SIR - In the grand scheme of things, no big deal here but worth posting
76 Replies
M
mjfhokie
1y
The case that was dropped is not the bigger lawsuit of FSU versus the ACC. Instead it was FSU versus ESPN to get a copy of the ESPN contract with ACC. Since it is now available, no reason to continue to push for contract, i.e. ESPN complied with Florida law to provide public access (albeit redacted) to the State of Florida and FSU.
In terms of the bigger picture lawsuit, FSA is continuing its lawsuit against ACC. As quoted from the article:
"This case was separate but related to the ongoing litigation between FSU and the ACC playing out in Leon County (where FSU sued the ACC) and North Carolina (where the ACC sued FSU)." and
"That dueling litigation is unaffected by the end of the Attorney General’s suit."
Reading the comments, sone seemed to misinterpret.
(In response to this post by Maroon Unit)
D
daveinop
1y
than they hoped. But it got FSU out of a Sunshine Law bind where the AG's office could take the hit from ESPN/ACC...if there was going to be one.
FSU has always had access to the contract...all ACC members have access to the contract. It isn't the most convenient thing, but they have access.
(In response to this post by mjfhokie)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by daveinop)
D
daveinop
1y
all of the "Mag 7" did that when they were looking at their options; they said they went to Charlotte to study the documents. FSU had full knowledge of the contract when they filed their suit; it included the 2027 decision point for ESPN. That ONLY appears in the contract. They just couldn't pull out sections to highlight for their media circus. That was Moody's motive as well.
Could be wrong but I'm thinking one of the judges also directed the ACC (and the ACC agreed) to produce enough information to know what rights are included in the GOR...which is of course whatever relevant language (i.e.,"the rights necessary to fulfill...") there is in the contract.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2
2hhoop3
1y
ALL sides are twisted up and, without assigning blame to any one party that could be identified as the main catalyst, they are trying to find ways to resolve the situation for all involved. However, somewhat akin to the discussion at the end of the movie "National Treasure", somebody's gotta go to jail. The most likely way for that to conclude is for one or more parties to come to the table with cash. It is a question of who blinks first.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
1y
I'm sure they are keeping that number in their hip pocket for now.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
they have a number, I would guess the ACC has a number and I would guess ESPN has a number. That is 3/4, 3/5, or 3/6 of the equation with the other parts being the B1G and FOX and the SEC. The question is whose numbers become more flexible with each approaching deadline and what other motivations/leverage exists to draw the parties to the table. The next imminent deadline(8/15) is a week away but, if that one passes the clock keeps ticking and the motivations/leverages reset and shift again.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
D
daveinop
1y
the ACC won't meaningfully negotiate in Florida or South Carolina until NC plays out a bit and ESPN does whatever it's going to do next February.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
S
Stech
1y
trying to figure out how ESPN makes more money in all of this realignment. I wish people would stop talking like a fan, and talk like a bean counter.
Like Deep Throat (Mark Felt) said, follow the money!!
(In response to this post by daveinop)
1y
counters end up doing because it would not only give me insight to what they are thinking, but also identify the scenarios they decide to examine. Oh the irony if the bean counters make a recommendation based on one scenario and things play out more closely to another scenario they dismissed for whatever reason.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
Which, other than the B12, I'm not sure they do.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
2
2hhoop3
1y
the questions will be if it is where they thought and would like to go AND whether the money they think they can get is actually available out of the gate AND the big question is if answers to the first two questions turn out to be different than they expected how much better(or worse) off might they be?
(In response to this post by LonghornHokie)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by daveinop)
W
WarHog38
1y
Or Disney to be exact. The Florida court where FSU filed is going to bend over for Disney just like this Florida AG has done. Will ESPN resign extending that ACC TV deal past 2027? That is the only question to be answered within the next two years.
By August 15, 2026. ESPN will really be working behind that legal curtain in the judicial system to manipulate their monetary desires. All that ACC dismal near future obliterated if ESPN just resigns that TV Contract. An interesting wait. Where ACC schools go is the real puzzling aspect in all this.
