(04-26-2024 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, I think a long messy process works for FSU moreso than the ACC. The psychology of that IMO favors FSU, as the media wisdom about the GOR is that it is supposed to be an unchallengeable, ironclad thing such that anyone who runs in to it will got swatted down summarily in court.

if the judges involved start to treat this as an actual case, one with two sides that have to be thoroughly explored, rather than a slam-dunk, GOR is valid, ACC wins kind of thing, then that destabilizes the ACC even more, I think. So maybe FSU is challenging the contract availability because it gums the works up even more.
....

The process has been messy enough so far, I'd say, that the ACC credibility erosion you mention has begun. The grant of rights has been hyped for years as a sort of contractual Doomsday weapon. Now, when tested, the ACC isn't producing the killer document that smacks down challenges at once with a mighty GoR fist. On the contrary: the ACC is running from subpoenas, filing motions to seal, and claiming authorisation by its membership in meetings it has no record of.

It's not a good look. People notice.

One person who notices is John Preyer, chair of the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees. He recently said this:

"I think that what Clemson is doing is 100 percent proof positive that a significant portion of the membership of the conference is unhappy. I don't see how it is in anyone's interest for the ACC leadership to try and browbeat its member schools from getting access to information and being transparent. And that's kind of the case Clemson is making.

"I think this shows that what is supposed to be a member-based organization is not being led in a way that represents the best interests of all the members, but instead, it's really representing the bottom tier of the membership at the expense of the top tier, which is why Clemson and Florida State are doing what they're doing. I think that's just obvious."

(04-26-2024 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 09:37 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 08:51 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:34 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Maybe there are things within the "mysterious" ACC-ESPN agreement that, if revealed, would not be favorable to the cause of the ACC office?

Everyone involved in the case has the contract. The only people that haven't seen it are those not directly involved in the case. So it's not really mysterious. FSU just wants it available because they want to fight in the court of public opinion. They have a weak case so that's their best hope for a favorable settlement.

Seems to me that the only way having the contract available would help FSU in the court of public opinion is if there is something strange about the contract.

There isn't anything strange about it, FSU just wants it out there because the ACC/ESPN don't want it out there, and perhaps they think the threat of that will force an early settlement. The ACC will drag their feet because FSU wants to get to a settlement quickly and the conference has absolutely no reason to do that.

It's just going to be a long, messy process. One thing I've noticed how both the FLA judge and now the AG are making this about FLA vs THEM. It's ego-fueled and they're taking it personally, maybe because most of the country thinks that state is a joke. I dunno.

FWIW, I think a long messy process works for FSU moreso than the ACC. The psychology of that IMO favors FSU, as the media wisdom about the GOR is that it is supposed to be an unchallengeable, ironclad thing such that anyone who runs in to it will got swatted down summarily in court.

if the judges involved start to treat this as an actual case, one with two sides that have to be thoroughly explored, rather than a slam-dunk, GOR is valid, ACC wins kind of thing, then that destabilizes the ACC even more, I think. So maybe FSU is challenging the contract availability because it gums the works up even more.

Beyond that, I think Florida is a fantastic state, at least the equal of North Carolina, which I think is a pretty cool state too. I doubt that many outside of Biden-hotbed (are there any such places these days?) areas look down on Florida, but maybe we need a poll.

We'll see.

Well NC has it's share of crazy I'll grant you that. But I mean think about it, you've got a high profile crazy "Orange Man" ex down there and a governor that totally **** the bed in a national campaign. Combine that with the very humorous if unfair "Florida Man" thing and your state wins the contest hands down.

(04-26-2024 11:16 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  Well NC has it's share of crazy I'll grant you that.
....

The CW is an emerging College Football Broadcast and all….

The fact that the most viewed game on The CW in 2023 was North Alabama at FSU, makes me a believer in FSU carries the ACC viewership.

Clemson at NC State got half the number North Alabama at FSU. (Granted, every week is different. I don’t know what the competing games were for the time slot. Very easy to dismiss the claim if you want to)

Still shocked

(04-26-2024 11:06 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, I think a long messy process works for FSU moreso than the ACC. The psychology of that IMO favors FSU, as the media wisdom about the GOR is that it is supposed to be an unchallengeable, ironclad thing such that anyone who runs in to it will got swatted down summarily in court.

if the judges involved start to treat this as an actual case, one with two sides that have to be thoroughly explored, rather than a slam-dunk, GOR is valid, ACC wins kind of thing, then that destabilizes the ACC even more, I think. So maybe FSU is challenging the contract availability because it gums the works up even more.
....

