According to Flugaur FSU related
In his show last night he said FSU is prepared to pay $190M to $210M to get out of the ACC before 2025 football season. He’s getting this through FSU “money perch”. Take it for what it’s worth. Seems like they are Big Ten bound after the ESPN issues.
115 Replies
2y
they have nothing to lose. Why would they settle for 40 cents on the dollar?
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
O
ombandit
2y
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
T
Truthahn
2y
Can you imagine how much more they would want to leave the ACC had we not done that?
Seriously, why did we do that? It just gives them more money to leave.
** Edited by Truthahn at 2/24/2024, 8:19:43 AM
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
2y
Media rights are for home game on FSU campus. FSU should simply schedule neutral and away games for a few years until the buyback for media rights is manageable. would suck for students on campus, but none of this considers students anyway. Let the ACC keep the basketball media rights (and any other sport). But for football, neutral site and away games,
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
2y
Are season ticket holders going to buy another set of season tickets? The visiting team does not get any of the gate at away games. How many athletes are going to hop into the portal if these kind of shenanigans happen? 'Hey mom, we will be playing our home games at Ladd Peebles stadium in Mobile next season'
(In response to this post by HokieToph)
2y
being a possibility for FSU or any other DI-FBS school.
"20.10.9.2 Football Scheduling Requirements. [FBS] The institution shall schedule and play at least 60 percent of its football games against members of the Football Bowl Subdivision. The institution shall schedule and play at least five regular-season home games against Football Bowl Subdivision opponents. For purposes of satisfying the home-games requirement, a contest shall be considered a home contest if it is played in the stadium in which an institution conducts at least 50 percent of its home contests. In addition, an institution may use one home contest against a Football Bowl Subdivision member conducted at a neutral site to satisfy the home-games requirement. (Revised: 4/25/02 effective 8/1/04, 1/12/04, 12/15/06, 10/6/17)"
FWIW it appears that the DI-FCS may not have any requirements for minimum number of home games. At least I don't see any minimum home game requirements identified in "Bylaw 20.10.10.2 Football Scheduling Requirement. [FCSD]." If FSU wanted to try to play that game, then FSU might have to switch to DI-FCS to do it.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 2/23/2024, 2:16:41 PM
Link:
NCAA DI Manual 2023-24
(In response to this post by HokieToph)
2y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
The "Home Stadium" must be used for at least 5 games, and in neutral site games one team is designated as the "Home Team", so there really are no workarounds.
(In response to this post by realityhokie)
2y
games against FBS opponents. Also, FSU isn't satisfying this requirement, "For purposes of satisfying the home-games requirement, a contest shall be considered a home contest if it is played in the stadium in which an institution conducts at least 50 percent of its home contests." Plus, FSU is only allows to count 1 neutral site game as a home game, "In addition, an institution may use one home contest against a Football Bowl Subdivision member conducted at a neutral site to satisfy the home-games requirement." Basically if a FBS school wants to meet the minimum requirement, then it has 2 options:
Option 1: 5 home games in the school's designated stadium (Doak Campbell Stadium for FSU); or
Option 2: 4 home games in the school's designated stadium and 1 neutral site game.
Hence why I said switching to DI-FCS may be the only loophole to that requirement because FCS schools are not subject to FBS rules and vice versa. If a bylaw applies to both subdivisions, then it won't include [FBS] or [FCSD] after the name.
(In response to this post by realityhokie)
2y
and I think FSU has a legitimate chance of getting the final exit number much lower.
A quick google search shows the following exit fees for college athletic conferences:
ACC $130M plus media rights
SEC $45M (was $0 before 2021)
BIG (unknown, seems to just be media rights)
B12 (UT and OU paid $50M each in just media rights)
AAC $10M
MWC $17M
PAC no exit fee
From what I can tell, no school has ever paid more than the $50M that UT and OU will be paying. Maryland ten years ago paid $32M to the ACC. Several of the recent B12 additions paid $45M to the AAC because they left early. But the ACC $130M fee plus media rights is clearly abnormal and excessive.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
2y
The GOR represents the IP that FSU rented to the ACC. They are now saying it is worth MORE than $500 mullion. That's why they want to leave early. Its not a fee, its a commodity priced at market value. Their only hope it to beat the GOR in court.
OU and UT were in the last year of their GOR. Not 12 years away.
