The GOR is a contract between the ACC and each school and gives the ACC the rights to the games. It enabled the ACC to negotiate the ACCN as part of the ESPN contract. But even without the GOR, there would be a contract between the ACC and ESPN and the schools would be getting paid some yearly amount. So the GOR is not required and is an optional contract that the ACC chose to implement for how it will execute the ESPN contract. Is that an accurate statement? So is FSU making millions in additional revenue under the GOR? Or are they making that under the ESPN contract because of the GOR negotiating power? I'm uncertain how directly the GOR can be tied to annual revenue and would love to hear the expert views here. Minor thing but his Taylor Swift example didn't read right to me. It just sounded wrong with mixing end consumers, content creators, and other content creators. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say TS had a deal with Ticketmaster to produce and promote her concerts and changed rates on them? The end consumer buying a ticket is not part of this discussion. Right? And lawyers, if you know that FSU has a weak case, do you advise them as such or just happily take their money to represent them? Is this whole thing because a bunch of rich boosters are having a tantrum or do you think they were advised that their case is solid? It's probably a really dumb question (take their money), but figured I'd ask anyway since I do enjoy the insights from this board. Thanks all.

I don't think you have that right. The ACC desperately wanted to launch the ACCN. As I understand it ESPN wanted the ACC to provide them with evidence that they would have all the teams committed for a specific time BEFORE they would make the significant investment to launch the ACCN. So maybe we could have gotten an ESPN deal without the GOR if we gave up on the ACCN. IMHO the specifics of the GOR were not an issue with ESPN, just show me you got one. In one way it is like borrowing when buying a home. The bank (ESPN) requires the borrower (ACC) to show evidence of insurance (GOR) as a condition of closing.

Whether there would still be some smaller contract with ESPN if there was no GOR and no ACCN, we may never know. But we can speculate that it would be shorter and for less money than the ACC gets now (assuming ESPN still wanted the ACC). I know that we will never have all the info. But it’s fun to war game here.

forward and FSU missed this by years in both states. Im no lawyer but it seems this will be another major hurdle for FSU

It’s clearly an ACC biased point of view, but if he does work for Clemson, it could indicate where a very quiet Clemson stands.

not case related, but (I) always felt for those not in a major conference such as apSt or jmu: "...inherently anticompetitive system of collegiate athletics itself – which on its face is an exceedingly closed system of competition – where schools like Appalachian State and East Carolina have near-impossible odds at joining a major conference like the ACC," The final paragraph referencing the potential acc specific member damages (due to fsu's actions) is interesting...and would release another volley of lawsuits should fsu exit (some damage may already exist?). anyway, "fun" to watch...and although fsu fans seem very confident, i wouldn't bet on it!

An interesting read and a good contrast for an article from a Pro ACC position against one sharing the Pro FSU position.