I think it is likely ACC will have to settle for say 70 mil. from FSU and
Clemson to keep them in conference beyond June 30th 2024. Leverage is if the leave prior to then ESPN can end TV deal with ACC, which means poof GOR is void and you have total chaos everyone as free agent scrambling to landing somewhere.
Due to Clemson and FSU lawsuits we know, ESPN does not have to renew deal and has said they will not beyond 2027 season. This means even if GOR was enforceable and ironclad, which it seems it is not - due to Swofford's corupt shenanigans, etc., penalties to leave are not prohibitive.
Apparently the new additions did not know this! It's reported that Stanford is having back door talks with B10 now. Attraction for B10 is with Stanford they would have all of ND's significant rivals. Eventually they can force ND's hand by playing an all conference schedule. Stanford can come in without any revenue for X years, they have endowment $$ to do it. Similar to how SMU got into ACC.
I am betting we see either a settlement or FSU and Clemson pulling out sooner pre - 6/30/2024. Yes, bylaws require more notice but swofford and current ACC have violated by-laws alot already, which means there is good chance they are not enforceable.
Apparently, Clemson and FSU are headed to the Big Ten, they are worth more to Fox/B10 than SEC. Also bad optics and legal risks if ESPN SEC involved in triggering ACC collapse, let B10 do it.
UNC & NCSU are a sticky situation, apparently UNC is worth slightly more to B10 than SEC. At present UNC leadership split AD has backed ACC to hilt, while at least some on board of trustees wanted to sue ACC like Clemson.
Also, NC board of governors can veto move by UNC or NCSU to new conference. They likely want to keep schools together much like VT UVA situation politically in VA.
UNC & NCSU are worth less as package to one conference. TV value is higher overall if they are split. Same with VT & Uva. We have to hope politicians do not *crew this up. As B10 / SEC have no interest in causing or being involved in political battle. Unless, it is VT & NCSU to SEC and UNC & UVA to B10, we may be forced to the B12 although perhaps not permanently.
Miami is a wild card SEC not interested. B10/FOX might take them at very reduced revenue sharing initially for Fox Station in Miami. Otherwise, Miami goes to Big 12.
Duke is another interesting situation, they may be able to buy their way into whichever conference takes UNC, although it might be for Basketball only.
In any event, this may not be a boring summer waiting for football season to start, but one full of conference realignment bombshells!
103 Replies
I
I85Hokie
2y
They are the next logical choice from the PAC-12, and I knew they would be Notre Dame bait. With those two added, it would give the conference 20 teams, with 4 divisions. The west coast teams would all be in the same division, which would alleviate some of the travel issues.
(In response to this post by vtox1)
2y
membership. They will be gone as soon as they get IMO a better deal.
** Edited by 949hokie at 5/13/2024, 9:40:09 PM
(In response to this post by I85Hokie)
I
INSIDE99
2y
FSU will officially announce they are leaving the ACC before August 15 (if not by June 30).
FSU will play as a member of the ACC in 2024 and then play a full Big Ten schedule in 2025 regardless of where the courtroom battle resides. The deal to play in the Big Ten was offered a full year ago.
The exit fee (3 times the operating budget) of roughly somewhere between $75-130 million will be paid but the rights fees will not.
When FSU announces they are leaving, ESPN will not renew the ACC contract past 2026 and will have to renegotiate the current ACC contract.
Those who believe the ACC can keep the courtroom process going for another 2+ years to stall FSU leaving, that's not going to happen.
The only thing that will change the above mentioned predictions will be a settlement between ACC, Clemson and FSU.
Expect a FSU and a Clemson announcement coming very soon.
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 5/12/2024, 10:48:16 PM
(In response to this post by vtox1)
2y
The ACC votes to suspend both schools from ACC competition for the 24-25 school year, withholds all distributions to both schools, and instructs ESPN that neither school will be available for televised events.
Fallout is that both schools won't be eligible for post season play in football since they will only have 4 games each, and both schools will have a hell of a time scheduling a full season in their other sports at such a late date.
More fallout, both schools will see a mass exodus to the transfer portal as athletes will go from playing an ACC schedule to a hybrid Sun Belt/C-USA schedule.
The schools with FSU/Clemson games on their home schedules will just get an extra payout from the ACC to make up for the lost ticket revenue from the game, and that payout will come from the Clemson/FSU 24-25 payouts.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Where they either accept taking far less of the CFP pie or find the stones to tell the P2 to shove it and go do their own thing.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
2y
own thing" would be. Not sure the ACC, B12, or the G5 had any choice, or leverage. It would take guts for the aforementioned conferences to take their ball and leave the P2 out - but I wish they would.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Their own thing would be letting the P2 take their threats and split for all sports. Go play with yourself (no pun intended).
The ACC and Big XII either get equal CFP rights and distribution or get lost. Instead the ACC, Big XII settled for a smaller slice since they didn't have the stones to demand otherwise. In the long run the money well will go dry without inventive ways to create income. The P2 gap is about to be massive now that the best athletes continue to be paid. The ACC has already accepted their Minor League fait.
FSU and Clemson leaving the ACC is simple, they need to make the same type of money their SEC rivals are getting if they consistently wish to continue competing at the highest level. The ACC accepting less CFP status was another nail in the coffin.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
W
WBGV
2y
going to different conferences. I just can’t see any conference wanting to expand beyond 20 members now or in the near future. Having 20 members would provide their network partners with more than enough inventory and there is always the options to go to schedules with more conference games.
I think FSU & Clemson are doing a “head fake” with the B1G to get into the SEC. Both schools become more desirable if they have multiple suitors, and it is no longer about geography but rather about attracting eyeballs due to the enormity of the TV contracts. These two ACC schools would be valuable additions to either conferences in that regard. Being wanted by the B1G may provide the extra incentive needed to overcome any current SEC member opposition to adding FSU and Clemson. Look for both schools to announce their intentions to withdraw this summer as you indicated.