Maryland did not sign a GOR. They are the reason the ACC instituted one.
The Big Ten has a similar GOR. Guess who doesn't? The SEC. That's why we are hearing all this A&M to the Big Ten chatter.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2
2hhoop3
2y
and corrections. Maryland did not sign a GOR because at that time the idea was new, a product of the Big 12, and the ACC instituted one as a way to entice a long term media deal and bind the conference and individual member institutions. Neither the SEC or B1G have GORs as their necessity is to long term TV deals and protecting conferences and media partners to exposure should a member institution leave. Those threats are minimal or non-existent to both the SEC and B1G. The A&M chatter isn't due to the non-existence of a GOR, it is A&M once again playing the role of whiny little brother. Neither of the P2 want to get into a title for tat school swapping situation for a variety of reasons.
(In response to this post by vtfaninnc)
L
lawhokie
2y
Ex ante FSU wanted high exit fees to maintain a stable conference. Funny how that works.
** Edited by lawhokie at 2/24/2024, 9:06:32 AM
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
it also placed pressure on the schools to sign the GOR because Swofford was determined to launch the ACCN as he looked to cement his legacy before he retired, then that might be similar to having the proverbial gun to their head. At the very least it appears the ACC may have withheld all the facts before asking the schools to sign the document. Whether that was done intentionally or unintentionally will be up to the courts to decide.
(In response to this post by BROman Hokie)
V
VTCALS72
2y
everybody else signed over their rights until 2036. I think FSU trying to prove they signed under duress will be a hard sell.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
then I agree it will be hard to prove. However, if it was done via an email, fax, or memo, then FSU may have enough evidence to make a case. At the very least it may make the judge think long and hard before rendering a verdict.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Now they think the are above the ACC and want out for very little or for free. That is what it boils down to.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2
2hhoop3
2y
if their was misinformation or duress then FSU would not be the only one crying foul and it would be easy to prove just putting other members on the stand. Moreover, if you are the ACC and you know that to be a fact, no less a relatively easy fact to prove, going through the dog and pony show of denial is a waste of time and resources better devoted to working toward resolution.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
piece of information. Now whether that was intentionally withheld by the ACC will be up to the courts to decide. As far as why other ACC schools are not joining FSU, a possible explanation is why stick your neck out on the line when someone else is already willing to do it. Another possible explanation is the people involved at the schools have changed over the years, so they may not have enough of the details to know exactly how everything went down. It is possible the ACC believes that fact is open to interpretation and they are willing to take their chances in court than wave the white flag. If this goes to trial, then I am expecting both sides to present a strong enough case that the verdict is a toss up. However, if this is settled then it would suggest that the one party (most likely the ACC) didn't have a strong enough case. If FSU is the one with the weak case, then there is no reason for the ACC to settle because it benefits from maintaining the status quo.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
what you wrote again to make sure that is what you meant to say. While doing that you may want to actually research the tenure at the ACC schools as there are plenty of people around long enough to know the details. Perhaps that's FSU's problem, how long have their leaders been around.
Your argument about sticking their neck out is pretty weak as the truth always comes out and, if FSU knows things, you can bet others do as well. Your argument on settling is a stretch. Settling, in and of itself does not indicate one party had a stronger case than another. The actual terms MAY give a hint as well but, without knowing the final objectives, projected costs and likely assessment of other legal factors you're assuming a lot.
Taking your chances in court is a lot like asking a question in court. It is best to already know the answer to the question to be asked and you take your chances only after assessing the probabilities and likelihood and it is very unlikely a fact such as withholding information or duress is something open to much interpretation, particularly when multiple parties(conference members) are receiving the same information.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
S
SMU Pony
2y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
action dictates the statue of limitation, I would assume FSU's legal team has done its due diligence in the event the ACC tries to argue FSU's case is passed the statue of limitation.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
2y
My point was really around the "withdrawal fee/penalty" as described in the FSU lawsuit. Go to page 20 of the FSU suit. They clearly talk about both costs together.