(In response to this post by Maroon Unit)
1y
waiting game until a judge/jury rules whether the ACC Commish violated ACC bylaws by issuing the MOU to ESPN extending the option deadline from 2021 to 2026/7 without getting two-thirds approval from the members. If a judge/jury decides that the Commish needed to get two-thirds approval because the MOU was a amendment/modification to the media contract, then that should mean the option period is now dead because the window has already passed. It would also mean a new contract would need to be issued in 2027 and maybe even a new GOR. Where things get a little murky is if you look at it from the position that the GOR and media contract are tangential to each other, then what does that mean if there is no media contract in place because the old one either expired or not enough members are willing to ratify the new contract.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WBGV
1y
the deadline for ESPN to make a unilateral decision on the ACC contract extension could have a number of legal ramification. Did Phillips have the legal authority to do so and were ACC members involved in that decision at any point? When did ACC members become aware of that decision?
Even a bigger question is why did Phillips decide to move that decision date from 2021 to 2025? The only answer I could come up with is that he had no choice. ESPN was not going to extend the contract beyond 2027. Phillip very smartly convinced ESPN to hold off on making that decision until February 2025 and since ESPN was contractually obligated through 2027 anyway, they agreed. That provision only benefitted ESPN.
Fast forward to the summer of 2024 and ACC members have no idea if their media rights contract ends in 2027 or 2036. ACC members are suing their own Conference for control of their media rights, the PAC-12 imploded and is essential gone, there has been a major reshuffling of power conference schools with more to come, and streaming content is on the verge of replacing the cable subscriber model. Does ESPN need ACC content more now than they did in 2021? I have my doubts that they will extend the ACC media rights contract beyond 2027, however it can’t be ruled out. Time will tell and that time in now less than 6 months.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
D
daveinop
1y
for the ACCN to get full distribution, particularly with Comcast.
Re: an extension, why would ESPN approve new pro-rata payouts and expansion of the ACCN fee base if they were going to cancel in less than a year? That would be pointless for everyone; or are you saying it's just a two year deal (while the new members agreed to payout modifications far beyond that).
Phillips used the term "look-in"; I can't prove it but I don't think he made that up.
** Edited by daveinop at 8/11/2024, 8:10:46 AM
(In response to this post by WBGV)
1y
2027, it may not mean the GOR is dead too. At least there is a possibility that the GOR and media contract are tangentle to each other. If the courts decide the GOR and media contract are tangentle to each other, then it is possible the GOR doesn't expire until June 30, 2036 or whatever end date the ACC decides on assuming the ACC uses its trump card to unilaterally extend the end POP. I agree with your that the decision made in 2021 has a ton of legal ramifications. Some of them people may have thought wouldn't be possible until the ACC found itself in self-preservation mode.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
V
VTCALS72
1y
so it would be my guess that the ACC, within the GOR has all the authorities they need to do everything they have and short of ESPN walking away and a new provider being picked up, no further votes by the members are needed.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
W
WBGV
1y
“look in” clauses; however, they could be in the portion of documents supposedly containing trade secrets that have not been made available to the public.
If these “look in” clauses exist, what would they be looking at contractually and how would that affect whether the contract ends in 2027 or 2036?
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
D
daveinop
1y
when the contract was signed. It was also a feature of the previous contract.
** Edited by daveinop at 8/11/2024, 8:20:39 AM
** Edited by daveinop at 8/11/2024, 8:21:02 AM
** Edited by daveinop at 8/11/2024, 8:22:19 AM
(In response to this post by WBGV)
W
WBGV
1y
to leave the ACC. Apparently his understanding of the so called “look-in” clause wasn’t correct back in 2016 and he now feels that FSU’s interest are being hurt by the long-term deal with ESPN.
I was hoping that we would see the clause that Jim Phillips referred to as a “look-in” to review the contract and what FSU’s lawyers referred to as ESPN’s unilateral option in their complaint, but it was redacted in the released documents. Since 2021 was supposedly a “look-in” period and nothing was done to adjust the media rights contract base rate to market value, I’m still skeptical that this clause exist or at least does what people thought it would do. It seems that FSU’s former President now has that same opinion.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
V
VTCALS72
1y
to see if it was eligible for an adjustment (primarily) upward. I think this is an underlying part of the 2027 vs 2036 date because ESPN demanded that kind of a review of the ACCN which they had to invest so much in and after a point wanted to be able to not throw good money after bad. I think the ACCN is performing well enough that ESPN will opt in but not until the very last because it is still a cat and mouse game with FSU.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
1y
amendment in 2016? I say that because I believe the GOR was already in place prior to 2016, which should make the document executed in 2016 an amendment/a modification.
