...in fact, I think it's the only decent argument they've advanced thus far. The consideration for the ACC GOR is the rights necessary to fulfill the ESPN contract. If it goes away, then what are you granting?

are staying, maybe ESPN will extend the contract. If so, the departure damages for FSU to the other schools will be worse once it gets renewed. If ESPN was worried about FSU leaving to the B10, then they now have a pretty strong incentive to renew the ACC contract.

The ACC GOR even specifically implies that ESPN is the media provider in several places within the wording of the ACC GOR. How can another media provider be inserted into that same ACC GOR without a new ACC GOR being legally prepared? Then would FSU & Clemson ever sign that new ACC GOR? Then how would any court hold FSU & Clemson future media rights accountable to the ACC? I think the answer to the last two questions is No. I do hope the best for SMU. I remember the great old SWC games that Arkansas had with SMU. I consider Eric Dickerson & Craig James to be in the same league as Darren McFadden & Felix Jones. Never better pairs of two RB's like that on any college football teams in the history of college football.

He chooses his words very carefully. If adding Texas and Oklahoma was a sound business move for the SEC and ESPN, then it seems to me that adding FSU and Clemson would also be a sound business move - bigger match-ups and more eyeballs per event. There are many similarities, but the public likely won’t know about it until the day it happens. Apparently ESPN must opt-in (not opt-out) for the ESPN media rights agreement with the ACC to be extended. I find it just a little disconcerting that with less than 6 months to go there hasn’t been some kind of announcement of ESPN’s intent. Jim Phillips skirted around the subject at ACC Media Days this year much like George Kliavkoff did before the PAC-12 overnight implosion in 2023. I guess time will tell.

If ESPN doesn't renew, it just means that F$U (& Clemson) will have a much smaller "buy out."

The grant of rights gives rights only as necessary to perform the ESPN contract. If the ESPN contract ends, the grant of rights grants nothing else.

Paragraph 3 and 5 clearly lay out what the ESPN contract is. Then down in section 1, the language very clearly states that the GOR exists to specifically satisfy the ESPN agreement. “L Grant of Rights. Each of the Member Institutions hereby (a) irrevocably and exclusively grants to the Conference during the Term (as defined below) all rights (the "Rights") necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement”

to be tied together but I have found nothing that legally ties them together. Instead, 1- ESPN wanted this separate document presented to them for review to ensure the makeup of the conference for the term of their contract. 2- Being a separate document, the 2036 date on the GOR is the one and only legal contract that FSU or any member has individually signed, or is responsible to. 3- Instead the GOR is limited to being between the individual schools and the ACC while the media rights deal is between the conference and ESPN. 4- IMO there is language in the GOR that can be construed to give the ACC powers for this contract beyond what is required by individual school concurrence. 5- Yes the GOR does mention that this is done for the deal the ACC was working on at the time but nothing limits the GOR to the specific media deal. All the rest is clickbait and wishing and hoping. As an example Flugar went ape over a piece of the SEC contract with ESPN that became public when Texas signed the SEC GOR. That tidbit stated that, with respect to the media deal, ESPN would have have nothing to do with a team that left the conference. So all the clickbait, wishers and hopers immediately bought in to the ACC being required to release anyone free of the GOR. A more correct read is what ESPN was really saying to their co maker of the media deal was that if say FSU tried to leave, ESPN was not in any way responsible for assisting the ACC in collecting the TV rights under the GOR. So it is all on the ACC to collect. It is up to FSU and Clemson to show in court why the above is incorrect. That is going to be an uphill battle with the ACC and all teams not really wanted by the P2 holding a lot of cards close to their vest.

understand facts, and want to believe the "insiders" who pretend they actually have "Ms. Cleo" vision into the future.