20
The Economic Cost of the ACC’s Existing Penalty Apparatus in 2023
90. The total operating budget for the ACC in 2023 was $43.3 million. Under the
Severe ACC Withdrawal Penalty, three times that amount is approximately $130 million. Now,
because of the ACC GofR Extension, ACC members face a withdrawal penalty of $572 million,
comprised of: (i) $429 million for the forfeiture of media rights through 2036 ($33M x 13 years)
(ii) $13 million for unreimbursed broadcast fees ($1M x 13 years); and (iii) the Severe ACC
Withdrawal Penalty of $130 million. The runaway escalation of the withdrawal penalty package
is depicted as follows:
Link:
FSU lawsuit against ACC
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
what was promised to the other members of conference when the agreement was signed. They actually are describing what everyone knew when they signed and why they signed, to keep people from leaving.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
V
VTCALS72
2y
That is what FSU is trying to get away from because it could cost them way more that the entirely separate exit fees.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2
2hhoop3
2y
a little more research and thinking. Specifically, you might want to read the decisions and arguments surrounding Maryland's departure from the ACC. You may also want to ask yourself what was the wording in the exit agreements for those other conferences, how did they arrive at those amounts and how do those terms, not necessarily the amounts, compare to the ACC agreement. Judges, at least impartial ones, will likely be asking similar questions I would imagine.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
There is the actual exit fee of $130 million (which is excessive by itself).
There is the cost of media rights for every year of the ESPN contract (which is the GOR portion of the money).
I'm viewing in the same way FSU is. In order for them to exit the ACC, they would need to pay the large exit fee plus buyout the media rights up through 2036. All together that large exit cost is what is being challenged.
So yes, the GOR is the big rock, but everything is connected in what needs to be settled in court.
(In response to this post by Stech)
L
lawhokie
2y
…that the exit fee is excessive. When FSU signed the document they wanted a stable conference which required a high exit fee. FSU had a decade to think about it and did nothing. They only decided it was excessive when they wanted out.
It’s the same old argument made by every party that made a deal they later regret. Don’t just regurgitate the tropes used by FSU.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2
2hhoop3
2y
that fees are excessive and you are entitled to your opinion. However, determining whether they are excessive actually involves consideration of the factors involved in determining the amounts and whether parties were all involved in determining those amounts AND whether they voluntarily signed the agreements. Did FSU voice objections when agreement was being designed? Did they vote against ratifying said agreement? Did they voluntarily sign the agreement anyway? I think these are all relevant questions lawyers and/or judges will ask in the course of proceedings.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
Yes I agree that there will be a lot of questions by the court about how the GOR, ACC constitution, and relevant dollar amounts were arrived at. And who was involved and what did they know and agree to, and what process was used. All relevant questions.
But that is in addition to the arguments raised by FSU. Again, these are not my opinions, I'm just agreeing with the opinions of FSU around the withdrawal costs. (see page 20 of this linked file)
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
opinions if you are agreeing with FSU's opinions in their filings. Whether they are FSU's, yours are somebody else's the same questions apply in evaluating the reasonableness and fact of them.
I have read the filings and FSU's pleadings for relief. I have also read the ACC's filings. About the only thing I am sure of is it would be popcorn TV watching BOTH sides make their case but, I am skeptical if it ever gets that far and I am unsure at present whether either side or an "interested third party" provides the impetus for settlement negotiations.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
I'm just trying to share some info and thoughts on TSL.
Sure someone will have to evaluate the reasonableness of the arguments. And how the various contracts and penalties were created and approved will likely be a big factor in who wins.
Maybe I'm just reading too much into the comments here. It's all good. We will all get to enjoy some more popcorn moments as this insanity moves forward. I think there is an NC court update expected in March from what I read.
Who knew that a VT sports website would ever get this deep into contract law and conference/school finances? LOL
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
with what you said and have no problem with sharing information with the board. My challenge was not to litigate the case but, to examine the reasonableness of agreeing with FSU's opinion on excessiveness without evaluating the validity. I think we all should examine the validity of claims on BOTH sides versus accepting them on face.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
** Edited by HokieNoVA at 2/23/2024, 12:11:01 PM
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
2y
to be deposed - no current or past leaders including any U. Presidents
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Why? I think FSU has more to lose by this going to trial. I think they have already p!$$ed off ESPN and the ACC and if they are not careful, their black eye may decrease there value to the Big.
(In response to this post by 133193Hokie)
2y
FSU legals find) and maybe get $500m. I think most would settle on the $250m
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
I know people stew over the UNC domination of the ACC and Swofford but if all FSU really has is that the ACC did not keep pace with the P2, and the "peers" who at that time were the Big 12 and PAC couldn't keep pace either, then what does FSU have?