Without the two most valuable members of the ACC, I agree with you that it isn’t likely that ESPN will extend the TV contract, and they will make that announcement on the heels of FSU & Clemson’s withdraw notice. UNC will then seek out a new home (likely also the SEC) and take another ACC school with them that is not necessarily NCST. Without a media rights contract and the loss of the most valuable members, the other ACC schools will scamper to find new homes and that includes Notre Dame.
FSU, Clemson, UNC, and one more ACC school to the SEC.
ND and one more ACC school (could be a new member like Stanford) to the B1G.
Four ACC schools to the Big 12 to complete the eastern expansion after their western expansion.
The exiting schools will then meet to dissolve the conferences which brings a quick end to the 5 lawsuits, does away with the GOR, eliminates the exit fee, and the P4 becomes the P3. Game. Set. Match.
** Edited by WBGV at 5/13/2024, 5:44:03 PM
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
✍
We got it marked down. Keep us updated.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 5/13/2024, 12:38:20 PM
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2
2hhoop3
2y
ALL marked down and there should be a limit on the number of misses allowed and still able to claim credit for being "right".
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Holding posters to their predictions. As Coach Prime would say, "keeping receipts".
Anyone else have a prediction?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
T
TDVick
2y
defectors (even Clemson) to be a bit less aggressive. They are letting FSU be the first one to charge the machine gun nest. Which also means that basically FSU has the highest value or best terms waiting for them, since they look like the ones to move first.
From the perspective of the other schools, once FSU bails, the contract won't be extended past 2027 and they can get a share of FSU's departure fees. There's not risk to either not moving or being the second mover.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
S
Stech
2y
which is how they basically stayed even. I still think if the Mag 7 or less, ESPN will at least hold on to the basketball contract with the ACC. However, I could see maybe another network like CBS or NBC picking up football contract. The ACC schools have their TV stations, and if they add UConn and San Diego State and a couple of others, they could have a tier 2 Conference like the B12.
Some are projecting the PAC, but the ACC is in a much better position than the PAC if they lose the Mag 7 or less IMHO.
** Edited by Stech at 5/13/2024, 9:42:30 AM
(In response to this post by TDVick)
2y
hasn't happened yet.
(In response to this post by Stech)
Lost me at 70 million.
That's what? Just over 4 million in payout per remaining school? I mean, why bother?
(In response to this post by vtox1)
2y
Let it go to court and take years to resolve, who gives a crap.
If the payout is only a few million per school then it might as well be zero.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
OU and Texas paid out 50 MILLION to the XII to leave just ONE year early
And FSU is gonna pay 70 MILLION (during even more inflationary times) to leave a DECADE earlier? LOL What a joke.
Texas and OU tried to big-time their way out of the XII just 1 year early.
But the XII wouldn't budge on the exit fee, as they had no incentive to do so. Then UT and OU came back and said, "OK, we'll fulfill our commitment." And only after that did the XII said to themselves, "Do we really even want them hanging around for the final year? Why don't we get a few bucks from them on their way out the door?" So they negotiated a settlement for 50 million from each of them and cut them loose.
I think this is going to be an all or nothing deal. The only way FSU is leaving early is if they WIN the lawsuit, wherein they leave for nothing but their own legal fees. If FSU loses, they can't afford to buy themselves out of the conference because they are unwilling or unable to pay out enough money for each member school to agree to it.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 5/12/2024, 12:58:47 PM
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
W
WarHog38
2y
That "DECADE earlier" is not the true reality anymore. That timeline now totally depends on ESPN extending a TV Contract now slated to end on June 30, 2027.
As that 2027 date nears the situation with the ACC will become very similar to what we just experienced with the PAC. You remember the schools started bailing in the PAC with a year left on the PAC TV Deal. Some of the PAC AD's & school Presidents had been putting big pressure on Kliavkoff. When Kliavkoff couldn't deliver the new TV Deal, they started bailing with a year still left on the old TV Deal. That would be 2026 as the terminal year of the ACC in a similar timeline.
The ACC does have that GOR as has been pointed out numerous times here. However the GOR is directly tied to the ESPN TV Deal if what people posted here is true. It just now begs the question. What Is a GOR worth with no media deal? I think a court of law would rationally say nothing. However it probably will take that court ruling. The ACC with the coffin door closing will grasp at any legal remedy no matter how feeble. Whatever it may take two or three years to settle in a court ruing. But it will not take a decade. The only way the ACC lasts another decade is ESPN inking that TV Deal to 2036. I just don't think that is happening.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
V
VTCALS72
2y
the constant attempts to link them BEFORE a court ruling is FSU/Clemson wishing and hoping.
Right now FSU;s complaint is simple, the ACC failed us by not returning to us as much as if we were in the P2 so we should be free to go get as much as we can, The balance to that is they signed a GOR they were agreeable to and took deposits for what 6 years? The other reality is that with FSU essentially demanding they get some of the other conference members money in unequal distribution is the nail in the coffin that FSU has nothing but an attempted money grab at other teams expenses.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
Well, if the ESPN refuses to extend, then FSU's lawsuit is mostly a waste
of time. FSU can leave in 2027 and so can everyone else. Then, we will just be talking about schools buying their way out a year or two early, which is no big deal either way.
But I think ESPN asked for more time (a year) to decide on the extension so they can wait on the court rulings. I think ESPN wants to make sure FSU and Clemson are staying (willingly or unwillingly) before they pick up their option till 2036. So it's sort of a big catch-22.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
I'm understanding the GOR, is for their home games - please correct me if I'm wrong. So if they were to leave the conference, and the GOR thing is still in court, the monies are for their home games only. FSU would be able to keep any payout from any other conference, but their new conference would not be entitled to the "rights" to their home games.
Would FSU's away games be enough for a conference such as the SEC to give them a partial share while this mess is in court? If so, what would it be worth to the SEC (example only) to have FSU in their stadiums? Would Mississippi State sell out? Would a Texas match up be on national television in a premier spot? it's just the media rights at stake, so would the fans of FSU pay double for their tickets as a donation for their home games?