If you look at the ACC Manual (I found this copy floating out there on TSL), then you will see the Commish can only execute contracts after it has been approved by the Board. In 2020, the ACC modified its bylaws so "the 15 league presidents and chancellors will now serve as the ACC’s Board of Directors and continue to have ultimate authority over all conference affairs." (https://theacc.com/news/2020/6/22/general-acc-council-of-... I have not found a more recent copy of the ACC Manual, but I am assuming that rule is still in place.
2.3.1 Duties of the Commissioner.
o. Execute Contracts. Execute contracts approved by the Board or in the ordinary course of Conference business.
q. Media Rights. Negotiate Media Rights agreements on behalf of the Conference, provided that all Material Media Rights Agreements shall be subject to approval by the Board under Section 2.10.3 and all other Media Rights agreements shall be subject to approval by the Executive Committee. “Material Media Rights Agreements” shall include any Media Rights agreement (i) that provides for an average annual value equal to or greater than 5% of the Conference’s aggregate gross revenues during the most recently completed fiscal year or (ii) that otherwise is deemed material by the Chair or the Commissioner or that must be approved by the Board pursuant to any Media Rights policy or resolution adopted by the Board.
I would be very surprised if the ACC knowingly enters into any contract where the terms and conditions violate its bylaws. It would be like saying the federal government knowingly enters into a contract when the terms and conditions violate FAR particularly if "must" or "shall" are involved in the part/subpart.
Link:
ACC 2020-21 Manual
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
1y
maybe that has been the only material change at all. And maybe every extension and ruling by the ACC is covered by authorities that can at least be claimed under the GOR.
I do believe the GOR gave the ACC the power of attorney or something like that for every team through 2036 because that is how long the media agreement could last and ESPN demanded a GOR to the the max. Probably the same with every conference.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
joined as a non-football member. If you look in Section 8 (Miscellaneous), then I believe the first sentence states "This Agreement may not be modified or amended other than by an agreement in writing signed by duly authorized representatives of the Conference and each of the Member Institutions that are then members of the Conference." I believe that sentence has been consistently in there for all the variations/amendments. Also, it aligns with the ACC's bylaws. Unless the ACC plans to use the Clinton defense on the definition of "and," then I do not see anything explicitly stated in the GOR that would give the Commish the power to unilaterally make a decision on behalf of the conference.
Now the ACC may try to say its get out of jail free card may be in another sentence later on in Section 8, "Should any provision of this Agreement be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, such shall not invalidate this Agreement, but such provision shall be deemed amended to the extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable and which as closely as possible reflects the original intent of the parties." It will be up to a judge to decide if that sentence, which I believe has been consistent in all the versions, is enough to cover every mea culpa committed by the ACC or not. If a judge rules the sentence covers all mea culpas, future and past, then that could put the schools in a precarious situation. I say that because the ACC could at any point between now and June 30, 2036 decide to unilaterally amend the GOR to extend the end period of performance (POP) and then simply say "Ooops...mea culpa. I meant to get approval before extending the end POP again." According to that sentence, the GOR would be amended and the schools would be "stuck" in the ACC until the GOR is allowed to expire or the school agrees to pay the exit cost (exit fee + buying back GOR).
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 8/10/2024, 1:08:31 PM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
1y
was and is an agreement to hold all the signors together, "stuck" in the ACC until the 2036 date. Of course none of the signors thought they were "stuck" when it was signed. The 20 year term of the GOR may or may not in any way be tied to any date in the media deal as long as there are provisions in the media deal that the final end date is 2036.
Every school knew this and agreed to the "pay the exit cost" provision. Simple thing is that what 9 years in and having reaped all the good and bad of the contract for nearly 1/2 the term, it is now a bad deal for any school who has a clear pathway to the P2. But they all signed rights over to the ACC and agreed to share and share alike. This is nothing but FSU trying to react to circumstances 8 years in. Admittedly the deal is terrible for those teams that have the clear pathway to the P2 but that is of no consequences at all. The only consequence is the teams signed the GOR and agreed to cede individual school power to the conference for the good of all. They have benefitted for 8 years and are that solidly vested into the agreement, including the process for exiting.