And I also am of the belief the way FSU p!$$ed off ESPN and there is a degree of birds of a feather in the media, the Big 10 could tell FSU that the circus for them to get to the big 10 optics are just too bad. Settle now or we are not taking you.
(In response to this post by 133193Hokie)
2y
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
2y
That's not an amount of $$ they should be willing to give up for the sake of convenience or bad PR.
And if the ACC and/or ESPN committed some sort of malfeasance and they're willing to settle for peanuts in order to avoid discovery, then that sounds like there's a completely different lawsuit that needs to be filed (rest of the ACC schools vs the conference).
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
V
VTCALS72
2y
would think the ACC has the strong hand. The legality of the GOR must be settled first.
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
2
2hhoop3
2y
raises some interesting considerations. If there is malfeasance on the part of the ACC there is likely no suit as the rest of the ACC schools would be essentially suing themselves for their own negligence and malfeasance. If ESPN were linked then things could get interesting. I have said it before, if the ACC settles for a minimum amount they should fire Phillips, shut the doors and all go their own ways because the conference formerly known as the ACC is dead or dead man walking.
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
2
2hhoop3
2y
and the question is how much would they be willing to give up in settlement for that. I doubt they would or should consider anywhere near the ,50 on the dollar, or less, that some have predicted here.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
2y
it out over the GOR term years. But yeah, why settle for what's likely less than half.
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
V
VTCALS72
2y
to be true but it most likely is not true.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
200 million would be about 12.5 million per school (16 teams)
if SMU, Cal and Stanford are counted, and ND is not. But I'm not sure how the money would be split up.
Maybe I'm just influenced by current inflation realities, but that doesn't seem like very much money for us at the cost of losing FSU. But on the other hand, FSU could win the lawsuit and walk out the door without paying a dime.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
V
Vippie1
2y
The way that VT and others Athletic Departments piss through money, it won't be much of a windfall.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2
2hhoop3
2y
they have burned their bridges and the questions left to answer are what might it cost them and can they accomplish their goals before their program takes another dive.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
T
Truthahn
2y
The early CFP predictions don't even have them winning the ACC or even being in the playoffs. I think they are being picked to be ranked around 16th right now. Their collapse last year and huge bowl game loss really hurt their reputation.
** Edited by Truthahn at 2/24/2024, 8:31:33 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
O
obguthr
2y
They aren't going anywhere without their media rights. They will pay it.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Less that $300 is an insult to the conference. If they want out with anything less, they need to pay the ACC $25M/year on top of that initial payment until the GOR expires.
Heck, I would hit them with punitive damages for devaluating the ACC. ESPN will want to hit them for damages too. Would love to see F$U football completely crushed financially for 10+ years.
(In response to this post by obguthr)
T
Truthahn
2y
Agree to pay them some more money to get them to stay at least through the GOR term. ESPN could do it by paying them for a reality TV show or something to keep it separate from the ACC. Heck, people might even watch that, now that FSU is so notorious.
They don't want to lose them to some other network, and trash the ACC's value in the process. It just has to be enough to make it very difficult to justify leaving.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2
2hhoop3
2y
however, I think that sets an even worse precedent. FSU has an overinflated sense of their worth, not unlike some other schools, and a dose of reality seems in order. I believe this situation got started because FSU was looking for excuses and a way to distract their fan base from the actual athletic and university administration's performance. I think they have overplayed their hand but, we shall see.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
2y
ESPN won't up their SEC contract to get FSU to join the SEC, and the Big10 now knows that they are desperate to join the conference so they will give them the UO, UW, UMCP, and Rutgers treatment of getting a half share for the next 5 years.
Not only will FSU go into the Big10 at a disadvantage, but they will be getting almost no media money since they will be paying off their ACC debt.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2
2hhoop3
2y
and poetic justice of that potential outcome would be pretty rich.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...from there. Don't start anywhere close to what they want to pay. It needs to be MUCH higher!
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2
2hhoop3
2y
They should take what they can and all that they can. As part of that strategy, the need a number as a floor considering all the factors and below which they will roll the dice in court. Not really sure how they go about implementing that strategy as some of the same member institutions they will likely seek input from COULD fall on the other side of the coin if the buyout number is too low. Certainly a delicate dance at present given the multiple players and where their own thinking may reside.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
discovery process is ongoing. What I do know, is that FSU deserves no quarter from the ACC.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
In my opinion, the floor debate hinges on what number will motivate members to stay with the conference and try to move on as a group. Too low of a number and others are likely headed for the door so at that point a conference likely to cease to exist is not risking much rolling the dice in court.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
TerryD
2y
High enough to deter others.