You go very light about mentioning all the specific references to ESPN in that ACC GOR, What other media provider is specifically or even alluded to within that ACC GOR? I think those two facts will be the crux of lawsuits against the ACC when that present GOR no longer has ESPN as the media provider. That would be lawsuits filed closer to June 30, 2027. I say already planned out due to how the current Playoff Contract is very short term and the SEC is making specific short term identical schedules for 2024 & 2025. Everything seems to being made for just the next couple of years. That could translate to some possible significant changes in the near future for a critical thinker. Some here are just praying for the status quo with all these changes becoming ever more apparent. Not even the mainstream media is saying status quo anymore for college football. The MSM loves to tell us everything will be alright until we are six feet in the ground.

as the SEC does not have a GOR, to make sure on what you think Texas signed.

My point was he was trying to tie the GOR/media deal together with nothing to do so with. Maybe that makes my point even more valid about all the stuff that is out there on podcast etc.

as opposed to a convenient excuse for you to cover your own misunderstanding you would have made it in your original post as evidence but, nice try.

hack bloggers have mentioned the BIG or SEC even close to proclaiming they want fsu or the orange kitty cats as expansion teams. The P2 has expanded for the last time for several years and have no intention of sharing their huge per team payouts with any more teams any time soon. Why should they?

We all will know if either plans to get more schools when they do it. Can never be 100% sure they will not expand further.

realignment, not two schools trying to move to one of two conferences, neither of which has said ONE THING about future expansion being eminent or wanting either school.

and that is some fear of the other guy having FSU and/or Clemson. And it seems to me the P2 has a short term non-aggression understanding. Let's freeze things for now, make a lot of money for the next few years and we can figure the rest out later if we need to.

Reason to break it. Just like the alliance between the Big 10 ACC and pac-12. It was there until there was a reason for The Big 10 to no longer want it. If it's not in writing and signed then it's not an agreement. And apparently if it's in writing and signed, people still try to get out of it as we see with FSU and Clemson.

It is it isn't in either one's short term interest to expand. They are content to kick the can down the road for awhile. A pause is in their interest.

has a lot of $$$ attached and the pause at present is a recognition that the $$$ risk and PR risk they may have exposed themselves to COULD exceed the $$$ they can earn in the short term. The playbook used to dismantle the PAC 12 and raid the Big12 has to the present not proven directly applicable to the ACC. They are looking to the courts and/or others to get them out of their miscalculations.

plays out, and we see how the expanded playoffs work out. Everyone "thinks" they know how this plays out, but for now at least, the ACC will stay intact for the season. I think the longer the ACC stays together, the better it will be for college football. The NCAA settlement has not been approved by a judge, and there are challenges to that settlement as we speak. If that does not go the way the P2 like, there may be a shake up, but I don't think it will be a separation of the top schools like everybody seems to think.

there have been miscalculations and how it plays out will just indicate how many and how much they miscalculated. One would think after the cost of their last miscalculation they would have been smarter and less arrogant the second time around but, so far that remains to be seen.

in the college athletics landscape, the number of parties that can be trusted to even a single word, much less entire oral and/or written agreements, is significantly smaller, if any actually exist, than those who should not be trusted any farther than you can throw them. Right at the the top of that list is SEC/ESPN and B1G/FOX but, clearly everyone should be looking out for themselves to the extent they can. Clearly Sankey and Warren(now Pettiti) along with the suits at ESPN and FOX should be judged on their actions. They're not alone, just the ringleaders.

numerous times prior to adding Oregon and Washington.

Negotiations just don’t get talked about unless they are final, or someone leaks it. The first ACC Expansion in 2003 got leaked (no Virginia Tech in the first round), and it almost submarined the whole thing. People have learned from that, plus our society is way more litigious than over 20 years ago, so it’s much easier to bottle things up legally. Because of that, no one really knows how this will end.

What was Sankey supposed to say? That he would accept FSU with open arms? Then Jim Phillips would have his attorneys preparing a Tortious Interference lawsuit against the SEC to be filed the next day. Sankey was wise to say he was happy with 16 just like Pettiti was wise to say he was happy with 18. I know Sankey added something about not wanting to slice the pie anymore for FSU. How hard would it be for Sankey or Pettiti to backtrack on those harsh feelings towards FSU if need be? You think FSU would have hard feelings under those obvious legal circumstances?