Everything else is just FSU trying to weasel out.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
the end POP or we think it is the current end POP because of the assumptions we make on how contracts should behave. However, what if FSU (and Clemson) see the situation similar to the scenario I suggested in my previous post where the current end POP may not be the true end POP because the ACC has the power to unilaterally decide that date on a moment's notice? If the Commish was able to unilaterally amend the GOR in 2021, then technically there isn't anything to stop the Commish from doing it again in the future. Particularly if the NC court(s) support the decision.
If that sentence is truly the ACC's get out jail free card, then the ACC could keep extending the GOR unilaterally even if the ACC enters into a new media contract with whomever because the schools won't be able to afford to pay for the exit fee and buying back their GOR. I may be wrong, but I doubt there would be too many Hokie fans (maybe even ACC fans) who would be happy if the ACC announced it unilaterally extended the current GOR to June 30, 2050 or even June 30, 2099 knowing full well it doesn't have a media contract in place after June 30, 2036. You may be thinking to yourself that the ACC wouldn't dare do that because that action would be violating something. I do agree with that thought process, but at the same time people and entities have been known to make strange decisions in the name of self-preservation. Most people think the ACC is a dead man walking and it will either not exist or be a shell of its former self once the GOR is allowed to expire. Why wouldn't the ACC try to delay it for as long as possible?
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
1y
have empowered it with is 2036. So I believe the conference has been given a wide latitude in keeping the media deal in place through all the look ins etc. up to 2036, that is a stated deadline. OTOH some will point to the Media Deal and say it is 2027. BUT the Media Deal is between the ACC and ESPN, the individual members are not signors so they really surrendered their say in any of the complex pieces to the media deal, some or all of which may extend to 2036. Dates of the various look ins or reviews may well be within the power of the ACC as granted to them in the GOR by the members but 2036 is the drop dead date of the right to act by the conference from the individual members. For instance, what if the landscape changes and the conference goes to ESPN for more money? Would they be prohibited from doing that within the management of the contract(s)? I don't think so.
2nd I think everyone needs to take a step back and realize our GOR and media deal is essentially the same as the B12 and SEC with pretty much the same authorities granted to the conferences to administer the various things in the contract that may still be redacted.
FSU is just trying everything but if given the chance, they will sign exactly the same type agreement with the SEC or Big 10.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2
2hhoop3
1y
ever expected the 2036 date to be the realistic end, just a date far enough in the future to allow an orderly transition of affairs and see where the college landscape was going. What they failed to account for was FSU leadership getting a case of the stupid greater than they normally exhibited.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
power of stupid people in large groups", which defines FSU leadership to a tee!!
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
get the case of the stupids long before that date in the name of self-preservation? Since this has turned into a basic pissing contest, my guess is that the ACC will probably do something between now and 2036 to make it more difficult and costly for any member to leave the ACC at some point in the future even after everyone has a crystal clear picture of the college landscape.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
it is one thing to try and hold a conference together with one or two renegade schools but, it becomes exponentially more difficult as the number of dissidents rise.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
dissents really matter though because they would still have no legal recourse to get out of the situation. If a judge rules in the ACC's favor (and against the 2 schools), then the presidence has been established for the remaining members of the conference. Hence why I believe a judge deciding whether 1 sentence in Section 8 of the GOR is truly the ACC's get out of jail free card or not could be critical in deciding what future path the ACC continues down.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
the fantasy you are basing your opinion on but, you ignore the practical realities and the fact that ANY agreements can be modified/overturned with the requisite number of votes. The conference is its members, not the conference office and a heavily divided conference is no conference at all in reality.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
they do it once the discrepancy in the end dates became known? I would think it is in everyone's best interest to have the GOR's end date be in alignment with the ACC's media contract. At the very least it would have prevented everyone ending up in this legal quagmire that they are in now. Plus, if it was a possible option, then I would think someone would have leaked it to the press by now as a possible offramp to the mess they are in now.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
(1) didn't see it as a problem to start with and (2)saw no need to cast a new vote that creates a new agreement and allows the ones who disagree to vote no. Moreover, assuming the dates of the GOR and the media agreement have to align is no more than an assumption and actually runs counter to the argument that the documents are independent agreements.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
because the GOR explicitly makes multiple references the media contract. If you are going to reference an external contract and the dates are not aligned, then you probably will need a clause in there to define what happens if/when the external contract is no longer active. Plus, if you look at the original GOR issued in 2010 (I think), then you should see that part of the terms and conditions in the GOR states that the schools must also fulfill the terms and conditions as defined in the media contract too. I know it is referenced in the 2013 Amendment (https://storageaccountstart88df.blob.core.windows.net/ndn... Even if the courts rule they are tangentle to each other, it may not be enough to break that connection the 2 contracts share with each other.