Low enough that FSU can scrape it together.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
I still contend that it's too risky for the ACC, and the GOR's as we understand them.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
V
VTCALS72
2y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
and conferences as we know them that would be at risk.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
If no one else in the ACC, Big 12 or P 2 has challenged it, how can one school challenge an industry standard?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
this goes to trial (and I don't think it will), we will find out a LOT about these contracts. right now, we only know what is announced or reported.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Speculating again, the Big 10( or SEC ) tells FSU, "drop it or we will drop you." What then?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
2y
yourself if you think either the SEC or the B1G have any real concerns about GORs. Neither conference is really concerned about losing a school and even if they did others would be scrambling to get to the head of the line to replace them.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
they would. The BIG and SEC already have a huge advantage on every front. I don't think they will lose sleep if FSU is not brought into their conference. Now, wouldn't that be poetic justice.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
below, as it pretty much hits the nail on the head as far as my opinion goes.
Link:
ESPN unleashes firestorm
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
V
VTCALS72
2y
All those podcast and talking heads are more about what is controversial to get clicks. Most want trade secrets out because it gets clicks. So they combine parts of the ESPN deal with parts of the GOR and try to weave them together to make FSU look like a victim rather than FSU being the bad guy. I mean where does the idea that ESPN is just itching to cut and run from the ACC? But all we get is "if ESPN opts out" is speculating on an action that has not occurred and may well not happen at all. After all ESPN is the part of the deal with the Big 12 and the ACC will have to lose several teams before the Big 12 has any advantage.
I believe both the Big 12 and ACC have a similar future which is both being about the same distance below the Power 2
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
gets any schools from the ACC is if the networks deem it so. I don't think the B12 has any advantage on even the ACC leftovers (if that is where we are headed), except maybe stability if the worse happens to the ACC.
Frankly, I think the B12 needs the ACC to remain strong. Maybe only FSU bolts? Not talked about much on this board, but if it's FSU and ND, it's all over but the crying for the schools without an invite to the P2.
Everything is speculation, and we are all wrong, and we are all right - and what we get will be a lot different then we all see coming I'm afraid. There are just too many moving parts - GOR, contracts, NIL, Transfer portal, athletes as employees, Playoff format, and some others. We just don't know, so we speculate.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
No matter who leaves the ACC, ESPN will prop them up to an equal position as the B12 AND will work some form of merger to where either 3 conferences or 3 divisions of 1 conference serving at a level to the P2 like Triple A minor league is the MLB. In doing so the current B12 and ACC tams will lose their 6 western teams who will join with WSU/OSU to form a western division and Cinci/WVU to the eastern, SMU to the "middle." The middle probably also gives up the Florida school as each of the 3 will be much geographically closer to offset much lower revenues so as to not decimate every other sport.
We don't know so we speculate.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
They are just protecting trade secrets around contract values. The ESPN filing does not impact any of the core FSU vs ACC topics.
This is not about the core FSU arguments:
- the GOR itself restricts trade and should be able to be exited,
- that the ESPN media deal is sufficiently behind peers as to make the GOR invalid,
- that the ACC did not act in the best interest of the schools (and even had self serving by leaders),
- that the ACC exit cost is excessive (which it very clearly is compared to peer conferences)
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VTCALS72
2y
and what the Big 12 is, those are the peers of the ACC. The P2 are not the ACC peers.
If GOR is restrictive, isn't that a class action as the decision on that question affects every school and league in the P2 and little p2?
Is the ACC deal, including ACCN distributions "sufficiently behind peers"
How does FSU prove "didn't protect members best interest."
To win on the points you listed, FSU would have to get rulings that destroy GOR everywhere and prove the ACC was equal to the P2 except for ineptness on part of the ACC. Remember neither of the P2 are peers,
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
ESPN's intentions.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
S
Stech
2y
care if it gets out? This seems like a clickbait commentary to me, what am I missing?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
is a different story. ESPN doesn't want to get sued, and the ACC doesn't want the GOR's nullified.
ESPN could desire the ACC to fold, or at least pluck their top properties for the SEC. No different than FOX and the PAC. Probably no different than the B12 as well.