The process has been messy enough so far, I'd say, that the ACC credibility erosion you mention has begun. The grant of rights has been hyped for years as a sort of contractual Doomsday weapon. Now, when tested, the ACC isn't producing the killer document that smacks down challenges at once with a mighty GoR fist. On the contrary: the ACC is running from subpoenas, filing motions to seal, and claiming authorisation by its membership in meetings it has no record of.

It's not a good look. People notice.

One person who notices is John Preyer, chair of the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees. He recently said this:

"I think that what Clemson is doing is 100 percent proof positive that a significant portion of the membership of the conference is unhappy. I don't see how it is in anyone's interest for the ACC leadership to try and browbeat its member schools from getting access to information and being transparent. And that's kind of the case Clemson is making.

"I think this shows that what is supposed to be a member-based organization is not being led in a way that represents the best interests of all the members, but instead, it's really representing the bottom tier of the membership at the expense of the top tier, which is why Clemson and Florida State are doing what they're doing. I think that's just obvious."

When the best interests of a group are in conflict with a subset of that group the best interests of the majority are the ones the group sides with. I wouldn't think that concept would be so evasive. Preyer, like so many at the unhappy schools miss the point that schools in a conference aren't "lesser or greater" but equals. If he has a problem with it he needs to find more like minded schools until he has a block that can alter the balance.

(04-26-2024 11:32 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

The CW is an emerging College Football Broadcast and all….

The fact that the most viewed game on The CW in 2023 was North Alabama at FSU, makes me a believer in FSU carries the ACC viewership.

Clemson at NC State got half the number North Alabama at FSU. (Granted, every week is different. I don’t know what the competing games were for the time slot. Very easy to dismiss the claim if you want to)

Still shocked

I’m shocked at the UVa-Carolina game; I didn’t expect it to be that high.

The FSU game makes sense because it was deep into an undefeated season. Frankly, it didn’t matter who they were playing. Although, I remember specifically flipping to it because it was pretty close for a few quarters.

(04-26-2024 11:35 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 11:06 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, I think a long messy process works for FSU moreso than the ACC. The psychology of that IMO favors FSU, as the media wisdom about the GOR is that it is supposed to be an unchallengeable, ironclad thing such that anyone who runs in to it will got swatted down summarily in court.

if the judges involved start to treat this as an actual case, one with two sides that have to be thoroughly explored, rather than a slam-dunk, GOR is valid, ACC wins kind of thing, then that destabilizes the ACC even more, I think. So maybe FSU is challenging the contract availability because it gums the works up even more.
....

The process has been messy enough so far, I'd say, that the ACC credibility erosion you mention has begun. The grant of rights has been hyped for years as a sort of contractual Doomsday weapon. Now, when tested, the ACC isn't producing the killer document that smacks down challenges at once with a mighty GoR fist. On the contrary: the ACC is running from subpoenas, filing motions to seal, and claiming authorisation by its membership in meetings it has no record of.

It's not a good look. People notice.

One person who notices is John Preyer, chair of the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees. He recently said this:

"I think that what Clemson is doing is 100 percent proof positive that a significant portion of the membership of the conference is unhappy. I don't see how it is in anyone's interest for the ACC leadership to try and browbeat its member schools from getting access to information and being transparent. And that's kind of the case Clemson is making.

"I think this shows that what is supposed to be a member-based organization is not being led in a way that represents the best interests of all the members, but instead, it's really representing the bottom tier of the membership at the expense of the top tier, which is why Clemson and Florida State are doing what they're doing. I think that's just obvious."

When the best interests of a group are in conflict with a subset of that group the best interests of the majority are the ones the group sides with. I wouldn't think that concept would be so evasive. Preyer, like so many at the unhappy schools miss the point that schools in a conference aren't "lesser or greater" but equals. If he has a problem with it he needs to find more like minded schools until he has a block that can alter the balance.

An organization’s managers are accountable to all dues paying members whether or not they are part of a subset or clique therein. A commissioner is to work in behalf of the collective and not a fraction of it. Impacting documents, negotiated and signed by a commissioner or his/her designees, need to be shared with all the membership, for approval beforehand. Access by each member to signed documents is not a negotiated factor, and a commissioner has no inherent rights to withhold that information from any and all members.

Any meeting called whereby there are discussions, decision-making, and formal voting, need to have notice, invitations, and access to all members, inclusive of those who have expressed intentions to eventually leave and/or filed lawsuits against the organization. They are still entitled to privileges afforded to others, and retain voting rights for all business until they have submitted resignation letters with termination dates.