Link:
2016 Amendment
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
courts and appellate courts are for in terms of resolving disputes regarding contract interpretations. I am not sure saying "you will probably need a clause" might mean until the actual relationship between the contracts is determined. Are you a lawyer? If so, are you aware of any case law precedent?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
be established first. In some cases the relationship is already established prior to anything being sign. For example, the relationship between a prime contract, a subcontract, and even a sub-subcontract. No, because I opted to go into contracts instead. I found that field much more stimulating and rewarding to me. I don't regret my decision since I have experience working in both the private sector and federal sector. As a contracting officer, I have been required to participate in multiple litigations on both sides of the fence similar to the ACC's GOR case now. Each time I do participate in one it only reminds me why I made the "right" decision.
As far as case law is concern, I don't believe there are any that exactly match the GOR case. The closest things you will find should involve either copyright, property, and possibly EULA. Given the flow of money from ESPN to the ACC to the schools for the same services referenced in both agreements, it would not surprise me if someone makes reference to the prime-subcontract(s) relationship at some point during the cases. It wouldn't be a strong argument because it was built invertingly, but I do understand why someone might try to approach it that way. Particularly if both contracts explicitly reference each other.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
W
WarHog38
1y
Needing a new ACC GOR due to a court decision and enforcing that new ACC GOR by a 2/3 vote of the ACC membership. The ACC can probably get that 2/3's. However FSU & Clemson would surely never sign a new GOR. UNC might not either. However that would raise a new question to ultimately be answered in court. Can a school be held legally responsible into the future by a contract they never signed?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
scenario assuming ESPN does exercise the option and it is later voided because of the court ruling. How will that impact ESPN's relationship with the ACC?
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
T
Truthahn
1y
Doesn't helping FSU hurt U of Miami?
It would be like our AG helping UVa get out of the ACC. We would be mobilized against our AG by that. What does Miami think of all this, just cie la vie?
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
1y
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
1y
not private entities. FSU is part of Florida's state government while The U is private.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
D
daveinop
1y
than Miami...and I'm sure she heard from all of them. I'm guessing Greenberg Traurig got an ear full from them (and their heavy hitting legal peers in Tallahassee) as well.
No one wants those kind of contracts out in the public eye.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
1y
The ability of this board to create conspiracies involving the SEC and ESPN is truly amazing.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
1y
I pretty much allow for that type ESPN option every time I mention the more dire possibilities for the ACC. However ESPN does not fool around with the SEC. No lolly gagging with the Big-12 when along with FOX, ESPN jumped a year earlier than necessary to make sure the Big-12 was all nice & cozy with a brand new TV Contract.
ESPN comes off looking like a sly business operator. However some here can keep hoping ESPN will stay content to just keep beating around the bush with the ACC.
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
1y
I'm not convinced that ESPN doesn't have an offer on the table. The ACCN may be preventing them from getting another media partner involved, but all of this is just speculation on my part.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
1y
It would just align with what happened in the PAC with Klavikoff negotiating with FOX & ESPN. That went public framed as a big failure by Klavikoff. One could see Phillips wanting to keep a tight wrap on negotiations with ESPN these days.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
extension in his back pocket, but wants more. An extension doesn't keep FSU in the conference. Phillips could pull off a better contract, and find a way to keep FSU in the conference. If he did that, no one would be talking about Yormark anymore.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2
2hhoop3
1y
about keeping FSU in the conference given all that has transpired or just collecting, if he can, $500 or $600 million from them and letting them be somebody else's headcase?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
he does with that money is another question, as that approaches the PE numbers the B12 has been talking about. Also, I think making a play for the money from FSU (Clemson will not pay that kind of money), is a short term, short sighted play.