There could be a class action suit from the PAC, ACC, and B12 in the future if discovery uncovers collusion or intent. That contract is fair game in discovery, whether or not it goes public.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
have anything that the ACC schools don’t know about. I think that ESPN knows that FSU is leaving them for Fox, and they want to make it as hard on them as possible. Again, I don’t see any new news in what that guy said.
Question, is he a B12 guy? Is this just another mouthpiece for Yormark to use to try to make the ACC fall apart, like he did with the PAC? Who is this guy?
** Edited by Stech at 2/23/2024, 1:17:16 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
to me, that narrative is hogwash. The culprits here are the Networks and the P2 - pretty sure the B12 is not part of that conspiracy. Wish you guys would straighten out your feathers on that.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2
2hhoop3
2y
being manipulated by the networks pulling the strings behind the scenes are no less culpable and only slightly less detestable, recognizing that they are doing it for their own survival versus any real animus toward the conference they torpedo.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
S
Stech
2y
his talking heads are doing their part too. WADR my feathers are straight on all of it, not just part of it. If the 4 corners don't leave, and Cal and Stanford were left basically without a home, the PAC had a great chance of surviving. I personally didn't want the ACC to go national, but with the 3 they took, but I am guessing ND wants to stay independent unless the P@ break off and the ACC teams that aren't in the Mag 7, want to keep the ACC going, including the commissioner.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
damage has been done and anyone left has a nice shiny glow about them. Besides, given what happen to the Pac-12 I get why ACC fans may have a cautious look regarding the Big XII's intentions especially when every conference may be in survival mode. The last thing ACC fans want to see happen is the ACC ask the Big XII, "Et tu, Big XIIe?" right before the ACC dies.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
be an equalizer, and tamp down this realignment nonsense, but only if there are a number of motivated "members" that will vote them down.
The ACC is calling FSU's bluff, and the rest need to call the P2's bluff. It appears they are leaving anyway, so why in the world would the rest of us give up on more inch.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
But it seems odd to me that FSU would take such a large and expensive gamble without some behind the scenes support.
It could be handshake agreements with the BIG/SEC. It could be from FOX (clearly not ESPN if they are fighting in court). It could be from other ACC schools who also want to leave for more money.
FSU is doing the dirty work for others. And I think the ACC helped FSU by filing their lawsuit first. FSU had not acted on anything yet, they were just talking when the ACC served them with the preemptive lawsuit. And now the other schools know that the ACC will get hostile against any of the schools. Make no mistake, the ACC lawsuit has put a permanent crack in the ACC foundation.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
2y
if they want to go early. As I said before, I believe the ACC floor should be $300MM and I think it will be north of there. Fluguar is telling people exactly what a B1G rep has told him to say.
I am guessing discovery, depositions and time on the witness stand would be uncomfortable for FSU and the B1G were they to get dragged in. In fact, discovery, depositions and time on the witness stand would likely be uncomfortable for ALL sides. I think that is when settlement talks will ultimately turn. As time for discovery and court draws nearer the motivation to settle will rise. Right now the filings and preliminaries are just probing for weaknesses and vulnerabilities. There are a lot of moving parts with the case as well as related events like the CFP negotiations. Some fairly high stakes as ESPN has inked a $1.3 billion contract for a product they do not yet have a clear idea of how the teams they will get are determined. Maybe FOX knew something motivating them to take more of a wait and see attitude.
(In response to this post by obguthr)
2y
The ACC will make efforts to negotiate a higher figure. I don’t think it will work. FSU can afford to stand pat. The conference needs to complete any withdrawal activity before the ESPN decision in February ’25. That means settling with FSU as soon as possible and any other movement prior to August 15, this year. Failure to do so will create the same crisis the killed The PAC 12; media companies unable to make serious offers because they don’t know who will remain in the conference for the next contract.
For now, the conference needs to collect all the settlement cash they can get their hands on and have that business done before the ESPN announcement. Other exiting schools may want the same schedule as FSU (8-15-24); some may be willing to wait.
If the conference chooses to reject FSU’s offer, it looks like FSU is ready to enter a court fight (or at least, they are bluffing that.) ESPN is not comfortable with their contract details flapping in the breeze. And I suspect that FSU is armed with some more embarrassing “photos.”