In other words, could FSU find a way to make up for the lost revenue of their home games. Also, OOC games could all be scheduled on the road like the G5 does. How much would Ohio State, or Florida pay for a home game if it wasn't a 1 and 1, and they were out of conference?
If the ACC owns the rights to their home games, would they not still be on the hook to compensate FSU for those games? How much would the ACC have to distribute to FSU if they left the conference, and the ACC still had the rights to their home games? The GOR contract is a two way street. If it is ruled that the ACC has control of those rights, there has to be consideration given to FSU.
As many have said in these threads, the agreement is with the ACC, not the ESPN contract, but it appears to be muddy water - which is why it's in court. Does FSU have to be a member of the ACC to get consideration for those rights? I don't think either party gets it both ways. FSU could take a reduce payout from the Big 10 (example), but FSU would still have to be compensated in some form for their home games that many have said the ACC "owns".
Would the ACC schools be on the hook to pay FSU even though they are no longer in the conference?
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
V
VTCALS72
2y
essentially keep what they need for operating cost and divide the rest equally between all members? I don't think the ACC would owe FSU anything. Fsu would lose the money from those games. That is the stick in the GOR.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
central question on the GOR is whether the ACC controls the media rights until '36, or not. The ESPN contract and how all of that ties in has been litigated, or is being litigated on this board - and in the courts. FSU signed over their rights for consideration (money). So, if FSU is not in the conference, how much money does the ACC pay FSU for those rights? Nothing? Are you saying that if FSU joins the Big 10, and the courts determine that the ACC owns the rights to their home games, then what is the consideration (money)?
Maybe a better way to put the question, is what did the ACC pay for those rights? There has to be a monetary value.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
even a partial one that upheld the GOR but not the stated amount, The court would most likely stipulate the amount and way of payment FSU+++ would pay. If that happened, and FSU was in the BIG, a court order to FOX to pay the stipulated amount to the ACC rather than FSU. And an ACC win would most likely mean that the court had ruled that every team remaining is the damaged party so if FSU+++ pulled any crap, a contempt of court and maybe even other asset seizure could occur.
That is why I hold the GOR must be the first thing decided. The GOR brings every team into the suit.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
TVLander
2y
away games. That would neatly sidestep the grant of rights, unless I'm wrong, because the other conference gets media rights to the other team's home games. There are plenty of ugly legal wrinkles to this, like the conference then suing FSU for destroying value and maybe breach of fiduciary responsibility, also the not-insignificant hit to FSU for having zero ticket sales, to their local fans being pissed that they can't see their team in person. But then it's not "cutting off your nose to spite your face" if you're not agreeing to a horrible consequence just to make the other party hurt even more....
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
the rights to those, do they not have to give consideration? In other words, having the rights isn't free - how much would the ACC have to pay them to broadcast those home games if FSU was not a conference member?
(In response to this post by TVLander)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Just collecting the check from the Big 10s televising of the FSU home games. Instead of the Big (if that is where FSU goes) paying FSU, they would send the payment to the ACC. But like the rest of the GOR, ultimately it will be a court that has to decide pretty much all of the covenants.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...with F$U in Lane Stadium to make up for getting screwed every time they change their scheduling model.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Then multiply that by 2-3X.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
S
Stech
2y
that will cut costs to them, if they can renegotiate and lower the payout to those remaining in the ACC, like they did with the B12 they can save cost. Remember they aren’t paying for B12 basketball anymore, just B12 football.
Many think about more revenue, but bean counters love to cut cost.That’s how they get raises/make more profit for the firm.
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
2y
content. ESPN gets first choice on the football AND basketball content, and the football championship, and the basketball tournament goes to ESPN. That is why ESPN paid more than FOX.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
ESPN has the rest plus non-revs.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
Also non-revenue sports are of course mainly little revenue on TV.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
four FB picks of the 20 preseason advance picks.
Fox is looking ahead in hoops. They have The B1G mostly on FS1, but also Fox & FS2. They have those 62-63 games in Big 12. And the real prize is 190 Big East games, on FS1, and dozens more Big East elsewhere. The Big East/Fox deal is up for renewal for the 2025 season but there is still no announcement. Both parties tell news outlets that the relationship is excellent and they intend to renew. I think Fox has something up their sleeve... realignment or merger with New PAC in hoops?
** Edited by 33laszlo99 at 5/12/2024, 12:06:19 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
could easily fill that role. Grab a UConn and San Diego State on the public side and some private schools like Tulane and Rice which have 🏀 potential with their location, that will also make ND happy and you could have the makings of a good basketball Conference that spreads the US. ESPN likely needs another good basketball conference that is more spread out than the SEC to fill in their content.
** Edited by Stech at 5/12/2024, 7:10:11 AM
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
making stealth moves on the whole MBB landscape. They did fail to move Gonzaga into The Big 12. But if their rebuild of The PAC succeeds, it will diminish The American Conference (ESPN) once again. The rumored targets are Navy, Memphis, Tulane, and UTSA. These are also schools that The ACC would like to find available if they need to reload.
Expect The SEC to go hard for UNC, UVa; and there are whispers about Kansas. ESPN needs MBB properties to keep-up with Fox.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
Where are you hearing something different from? Hopefully not FSU Basement 🏈 Podder Addict and or the B12 Basement Podder, who are doing everything possible to end the ACC, that in their minds is good for their School/Conference.
Again, where are you getting the UNC, UVA and Kansas to the SEC from? It’s the exact opposite of what I am hearing.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
reports from the usual college sports writers and I watch tons of realignment podcasts. Most of the opinions out there agree with your assessment. I mentioned Kansas because Flugaur pointed to it as an alternative to "all-ACC." JRSec on the CSNbbs board has been touting KS to The SEC for years. I think there is a good case for them if The SEC adds four.