If Phillips goal is to keep them in the conference, forcibly, or otherwise, the ACC has a much stronger chance of coming out of this as a strong conference.
Someone else's headache? From where I'm sitting, FSU will not go anywhere they do not want to be, for what ever reason. Even if it's the B12, who's contract expires in 2031 would be a better option for them than staying where they do not want to be until 2036.
I think we both know that the ACC is not going to get $500M+ because of the GOR. If the GOR is help up by the courts, then FSU will stay in the ACC for a period of time, until that exit cost is more in line with what they are willing to pay. When the B12 contract is negotiated for after 2031, I think things will be a bit different, as the 4 corners were not included in the last negotiations. The timing of the B12 expiration also lines up with the new contracts the Big 10 and SEC will be negotiating.
Everyone has a date, and everyone has been wrong to date. The next round of contract negotiations will be key on how this all settles down, and it will be then when the SEC and Big 10 expand. The ACC at 2036 will be the last conference to negotiate a contract, and I don't think that will be to their advantage assuming the current contract is extended. (my speculation)
If the GOR does not stand up in court, and 2027 is the end of the current ACC contract, then of course, all bets are off. Any school in the ACC will take a partial share to be included in the SEC or Big 10.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
settles for $300MM right now. The ACC's number is substantially north of that I believe but, were there to be some other considerations arise they might move off that higher number.. As far as the rest goes, not surprisingly we disagree and I will leave it at that for now.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
for one second that that ACC is going to get that kind of money, then I have a bridge to sell you. If the courts rule that the GOR stands, FSU will continue to play in the ACC. If the courts rule differently, whether it's the GOR, or more likely, that it only extends to 2027, then the ACC will get the exit fee, as that will be what they will negotiate. 2027 is right around the corner. FSU will leave then, not before, and the ACC will not see one penny of FSU's GOR. Bet you a pair of tickets to lane.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
why did you use the range to start with?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
** Edited by Big12 guy at 8/10/2024, 2:51:48 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
to make your own statement that "it was definitely an option". I said 500 - 600, you used 300. I countered that the lower part of your range was not an option and then you bailed on your own number.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
it's an exercise in futility. FSU and Clemson will not pay those amounts to the ACC. Either they will be forced to continue being in the conference, or they will leave and pay the exit fee only.
I have claimed in the past that a settlement was possible. I now think that FSU will not give the ACC a dime. Worst case scenario for them is that they stay in the ACC until the Big 10, SEC, and B12 negotiate their next contracts. Think about it, $300M spread over 10 years is $30M a year. I am talking GOR money here, not exit fees. No chance in hell FSU pays that amount to a conference that doesn't appreciate them.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 8/10/2024, 3:11:29 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
question, you said, "I used your numbers, did I not?" You can roll your eyes as you wish, I just responded to your post.
You should have been the FSU AD as you seem to have a better grasp of the numbers and impact than he did when initiating his tantrum. What does the B1G, SEC or B12 negotiating their next contracts have to do with how long FSU remains in the ACC, aside from the passage of time which should reduce the GOR fee? You might also want to see how the B12 delivers on its contract just starting before assuming what the next one might look like, particularly considering their leverage could be substantially less than the last negotiation.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
others. The future B12 contract will include the addition of the 4 corners, and others. That is my assertion. We can quibble on the numbers, the amounts, who said what when, and any other trivial rabbit hole you wish to go down, as none of it matters.
The only thing that matters is the contract extension and the rulings on the GOR. If either of those go against the ACC, FSU and others will be included in the B12, Big 10, and SEC next round of contracts.
The ACC will not get some insane amount of money from FSU. If both the contract and GOR ruling breaks the ACC's way, the next round of contracts for the Big 10, SEC, and B12 will include FSU and others. The ACC is just buying time.