I predict settlement in late May/early June under FSU’s terms.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
H
Hokie83
2y
At least your are consistent, dont see ACC bowing to Fsu at all but time will tell...
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2
2hhoop3
2y
Right out of the gate you miss saying ESPN will not allow it. The only way they control that is if they pay for it. How do you think they accomplish that? It is not that you do not think they will negotiate a higher figure but, moreso what you seem to hope for whatever reason. The artificial deadlines you have created for settling are just that, artificial. I am happy to see your prediction given your previous track record. If FSU had "photos" they would have short circuited this matter long before now. The fact they have not done that says one of two things, either they have nothing OR what they have if they choose to use only exposes their own dirty laundry to disclosure.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
Obvious disclaimer: I have no inside knowledge. I am reading the tea leaves and trying to tell the future. Sorry, if I am hurting anyone’s feelings.
ESPN did not need to make that filing. The ACC already asked for the contract to be sealed, and adding ESPN’s ditto will not sway the judge. In big public disputes like this, things are said for a reason, often an indirect reason. ESPN felt a sting when the 2025 renewal option was revealed. The reference to a “felony” to be considered at another day might be ESPN’s message to The ACC that there are more skeletons in the closet. Whatever dirty laundry FSU might have, they would not dump it out all at once. Once it hits the public view it can’t be used for negotiation. I’m not saying that FSU has any such dirt, but they are behaving aggressively, as though they have a pistol in their pocket.
If you think my deadline dates are arbitrary, you’re right. But consider what the landscape will be if the realignment is not finished when February ’25 rolls around. There will be at least one inflamed lawsuit underway. How will the conference negotiate a media deal with ESPN, or anyone else, if the GoR issue is not resolved? But maybe you believe that ESPN will simply choose to extend the current deal. That would require a helluva composition clause.
As for my forecasting track record, I have pretty weak results, like everybody else on these boards. But on the FSU book, not so long ago, I was a lone voice in the wilderness saying that FSU would soon leave The ACC. These days, few think otherwise, and the discussions are about when and at what price. I also said that adding-up future media payouts would not be the pricing method. That looks like a good bet.
The realignment train is roaring down the track with a sense of urgency because of the new playoff money. Lots of things need to happen to get everyone on-board. Those dates I mention are important stops along the way.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
but, I do not believe they are anywhere near as critical for the ACC as you believe for a variety of reasons. You contended in your OP that the dates created a PAC 12 scenario and I disagree because until the GOR is actually litigated it still exists and exists beyond the TV agreement expiration date.
What ESPN may or may not do depends on far more than any composition clause and will likely hinge on other things including CFP, the athlete employee question and other things. The reality is if they cannot reach a CFP consensus in relatively short order the ACC/FSU bickering will likely be ancillary to much larger issues. I think you misinterpreted ESPN's filing and the intended recipient of any hidden message.
As far as the dirty laundry, if they had it and it was as damning as you contend, they could short circuit all that is going on now saving both time and money. They have *****ed and moaned for over a year looking to wrangle concessions and the suit and decision to leave only became imperative when they were unfairly, in my opinion, excluded from the CFP. You can pat yourself on the back for recognizing the relationship was irreparable but, not necessarily the timeline depending on your definition of "soon". You contend adding up future media payouts was not the pricing method but, that is exactly the pricing method used in FSU's pleading and, probably unwittingly for they and their attorneys, they have set the likely baseline for settlement negotiations to start.
I look forward to your next reading of the tea leaves and your interpretation. I am sure it will offer more things for us to disagree on.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
S
saret
2y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
V
VTCALS72
2y
It is all the FSU "victim" standing up to an oppressor and hiding from the fact they are the oppressor to every other team in the ACC with this.
I believe the GOR to be independent enough from the ESPN deal to survive a court challenge. All FSU has is that everybody just ought to know they are just so much better and so everybody should bend over for them and allow FSU to take lots of money away from everybody else.
I mean really, what has happened to FSU that has not happened to everybody else in the league? FSU is all about claiming they are just so much superior to the deal they signed, they should be able to walk away.
I also believe that FSU has so p!$$ed off ESPN and the SEC as well as the ACC that ESPN
(In response to this post by obguthr)
I don't think they care about pissing off the ACC, SEC and ESPN.