My guess is that The B1G will put the state of Florida at the top of their list. FSU will probably be the first available and The B1G will jump at the opportunity. The companion could be Clemson or Miami. And I think the B1G will stop at two unless they have a chance at ND, UNC, and/or UVA. Sankey would rather choke to death than allow The B1G to get UNC & UVa. He might be willing to buy the NC/VA bundle whereas Petitti, I think, would not. That gives Sankey an advantage.
The reason I see The B1G stopping at two is to see if the same script plays-out here that happened in The PAC. Schools become available later at better prices. I would not be surprised if The ACC lost only four initially. Then they would need to gain a new media deal as soon as possible to stop other schools from leaking out.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
And network get who adds most value for them. SEC has sc and FL do not need them but they offer alot to B10 and Fox.
Both want presence in NC and VA markets.
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
V
VTCALS72
2y
1- Has ESPN really given notice they are not going to renew? I doubt that as there is still way too much up in the air.
2- The big one, the idea that the GOR is linked or limited to the ESPN contract is an FSU/Clemson talking point and any such tying together will only be when a court so rules.
3- Swoffard may have been a "good for UNC first" and some other stuff but the idea there is any out, based on Swoffard, or ACC failure is again just a FSU/Clemson talking point that will take many years of court action to be true. And it is doubtful any of that would be taken up by a court until the issue of the GOR and it's reach or lack thereof is settled.
4- If FSU/Clemson really try at #2 or #3 they are looking at years and years of court action before final court decisions are made.
It is really amusing how many people listen to the out of context bits and pieces and try to mash together things that don't go together to try and present a case for FSU/Clemson's righteous leaving. This post did it by just assuming, the GOR and the ESPN contract are somehow tied together.
Here is what everybody needs to remember:
The GOR is a separate Agreement that granted the "ACC" certain powers that go beyond the ordinary by laws by the members.
Until a court says differently, it does not matter what FSU thinks or tries to sell, the ACC schools who signed the GOR covenanted with each other to essentially share and share alike until 2036. And they empowered the league to be their Trustee in the matter of TV and media contracts, not just this current ESPN one.
There is nothing in the media deal language that directly impacts anyone who is not a signor to that Media Agreement.
There is nothing in the GOR that provides any power to dictate or act for anyone other than the signors.
Put another way, no individual team has any power to act or power to perform under the media contract and ESPN has no right to dictate anything that is in the GOR as that is between the conference and the members only.
(In response to this post by vtox1)
great post
i still think the FSU ego drove this whole thing when they were left out of the playoff
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
H
Hokie 04
2y
Granted, the ACC not going to bat for them with this stuff already going on made some sense, but still. Definitely helped create a "why are we behaving ourselves, again?" moment for FSU.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
W
WarHog38
2y
A GOR cannot legally exist without a media contract of some sort. However you are correct that the issue would probably have to be decided in a court of law in the climate of the business world of the present day. Also in the present world of billable hours for attorneys as the prime concern for the courts. That issue would probably take a few years to resolve.
I will be surprised if ESPN extends the ACC TV Deal past 2027. I also think Big Media is in bed on deciding who receives these media deals on the conference level. You saw what happened to the PAC
We previously saw this all play out with the same media players. Why would we expect a different result? I read something on this board the other day about Disney hemorrhaging money and a possible sale of ESPN. I think that is the best hope for the long term existence of the ACC as a P4 Get some new people making these big dollar decisions.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2
2hhoop3
2y
a GOR cannot legally exist without a media contract of some sort?
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
R
RJHokie
2y
You would still have an exit fee though if schools left the conference.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
I think it hinges on how rights are defined and the linkage of the contracts. The schools assigned their rights to the conference for a specific period and just because one contract is not renewed I am not sure it means they have no current and future value
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
2y
ESPN contract. So, if ESPN bolts and no one else bids on the contract, then there is no value.
If I was in charge at the ACC I would be talking with other media companies now to see what the they would be willing to pay if ESPN bolts in 2027. Having the ACCN already set up at the schools should be worth something since the schools own the equipment.
I’m of the opinion that if the actual P2 projected values may be way much higher than a lot of folks believe. A lot of folks will eventually tune them out and also ignore the playoff games except for perhaps the final four. Also, if the NFL perceives them to be a threat, all bets are off.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
could be correct. However, if the rights can be separated from the agreement their value could depend not only on another conference contract but, the individual school value. That is why there has been discussions on the valuation rights of a member exiting and whether it should be calculated at the higher of the ACC contract or the member's next conference landing spot. All of this makes for good message board discussion fodder but, I think the reality is sometime the networks(ESPN primarily) will come to the settlement table to work this out before they are in jeopardy of getting a financial result they cannot control.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
W
WarHog38
2y
That definition concerns media rights. How will the ACC legally enforce anything on its members if their is no media deal? It would just open the door for lawsuits by every ACC member school if the ACC tried to legally further enforce that GOR.. It would therefore pave the way for any schools wishing to leave the ACC. You think nobody wishes to leave the ACC?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
L
lawhokie
2y
Company A can have an exclusive supply agreement with Company B, and a separate distribution agreement with Company C, the supply agreement being enforceable regardless of whether the distribution agreement is enforceable. Why, we can always find new distribution!
There’s a clever way to tell when a contract is void pursuant to certain conditions, it’s usually called out in caps, and begins with “this agreement shall be void if…”. If the GOR has something like that then it’s really easy.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
Good luck in these ever worsening economic conditions. The PAC was left High 'n' Dry by those media titans with things not as bad economically as presently.
I think this revenue sharing with athletes in the tens of millions being mandated is going to throw a big wrench financially into college football. Easy to see that causing a further tightening of the belt with Big Media.
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
2
2hhoop3
2y
no one was looking to leave, just questioning how rudimentary the linkage of GOR and the ESPN contract actually is and whether the argument you and others make that they are linked is as rudimentary as you and they might believe. I also believe enforcement hinges on the specifics that make each a valid contract.