All this is what Clemson is complaining about; and they have the high road.

(04-26-2024 01:28 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 11:35 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 11:06 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, I think a long messy process works for FSU moreso than the ACC. The psychology of that IMO favors FSU, as the media wisdom about the GOR is that it is supposed to be an unchallengeable, ironclad thing such that anyone who runs in to it will got swatted down summarily in court.

if the judges involved start to treat this as an actual case, one with two sides that have to be thoroughly explored, rather than a slam-dunk, GOR is valid, ACC wins kind of thing, then that destabilizes the ACC even more, I think. So maybe FSU is challenging the contract availability because it gums the works up even more.
....

The process has been messy enough so far, I'd say, that the ACC credibility erosion you mention has begun. The grant of rights has been hyped for years as a sort of contractual Doomsday weapon. Now, when tested, the ACC isn't producing the killer document that smacks down challenges at once with a mighty GoR fist. On the contrary: the ACC is running from subpoenas, filing motions to seal, and claiming authorisation by its membership in meetings it has no record of.

It's not a good look. People notice.

One person who notices is John Preyer, chair of the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees. He recently said this:

"I think that what Clemson is doing is 100 percent proof positive that a significant portion of the membership of the conference is unhappy. I don't see how it is in anyone's interest for the ACC leadership to try and browbeat its member schools from getting access to information and being transparent. And that's kind of the case Clemson is making.

"I think this shows that what is supposed to be a member-based organization is not being led in a way that represents the best interests of all the members, but instead, it's really representing the bottom tier of the membership at the expense of the top tier, which is why Clemson and Florida State are doing what they're doing. I think that's just obvious."

When the best interests of a group are in conflict with a subset of that group the best interests of the majority are the ones the group sides with. I wouldn't think that concept would be so evasive. Preyer, like so many at the unhappy schools miss the point that schools in a conference aren't "lesser or greater" but equals. If he has a problem with it he needs to find more like minded schools until he has a block that can alter the balance.

An organization’s managers are accountable to all dues paying members whether or not they are part of a subset or clique therein. A commissioner is to work in behalf of the collective and not a fraction of it. Impacting documents, negotiated and signed by a commissioner or his/her designees, need to be shared with all the membership, for approval beforehand. Access by each member to signed documents is not a negotiated factor, and a commissioner has no inherent rights to withhold that information from any and all members.

Any meeting called whereby there are discussions, decision-making, and formal voting, need to have notice, invitations, and access to all members, inclusive of those who have expressed intentions to eventually leave and/or filed lawsuits against the organization. They are still entitled to privileges afforded to others, and retain voting rights for all business until they have submitted resignation letters with termination dates.

All this is what Clemson is complaining about; and they have the high road.

We'll certainly know a lot more about the Clemson suit against the ACC and the ACC's suit against Clemson during the first week of May when both sides have to submit multiple types of paper work to courts in SC and in NC.

(04-26-2024 06:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:28 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The idea that the ACC is seeking its number (lets call it $350 million) in this case and believes that it has a good chance of hitting that number if it holds out in the litigation for a good while, but instead is "pressured" by a non-party to settle quickly and for only, say, $75 million seems a message board idea, not a real life litigation one.

Everyone is telling me on message boards and Twitter that the ACC is fooked no matter what.

That FSU, Clemson, NC will leave, no matter what. That the ACC will be parceled out or greatly diminished.

So, what is the great benefit to the ACC to settle low and fast?

Why not try to get the highest amount possible in these lawsuits?

Why not try to get it high enough to deter someone from trying to get out of the GOR?

Would not the ACC strategy be to set the bar for settlement/leaving higher than lower, just as a matter of logic and common sense ?

@TerryD

Which ACC schools would need to stay put for the Notre Dame Fightin' Independents (and its tagalongs in other sports as well as the university itself) to remain committed to its current relationship with the conference?

I don't think the composition of the leftover/backfilled ACC is as important to ND as the fact that some sort of ACC remains to help ND to stay a football independent.

From day one, that was the main value of the ACC to ND. That will not change.

Whomever is left and whomever is backfilled will likely be good enough for ND's purposes.

BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Virginia, Duke, Georgia Tech, Stanford, SMU, Cal, maybe backfilled with UConn and Tulane.

Good enough basketball, lacrosse, baseball, etc...

Maybe use the turmoil leverage to reduce the football commitment to three games a year, maybe 4.

If you recall, ND wasn't the first school to leave the Big East, was it? It was one of the last ones.