I think it's clear that FSU wants to go its own way. I've thought for some time now that FSU preferred the B1G over the SEC. While they are an SEC-like school. I don't think they want to just be another regional school in the SEC. They'd rather be the "Southern team" in the Big Ten. More national. And this year, they are proving it.
Some of this has to do with academics as well.
Probably some of the same reasons they joined the ACC rather than the SEC in the first place.
Anyway, I say this without passion or prejudice.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
"Boston Market?" That was a defense of BC being admitted to the ACC. Sure behind the scenes there were other reasons but that huge Boston TV market existed and the ACC thought they could grab a significant part of it. That didn't work out so well for either the ACC or Boston College. Why? Following are my reasons and IMHO they are going to apply at least somewhat to any ACC team that goes to the Big 10, or the Big 12 for that matter.
1- Boston's heart was and is with the Pats, Celtics and Sox and not college ball.
2- BC didn't have nearly as much of an existing fanbase as thought
3- The ACC thought that bringing in national teams like FSU and Miami for football and UNC/Duke for MBB they would become a favorite and growing part of the Boston sports market.
Instead what happened is that the Bostonians had little interest in identifying with a "Southern" football or basketball conference.
IMHO, FSU or any ACC team that goes to the Big is going to be subject to some of the same treatment as the ACC was in Boston. FSU may gain additional couch potatoes using their national name but, how will that affect their fan base in FLA? Will they gin up as much statewide support being aligned with a conference a time zone and many, many miles (both actually and culturally) away from their historic fan base?
Same applies to us and to a degree, we have been there in the BE when our fan base area's heart belonged to the ACC.
** Edited by VTCALS72 at 2/23/2024, 1:21:00 PM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
South, it is possible the Big Ten may view these Southern additions similar to how the NHL views the Vegas Golden Knights, Florida Panthers, and Tampa Bay Lightning.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
living in FL will tune in to watch the game? Heck they may even try to get tickets to attend the game. I don't see how that is any different than the reasons the NHL placed the 2 FL franchises in the Atlantic Division with Boston, Buffalo, Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, and Detroit. A similar logic was used to justify awarding a franchise to Las Vegas. Since the city is considered to be a travel destination city, fans of the visiting team may be more inclined to travel there to watch their team play and enjoy all the other things the city has to offer. Given the number of Big Ten alumni in that part of the country, FSU probably could expand Doak Campbell to 95-100K and still be able to sellout home games because there would be an increase in the number of visiting fans attending the game.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
I am thinking the for every Wiscy fan in Florida that FSU gains the may lose 2 non aligned fans.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
in to watch their team play FSU, Clemson, GT, or Miami (example purposes only). Now they may still decide to watch other FSU events when their team isn't playing, but I am not sure that really matters when you look at the business side of this equation.
The Big Ten will get a higher carriage fee (as long as it is still relevant) by having members physically located in that state. While the former ACC schools could potentially see a bump in gameday revenue (assuming they decide to expand their stadium) because there would be an increase in the number of visiting fans attending the game. Bloomberg did an article in June 2023 which shows the Southeast Region is the fastest growing region in the US. The Big Ten, well really Jim Delany, realized this as early as 2010. It makes good business sense for the Big Ten to do a better job of tapping into that market because the number of Big Ten alumni living in that region will only go up over time.
Link:
Bloomberg
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2
2hhoop3
2y
got exactly what they expected in the Boston market which was in footprint carriage rates and TV sets even though it took a little longer to monetize. I do not believe anybody thought the Boston sports fan, the BC fan base or the ACC gaining a foothold in Boston were realistic, short term probabilities, nor maybe even long term ones absent BC significantly increasing its performance and profile.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
H
HOO86
2y
Bobby Bowden used to complain about how unbearable the travel was if he had to play at Maryland and at Virginia in the same year. Just an unfair travel burden on FSU to have to go that far away to the DC area.
They have apparently gotten over all of that injustice and willing to go all the way to Los Angeles and Minnesota.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
I find it hard to believe that the B1G won't take more from the South or
at least mid-Atlantic for the reasons you mentioned.
I'm hoping that both the B1G and the SEC find the Commonwealth to be valuable territory.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
T
TerryD
2y
I think that FSU wants the Big Ten for the reasons you state, plus the bad blood remains from the playoff snub.
It has a spot waiting there once it buys itself out of the ACC.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
Deal is a deal with part of this is difficult for people to understand ?
We don’t need to settle unless we think we may lose?!?
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)