It could be that simple, however, the argument might also be made they are two separate contracts linked only through a current assignment of rights and if the media deal were to not be renewed the only thing that gets dissolved is the assignment, rather than the GOR. How do you believe the definition of "a" GOR automatically limits the GOR to one media rights agreement, even if only one specific deal currently exists and is referenced? I think it will be interesting to see how both sides argue the GOR and the specifics for a valid and enforceable contract, if it gets that far, because I have a different opinion than you as to how easily the two might be linked or unlinked.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
You believe the ACC has a somewhat solid legal stance with that GOR. I think the courts must give that GOR sweeping powers for the ACC to prevail with no media deal foreseeable. I just see that as very unlikely. Those ACC schools that want out are gone.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
V
VTCALS72
2y
If there is a deal in force through 2027 then it seems there is no exit at all until that time. Who is to say ESPN won't sign on for the full 2036 term or the ACC put the basics of an Amazon contract before the schools?
There is a lot more court cases and years in litigation there.
And get real, no one is leaving the ACC unless they are sure they have a better landing spot. To me that means P2. How many ACC teams will get that offer?
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
If ESPN extends that TV Deal to 2036 and the ACC members all agree to allowing Amazon join as a contracted media partner. Then the ACC surely has until at least the middle 2030's to survive as a P4. Probably minus FSU though. FSU appears to have burnt bridges with the ACC until the point of no return. FSU would therefore ultimately buy themselves out of the ACC no matter what.
However why doesn't ESPN just pull the trigger and extend the TV Deal to 2036? Ending all the high drama and schools talking about litigating the ACC. ESPN has neglected signing that TV Deal extension since 2022. Why?
I don't know how many ACC schools will have a P2 landing spot? I think FSU & Clemson probably do. I have often heard that UNC is a highly prized P2 prospect. I have also heard that UNC may be politically connected to NC State within that state. I have also heard nearly the same about UVA & VT. I just don't know how that all eventually plays out?. However I think at least 4 ACC schools go P2. However could be 8 ACC schools if the P2 decide to both go above 20 members. Who knows with this serious talk about the P2 exiting the NCAA in near future. Just a lot of variables.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
They don't have a need to. In a landscape where so much can change so quickly, why would they sign such an extension before they have to. If they had signed in 2022, they would have been doing so without knowing that FSU and Clemson would Sue to try to get out of the ACC. Such information might impact whether or not they want to sign an extension. You don't sign an extension early unless there is some incentive to do so. I don't see a reason for them to sign early. But I do see reasons for them to wait
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
However I play both sides of the coin in discussing that ESPN Contract signing issue with people here that think ESPN shall eventually sign it You read my comment history here even on this particle thread. I say I don't think ESPN will ever sign that TV Deal extension. The point you make is just a great excuse for ESPN. Those lawsuits may or may not be settled in the next several years. However I would about bet the bank that the ACC does not win those lawsuits before June 30, 2027.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
Clemson looking to leave, I cannot imagine why they would sign it at all. At this point they don't know what the ACC is going to look like 4 years from now. If the lawsuits don't get settled in time, maybe they do one year extensions while they wait to see what happens next.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2
2hhoop3
2y
that FSU and Clemson win those suits before then? No matter how weak or strong either side's case might be or the thought that a non renewal will, not could, reduce the payments to get out, taking any action before a decision or settlement is a risky proposition that exposes them financially and likely makes them at least a little questionable for any conference home. It is a little like attempting to get married before the divorce is finalized. While leaving is a near certainty, the when, who and how much is still twisting in the wind.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
agreement between the ACC and ESPN. The document even went as far as to define the relationship as "Agreement." Then when you look at the Terms and Conditions of the GOR, you will see at least 1 reference to the Agreement. It may even be multiple references to it. If the GOR wasn't contingent upon the Agreement, then contractually it would have been written so it doesn't make specific reference(s) to a specific contract.
If we assume that ESPN does not exercise the option, then the ACC would need to modify the GOR to reference the new contract. Also, the ACC would be required to get the approval of all the ACC members. If the ACC members don't approve of the change, then the GOR should die because the referenced contract doesn't exist anymore. You could say the relationship between the Agreement and GOR is similar to the relationship between a prime contract and a subcontract. A subcontract cannot exist if the prime contract doesn't exist.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
V
VTCALS72
2y
all the individual members would have had to sign the media deal.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
giving the ACC the right to speak on their behalf for a specific contract. If the members were giving the ACC a blanket voice to speak on their behalf on any contract until June 30, 2036, then the GOR would have been worded differently. Hence why I said the relationship is similar to a prime-sub relationship because subs are not required to sign the prime contract. Only the prime contractor is required to sign which would be the ACC in this case.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2
2hhoop3
2y
which is why I mentioned even if only one agreement was mentioned. Your prime contract and subcontract analogy might hold but, it will depend on the contract specifics argued by the attorneys. Courts often have to sort out poorly worded contracts and the real intentions. We are all guessing, including you, as to what may or may not be additionally required and we may likely never know IF and WHEN the networks pull out their checkbooks to prevent info being exposed and the likelihood of additional future litigation.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
M
Marooned
2y
if it meant keeping F$U and CU in the fold? Their vested interest is in locking up as much good programming as possible as cheaply as possible. Pulling UT and OU from the B12 was part of that equation. They pay out more per SEC school; but the SEC is theirs, not split like the B12.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
ESPN has a ton of other content. And the SEC is doing just fine without them and is already in those two states.
ESPN (Disney) even said they are open to cutting costs and content. So no single ACC school matters too much to ESPN.
As for the ACC contract, odds are they will renew but with no extra money. Or with less money if FSU is gone. There is no risk to ESPN. The risk will be ACC schools getting locked in to low payouts for many more years while the P2 pulls away with the money.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
M
Marooned
2y
It’s the devaluing of the ACC as a whole property. Right now, some programs are within punching distance of winning it all in the CFP. Devalue the remaining programs and that won’t be the case. Very myopic if ESPN allows that to happen.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
funds are typically earmarked for various purposes.