Then, it only moved when another partial membership opportunity opened up.

Is that instructive on how ND might think and act, or not?

(Has anyone noticed that ND has not made one word, move or sign that it is interested in making any type of change? Quite the contrary, in fact?)


Why do people think that ND will bolt after shaping things just the way it wants ???

I’d be using that turmoil to leverage an increased ACC payout. You can still easily fill your schedule with enough USC/A&M/Michigan/etc games to keep the SOS high.

(04-26-2024 02:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 06:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:28 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The idea that the ACC is seeking its number (lets call it $350 million) in this case and believes that it has a good chance of hitting that number if it holds out in the litigation for a good while, but instead is "pressured" by a non-party to settle quickly and for only, say, $75 million seems a message board idea, not a real life litigation one.

Everyone is telling me on message boards and Twitter that the ACC is fooked no matter what.

That FSU, Clemson, NC will leave, no matter what. That the ACC will be parceled out or greatly diminished.

So, what is the great benefit to the ACC to settle low and fast?

Why not try to get the highest amount possible in these lawsuits?

Why not try to get it high enough to deter someone from trying to get out of the GOR?

Would not the ACC strategy be to set the bar for settlement/leaving higher than lower, just as a matter of logic and common sense ?

@TerryD

Which ACC schools would need to stay put for the Notre Dame Fightin' Independents (and its tagalongs in other sports as well as the university itself) to remain committed to its current relationship with the conference?

I don't think the composition of the leftover/backfilled ACC is as important to ND as the fact that some sort of ACC remains to help ND to stay a football independent.

From day one, that was the main value of the ACC to ND. That will not change.

Whomever is left and whomever is backfilled will likely be good enough for ND's purposes.

BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Virginia, Duke, Georgia Tech, Stanford, SMU, Cal, maybe backfilled with UConn and Tulane.

Good enough basketball, lacrosse, baseball, etc...

Maybe use the turmoil leverage to reduce the football commitment to three games a year, maybe 4.

If you recall, ND wasn't the first school to leave the Big East, was it? It was one of the last ones.

Then, it only moved when another partial membership opportunity opened up.

Is that instructive on how ND might think and act, or not?

(Has anyone noticed that ND has not made one word, move or sign that it is interested in making any type of change? Quite the contrary, in fact?)


Why do people think that ND will bolt after shaping things just the way it wants ???

I’d be using that turmoil to leverage an increased ACC payout. You can still easily fill your schedule with enough USC/A&M/Michigan/etc games to keep the SOS high.

ND doesn't need any more money from the ACC...or from anywhere. it is sitting extremely pretty, financially.

It may need an extra game per year to schedule schools from elsewhere than the ACC, though.

(04-26-2024 06:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ....
(Has anyone noticed that ND has not made one word, move or sign that it is interested in making any type of change? Quite the contrary, in fact?)
....

(Other than, you know, that Stanford/Cal/SMU thing?)

I agree that ND looks ready to stay around a while and play den mother to a league in transition. As long as it does, the ACC should hold together despite the changes. The den mother will have a lot of say about the kind of league the ACC transitions into, gathering playmates to its liking.

All bets are off should ND eventually decide its fortunes lie elsewhere. I'm not sure the ACC conference network would remain viable after that. The loss of that resource would probably destabilise things.

The M level is likely due for a lot more churn and metamorphosis before it settles.

(04-26-2024 02:53 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 06:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ....
(Has anyone noticed that ND has not made one word, move or sign that it is interested in making any type of change? Quite the contrary, in fact?)
....

(Other than, you know, that Stanford/Cal/SMU thing?)

I agree that ND looks ready to stay around a while and play den mother to a league in transition. As long as it does, the ACC should hold together despite the changes. The den mother will have a lot of say about the kind of league the ACC transitions into, gathering playmates to its liking.

All bets are off should ND eventually decide its fortunes lie elsewhere. I'm not sure the ACC conference network would remain viable after that. The loss of that resource would probably destabilise things.

The M level is likely due for a lot more churn and metamorphosis before it settles.

You know, Terry, Notre Dame can pick up 3 more ACC games and compete for the ACC fb championship. They were excellent doing that the Covid year. The ACC would be ecstatic. They would be, perhaps, the solid P #3. The BIG would be quite disturbed. The SEC would smile. The B12 would say damn!

Come on, just 3 more ACC fb opponents! That’s not asking much, and it would bring extensive happiness.

(04-26-2024 11:32 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

The CW is an emerging College Football Broadcast and all….