The only thing that will save the ACC is ESPN, and the ACC contract being at least 10M more than the B12. It's all about the contract moving forward, not the sideshow of FSU, and the $500M+ that some on this board think the ACC will get. it's just not going to happen.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
but, the 4 corners were factored into the last B12 negotiation as was a legal settlement for ESPN and the SEC poaching UT and OU. The B12 will be on their own next time as ESPN/SEC and FOX/B1G will have no need for their useful idiot role.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
backing you up. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the next time you hate to tell me your facts, you should probably back it up.
You can call the B12 names. I understand how emotional this stuff can be. That does not however, change the state that the ACC is at the moment, or in the future.
I'm on record stating that the ACC will be fine with or without FSU, but that is dependent on their media contract, not You Tubers, or any ones opinion, including either one of us.
Since we are going back and forth, answer me this: Does VT have a contract until 2036 or not? Because from where I'm sitting, THAT is the only thing that matters.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
to believe it does not mean it isn't true and that is not my sole or likely even a minority opinion. VT will be fine whenever it's contract ends.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
theories is much different than a "belief", or even stretching to that theory being true. You are suggesting a conspiracy without proof, and it's where we get the term "conspiracy theory". It has nothing to do with whether i want to believe something or not.
I agree that VT will be fine whenever their contract ends. Am I to "assume" that you are saying they do not have a contract till 2036?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
logic and reasoning, something you continue to ignore where the Big 12 TV contract is concerned. You want to argue the ACC can lose two marquis properties and not even get a contract while you expect us to believe the Big 12 can lose two equal or bigger properties yet magically get an even larger contract adding 4 G5s. You can assume what you wish about any VT contract as you have already proven it does not matter what I say in terms of what you wish or hope to believe.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
it be an extension of the existing contract? Will it be more? Will ESPN allow another media company to bid on some content? What is Phillips negotiating?
We will find out the answers to those, and other questions when Phillips makes an announcement. Until then, we (yes we), can believe whatever we want, but those numbers will determine what happens to the ACC in the future.
We can have a discussion about the B12's contract (we have), but I don't think the B12's contract and the ACC's contract are intertwined to the degree that some think they are. The B12 has nothing to do with the ACC's contract moving forward. The B12 just happens to exist, and as you know, the speculation of what will happen in the future is all over the map. That does not mean that any of this is predetermined. We all have opinions and theories, but I don't know anyone that has predicted where we are now. The future has not been determined, so we speculate.
The guaranteed playoff money is distributed on existing properties. If the ACC loses FSU/CU, there will be a reset, don't you think?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
the Big 12 and ACC contracts are intertwined. What was said was the situations are very similar and logic and reasoning calls into question how one gets a huge increase, absent other factors while the other strains for a renewal. Can you see the inconsistency in your reasoning?
As far as playoff money goes, the original percentages were set on past participation. Future percentages will likely be reset according to the same criteria unless the SEC and B1G decide they deserve an even bigger piece of the pie. As long as the Big 12 and ACC have autobids AND assuming predictions they will get only one team hold FSU's and Clemson's future conference addresses have no bearing on any reset.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
S
Stech
1y
However, they imply it’s sooner rather than later, until they have to kick the can again. We have not even gotten to August 15th the third date of the summer of the demise of the ACC, and now they are kicking it to August 2025. Skipped right over the February 2025 date.
Maybe ESPN wants to keep the ACC where they have already spent a ton of money on the network and are now making money? Maybe FSU and Clemson are just trying to get more money from ESPN for the ACC by threatening living for the B10? Maybe the NCAA 🏀 tournament expands and top schools and conferences start making similar money to the playoff teams? Maybe the ACC and B12 can make up the money not made in football, in basketball? Maybe you end up with Tier 1 football being the SEC and B10, but they are Tier 2 in basketball, and vice versa with the ACC and B12?
Could Mark Twain have it right? Are the reports of his death (ACC) greatly exaggerated?
** Edited by Stech at 8/9/2024, 8:41:45 AM
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
1y
I'm just not seeing it. Remember, all the schools had to build their own broadcast facilities. And the main ACCN program with Mark Packer is filmed in his basement.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2
2hhoop3
1y
and see what happens. It will all work out.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
to extend contract offers.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
1y
(In response to this post by Maroon Unit)