(In response to this post by vtox1)
2
2hhoop3
2y
there are few, if any, schools that have free and available endowment funds that could or would be repurposed for what he proposes, much less an amount that would sustain for years.
(In response to this post by IB4TECH)
T
TDVick
2y
UNC,NCSU, UVA and VT are the relevant questions.
I totally agree that splitting all parties, UNC and NCSU, also UVA and VT is the most valuable move.
Like I learned in 2011, pure economics don't drive these outcomes. My guess is that all four schools get grafted on as a bloc to SEC or B10. If so, then B10 probably ends up adding FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, NCSU and VT, which would give it solid footprint in the South.
(In response to this post by vtox1)
T
TDVick
2y
deadline for giving notice is PROBABLY not going to get met. In which case, it looks like a coalition is forming. Three new schools get added, bringing the number to 17 (18? since ND votes), so then you need 10 to vote to disband.
ND is cozy with Stanford.
FSU and Clemson want to leave.
UNC, UVA, VT and NCSU seem to be coordinating.
That is EIGHT.
My guess is that B10 would pull in Cal.
That's NINE.
Who is TEN?
Duke for a sweet bball only share? Maybe full membership?
If not, you could play them off versus Miami.
Everyone seems to hate Miami even more than Duke and UNC really needs to have Duke in the same Bball conference in my view.
So, these numbers get really big, and I think this many additions is too big for the SEC, plus the B10 has much more academic prestige, and when it gets this big, you can make the travel much more sane by having 3 regions.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
T
TDVick
2y
floated. Conferences are going to need a large coalition to get this done.
I'm a pro-SEC mercenary, but what I've noticed is that these politicians and university presidents don't seem to like the SEC very much. That's why I think the new 18 team ACC finds 10 votes to disband and those schools end up in the B10. I think the people that run VT and UVA prefer the B10 at this point. If the money is not THAT MUCH lower, they'd prefer to hang out with Cal, Stanford, UCLA, ND, etc. than the SEC. Plus, if the B10 gets really big, travel can be carved into regions.
** Edited by TDVick at 5/11/2024, 10:06:44 AM
(In response to this post by TDVick)
S
Stech
2y
Now they might, but to say they are is inaccurate right now, unless you can prove it.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
2y
The rights are sound for the holistic conference package. They have some good SOLID brands, that can blip viewers and if they get a special game with low rights and high viewership more profit.
I still say in ESPN portfolio, while they are all in with SEC, there is a role for the ACC in there package.
Even taking out FSU and Clemson, some very good branded programs in major markets. (and much more than Big 12).
(In response to this post by Stech)
T
TDVick
2y
they don't earn money on.
Basically, you're saying that ESPN can EXTEND the ACC just to block everything. If that is the case, if the ACC doesn't have departures by June then they will have to find enough homes for ACC schools to get 10/18 to vote to dissolve. I think that would kill the contract?
I think this post popped up before you responded. In which case it goes like this.
If the June 30 deadline occurs without defections, it looks like a coalition is forming. Three new schools get added, bringing the number to 17 (18? since ND votes), so then you need 10 to vote to disband.
ND is cozy with Stanford.
FSU and Clemson want to leave.
UNC, UVA, VT and NCSU seem to be coordinating.
That is EIGHT.
My guess is that B10 would pull in Cal.
That's NINE.
Who is TEN?
Duke for a sweet bball only share? Maybe full membership?
If not, you could play them off versus Miami.
It seems that Duke would be preferred to Miami and UNC really needs to have Duke in the same Bball conference in my view.
So, these numbers get really big, and I think this many additions is too big for the SEC, plus the B10 has much more academic prestige, and when it gets this big, you can make the travel much more sane by having 3 regions.
That would be an impressive conference and I really think that most university presidents hold their noses at the SEC's academics. Like I said. Economics are NOT the primary driver on this.
** Edited by TDVick at 5/11/2024, 11:34:18 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
T
TDVick
2y
nicely. You will have a bloc with (UNC, NCSU, UVA, VT, Clemson, FSU, Maryland and Duke) - Look familiar? It's basically the old ACC from the 70s.
Out West you will have USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington.
These additions would make the travel better rather much worse, it would seem to me.
This process seems path-dependent, in that to break this open, you are going to have to find a way to break apart the ACC, but the way I describe, gets it out of the clutches of ESPN and into the B10 network-type model, which I think a LOT of schools would prefer.
If this thing goes PAST June 30, this is my prediction.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
T
TDVick
2y
and FSU can't bail this year, I don't think it is that unlikely that the ACC votes to disband. For that to happen, the teams voting to disband, need a landing spot. Once USC, UCLA, Ore and Wash join, that will be 18 and if 10 of the new ACC join that would be 28. But I still think that would work. They should probably go ahead and dissolve now, find a place for Duke and Miami and do it with 8/15 rather than 10/18 once the new teams come on board.
The only reason to wait is if the B10 is adamant about adding ND.
My other two points make me think the B10 is the primary landing spot for the departees. I think they could disband now, but I think Notre Dame is the problem. They are stringing this along so they can take care of Stanford, and that is one of their conditions for the B10.
1. These university presidents really dislike the SEC's academics and culture and know their teams won't be relevant in the SEC.
2. The SEC is so top-heavy and always seems to have a lot of top 15 power ranking teams, that to check this, the B10 will have to get bigger.
Counting Texas and Oklahoma, the SEC had 9 of the top 17 power ranked teams last year.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi
3. It really amazes me that the B10 gets the same or more money than the SEC. I don't think there portfolio of teams is very good. I know the ACC has always had a bad team composition, but HOW MUCH less should they have made relative to the B10 network if they had not been a clown show?
Shouldn't they be able to make the same or MORE with the better ACC schools grafted on?
