Network.
Plus, the additions of Texas and California to the ACC Network to the "in state" footprint means that the ACC Network subscription fees from those 2 states will just about pay for those schools to join the ACC. Oh, and ESPN gets a nice check for themselves by having those schools in and it doesn't cost them a thing since the schools provide production for the ACC Network.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
2
2hhoop3
2y
actually think about the likelihood that the assertions you parrot could occur without the knowledge of a variety of parties, including FSU, instead of blindly buying what is being shoveled.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Would guess those three are paying their way.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
2y
... be as stupid as Phillips allegedly adding 6-8 years to the GOR without the schools ok.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)