** Edited by TDVick at 5/12/2024, 7:04:01 AM
(In response to this post by 133966Hokie)
W
WarHog38
2y
Disbanding. The more likely reason is money like everything else. Money as the hundreds of millions of dollars from ESPN every single year sent into that ACC front office in North Carolina. I don't know how much of the those hundreds of millions that the ACC front office pockets, however I am sure it is many of tens of millions every year. I do know the the SEC front office in Birmingham gets a Two Share haul from those ESPN hundreds of millions that pour into Birmingham every year. Two Shares is twice what any SEC school gets. The SEC front office is getting over $100 Million each year for salaries and whatever their little hearts can cook up. Anyway back to the ACC. All those ACC Championship Games lost to the North Carolina economy are also nothing to sneeze at. Certainly many millions lost to those local city economies plus the ACC front office surely gets a good cut of that money. Those are the things holding the ACC together these days. I don't think the B1G & ND are a very big player in that.
** Edited by WarHog38 at 5/12/2024, 5:00:16 PM
(In response to this post by TDVick)
D
dayooper
2y
There are several reasons, first being that ESPN has the SEC locked up to themselves. If Fox wants the next big conference, they need to pay (as is CBS and NBC). Otherwise someone else will.
I’m not sure people outside of the Midwest understand how much we love our sports teams. Sports are a huge deal here and some of the best sports towns are in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. The sports culture of or large, public universities is strong. I know UM, MSU and OSU grads that want nothing to do with sports get tickets to home games, throw parties and follow their teams to the max (my daughter being one of them.
Big10 alumni are everywhere. They are in all corners of the country and even world wide. I know international students that still follow UM football in Asia and Europe. At one point, Heathrow Airport was selling Michigan hats in their gift shop!
The data and viewership ratings also suggest that the Big10 is highly viewed on a year by year basis. While it may be top heavy with UM, PSU and OSU, they still bring in the ratings.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
T
TDVick
2y
out is the B10 model and why it works so well. Maybe it starts with passion and ends there. I think Nebraska has the best fans of anyone and if you live in a cold state where the farm shuts down for the winter, that passion seems to be very high.
I just can't figure out why the ACC, even with its bad portfolio of small school teams has sucked so bad at execution. Whatever the B10 is getting out of its network, what is the delta that the ACC SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN, ASSUMING THEY WERE MINIMALLY COMPETENT? 60%? 40%? And that's my point, if you toss the Wakes and BCs out of the ACC and take the top 8-10 teams, they seem as good if not better (pardon me) than the typical B10 team. Even if the B10 are insanely passionate, I don't think there would be that much of a gap.
Despite that passion, which I don't deny, it seems like the B10 has a really good platform built, that the stooge Swofford never got launched for the ACC. If you put the desirable ACC teams on that platform, I would think they would be much better than a school like University of Washington. If the B10 has access to VT, could they squeeze more revenue from it than Iowa? My guess is yes.
There seem to be a lot of dimensions to the realignment decisions. Basic incompetence seems to be an underweighted element. It should be an easy one to fix.
(In response to this post by dayooper)
H
Hokie 04
2y
contracts is alarming and eye opening. How many people have gotten rich doing such a half assed job of running these schools/athletic programs?
(In response to this post by vtox1)
D
daveinop
2y
** Edited by daveinop at 5/11/2024, 8:42:03 AM
(In response to this post by vtox1)
2y
idea that 1/2 of the ACC will be carved up to go to the P2 is nonsense. We went through the exact same exercises in the B12 when OU and Texas announced. The B12 didn't get their contract after adding 4 G5 schools because ESPN/FOX were being nice, or felt guilty because they "knew" the PAC would implode.
The ACC has a core value without FSU and Clemson, and this idea that ESPN will walk away is absurd. The ACC, like the B12, will emerge as a power conference. UConn and USF should add enough value as replacements to maintain the current contract, as the football realignment is all but done. The next value play will be the basketball bluebloods, and possible guaranteed monies from the new tournament media deal that has yet to be negotiated.
Will the P2 make a play for the basketball blue bloods? THAT is the unanswered question that would necessitate a break away league. It's all over but the crying for football, as there just are not many Texas's or Oklahoma's out there that move that needle.
If it wasn't for the 4 corners and the PAC imploding, it's my contention that UConn would already be in the B12. The Big 10 and the SEC will NOT be dividing up their new found wealth with the guaranteed playoff money with anyone, unless it increases the conference payouts in the future.
Also, this idea that Duke will go to a conference for basketball only, is one of the silliest predictions I have read to date.
(In response to this post by vtox1)
I
INSIDE99
2y
The Big 10 and the SEC will NOT be dividing up their new found wealth with the guaranteed playoff money with anyone, unless it increases the conference payouts in the future.
This ^^^^^
I'm not sure why so many are predicting all these schools to the P2. It only dilutes the payout when it's all about the Benjamins. If any more realignment moves are made past FSU, Clemson, Notre Dame and UNC they won't happen for another four years or so.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
Years but they will to ensure a spot in the P2 the $$$ gap is only going to widen more in the future the acc is on unstable ground. SEC & B10 are rock solid and now working together on governance of top tier of college FB and have a streaming deal together. They also dictated the terms of the new playoff revenue sharing to everyone else.
Clemson and FSU know they have a landing spot or they would not be suing the ACC. Imho that spot is in the Big10.
Both Conferences are going to want a presence in VA/NC, so unless politics messes it up logic says VT/NCSU to SEC and Uva and UNC to B10.
UNC holds alot of cards as they can likely choose SEC or B10, can will they drag NCSU with them to either league? Will NC board of Gov. Throw a wrench in things by threatening to veto UNC move to new conf. If NCSU is not included?
Imho, best shot for both VT and Uva to get into p2 is to agree to split as long as each is assured a spot in either B10 or SEC. If this isn't worked out, I could see us having to go into B12 if ACC collapses like the Pac12.
If B10 does get Clemson FSU Stanford ND, do they have less interest in UNC/VT/uva? They would be at 24 teams. I can see SEC perhaps taking ncsu to get UNC, not so sure VT or UVA are strong enough brand to pull the other in? VT seems to offer more than uva as it is about football. But maybe they take all 4 putting SEC at 20 teams.
Not sure how this all falls out, I know one thing once FSU & Clemson are gone. The B12 starts to look more attractive to school's like Miami, Louisville, even VT?
The other thing I know is any of remaining ACC schools left after a Clemson FSU exit are likely going to jump to B10 or SEC even at a reduced revenue share initially if given the opportunity.
The school with the most valuable brand is UNC. UNC is also the most historically tied to and representative of the ACC. Any shot the ACC has to survive and sustain itself on par with the B12 is dependent on UNC! UNC is the linchpin, if and when they move to either SEC or B10 is when ACC collapses!
I think it is almost a certainty now that FSU and Clemson have at most 4 seasons left in ACC, likely less. ESPN has told ACC they are not going to renew deal beyond 2027 season. Without that renewal I can't see GOR binding anyone beyond then. If Stanford and ND bale to B10 then as well.
What is left of ACC is going to struggle to get a media deal even on par with B12. However, I think Conference can survive if UNC remains along with VT, Uva, ncsu and GT, as Duke, WF will also stay. Again, UNC is the linchpin NO unc means No ACC.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
H
hokieZ71
2y
1) I have a hard time understanding why ESPN would 1) be happy to end the ACC deal in the first place and 2) As a byproduct let Clemson and FSU leave the ACC for virtually nothing, weakening themselves (ESPN) in the process by allowing both schools to go to the FOX led B1G.
So, what you're intimating is that ESPN wants to strengthen FOX's Saturday programming from Noon - 10pm, while weakening its own lineup during the same time slot. That time slot being the entire day. (Because the loss of revenue for making FOX's B1G product better at the expense of ESPN's SEC product will lose ESPN tons of money)
And ESPN wants to implement this very poor business decision by ending a TV contract (ACC Media Rights Deal) that guarantees it cheap programming during the same time slots for an additional 12 years? (More revenue loss) And as a result, it kills one of its own channels (ACC Network) that is adding $100M+ in profit to its bottom line presently and will continue to do so through 2036, at the very least. ($100M+ x 13 years = at least $1.3 Billion)
Which makes your whole scenario - "ESPN kills the ACC to allow Clemson and FSU to leave for the B1G and FOX Sports on the Cheap" - a net loss of quite literally BILLIONS of dollars for ESPN over the next 8-12 years.
2) What about Notre Dame's recent actions has led you to believe Stanford moving to the B1G will entice ND to move to the B1G? Before you answer, the actual answer is "absolutely nothing". Notre Dame isn't going anywhere. Maybe in 12 years, but presently ND will join a conference in football more likely 'never' than 'under 10 years'. Secondly, the B1G could have already made this move before ND inked their new deal with NBC and also got a sweetheart payout as an independent from the new CFP contract? The B1G didn't do it then and has way less reason to do it now. Because Notre Dame is sitting pretty for 8 years.
You're only statement I agree with is the last one. Some stuff will most likely hit the fan this summer, but not much of what you're suggesting makes a ton of sense.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 5/11/2024, 7:25:37 AM
(In response to this post by vtox1)
I
INSIDE99
2y
There is so much horse trading going on with the networks there is no way for anyone to make sense of where it all lands.
I believe the ESPN/FOX/Warner merger to form a streaming package this summer is a sign the two sports giants absolutely wheel and deal. There are many rumors (and everything is a rumor) that for ESPN to get exclusive rights to the new CFP package through 2030 that FOX gave concessions for it to get signed and in return got concessions of their own. One of them was getting FSU/Clemson/UNC rights. Again - only typical speculation obviously. While this may not be true, there is absolute "horse trading" in the industry the public is never privy to. Nobody outside the network board knows the truth.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by vtox1)
I
INSIDE99
2y
ESPN has had since 2021 to renew the ACC deal and to this point they have not.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
** Edited by ancient alien 2018 at 5/11/2024, 1:16:01 AM
(In response to this post by vtox1)
2y
B10: FSU, Clemson, Stanford, ND, Uva, UNC
SEC: VT, NCSU
B12: Louisville, Pitt
Runt of ACC - GT*, WF, BC, Syracuse
*GT might have shot at B10 or more likely B12.
(In response to this post by vtox1)
T
TDVick
2y
someone could flesh out the relevant variables in this situation. The ones I look at are
How much is UNC committed to Olympic sports? If so, then B10 is a much better fit.
However, it seems the new Chancellor is much more pro-SEC than the old one who was a B10 guy.
However again... its seems like this will be a political, state-level decision and that the UNC people have been
superceded.
It looks to me that VT and NCSU are less objectionable to the SEC, so as you say... that's where they could end up.
Maybe the SEC doesn't even want VT and NCSU without UNC, in which case there is lot of group coordination.
UNC is probably locked in with NCSU and I think the UNC wants UVA with them as well, probably enough to stomach VT being part of the package.
UNC has the biggest coattails of the UNC, UVA, VT, NCSU bunch, so maybe they can pull NCSU in with them.
I could see the entire 4 team block negotiating with both the SEC and B10. If UNC is sufficiently accretive, they can pull in NCSU with them at full payout - effectively cross-subsidizing NCSU.
If VT and UVA join UNC and NCSU in another conference, then UVA and VT will probably have to take a haircut. They will be forced by politics to take the same haircut - in which case UVA will be cross-subsidizing VT, since UVA is the preferred target.
Lately (last couple of weeks), I've been leaning to the idea that all four go together, the question is just a matter of price (how much of a haircut). I do think the VT and UVA are more valuable separated, but as I learned in 2011, this isn't a purely economically-driven process.
The travel in either split up will be terrible, so I can see how UNC would want some nearby teams included.
(In response to this post by vtox1)