The fact that the most viewed game on The CW in 2023 was North Alabama at FSU, makes me a believer in FSU carries the ACC viewership.

Clemson at NC State got half the number North Alabama at FSU. (Granted, every week is different. I don’t know what the competing games were for the time slot. Very easy to dismiss the claim if you want to)

Still shocked

Viewership in ACC is FSU, Clemson, NC in that order. and it is a pretty big drop from FSU to NC.

(04-27-2024 07:18 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 11:32 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

The CW is an emerging College Football Broadcast and all….

The fact that the most viewed game on The CW in 2023 was North Alabama at FSU, makes me a believer in FSU carries the ACC viewership.

Clemson at NC State got half the number North Alabama at FSU. (Granted, every week is different. I don’t know what the competing games were for the time slot. Very easy to dismiss the claim if you want to)

Still shocked

Viewership in ACC is FSU, Clemson, NC in that order. and it is a pretty big drop from FSU to NC.

I'm just the messenger here, but a school of thought making the blogger rounds is that it's mainly ESPN sources hyping the value of North Carolina—as that's the school in that trio that they're least likely to lose.

(04-26-2024 02:53 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 06:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ....
(Has anyone noticed that ND has not made one word, move or sign that it is interested in making any type of change? Quite the contrary, in fact?)
....

(Other than, you know, that Stanford/Cal/SMU thing?)

I agree that ND looks ready to stay around a while and play den mother to a league in transition. As long as it does, the ACC should hold together despite the changes. The den mother will have a lot of say about the kind of league the ACC transitions into, gathering playmates to its liking.

All bets are off should ND eventually decide its fortunes lie elsewhere. I'm not sure the ACC conference network would remain viable after that. The loss of that resource would probably destabilise things.

The M level is likely due for a lot more churn and metamorphosis before it settles.

ND isn't as much interested in being a "den mother" as it is being a football independent and not a Big Ten member.

Those three schools were pushed by ND to maintain the status quo, i.e. an existing ACC propped up so ND football can stay independent.

So, my question still stands.

Can anyone point to any objective act, word or deed that indicates that ND wants to leave the ACC and independence to join the Big Ten.

Anyone? Anything ?

(04-26-2024 04:11 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 02:53 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 06:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ....
(Has anyone noticed that ND has not made one word, move or sign that it is interested in making any type of change? Quite the contrary, in fact?)
....

(Other than, you know, that Stanford/Cal/SMU thing?)

I agree that ND looks ready to stay around a while and play den mother to a league in transition. As long as it does, the ACC should hold together despite the changes. The den mother will have a lot of say about the kind of league the ACC transitions into, gathering playmates to its liking.

All bets are off should ND eventually decide its fortunes lie elsewhere. I'm not sure the ACC conference network would remain viable after that. The loss of that resource would probably destabilise things.

The M level is likely due for a lot more churn and metamorphosis before it settles.

You know, Terry, Notre Dame can pick up 3 more ACC games and compete for the ACC fb championship. They were excellent doing that the Covid year. The ACC would be ecstatic. They would be, perhaps, the solid P #3. The BIG would be quite disturbed. The SEC would smile. The B12 would say damn!

Come on, just 3 more ACC fb opponents! That’s not asking much, and it would bring extensive happiness.

Lol, ND has zero desire to do anything like that. ND is responsible for ND's happiness, not anyone else's. That is their individual responsibility.

What is competing for the ACC championship that makes it worthwhile or attractive for ND to abandon independence in the expanded playoff era?

The answer: Nothing, really. ND has plenty of at large bids to shoot for.

Conference membership or conference championships hold little appeal. Many ND fans couldn't be happier when 2020 ended and ND went back to independence.

The whole 2020 conference membership experience left ND fans even more supportive of independence. Playing only your "conference mates" felt sort of like being in a straitjacket.

(04-26-2024 10:42 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 08:51 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:34 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  So, what is the great benefit to the ACC to settle low and fast?

Why not try to get the highest amount possible in these lawsuits?

Maybe there are things within the "mysterious" ACC-ESPN agreement that, if revealed, would not be favorable to the cause of the ACC office?

Everyone involved in the case has the contract. The only people that haven't seen it are those not directly involved in the case. So it's not really mysterious. FSU just wants it available because they want to fight in the court of public opinion. They have a weak case so that's their best hope for a favorable settlement.

Seems to me that the only way having the contract available would help FSU in the court of public opinion is if there is something strange about the contract.

You’re overthinking this. Forcing public disclosure of the ACC-ESPN contract hurts the ACC and ESPN because other parties (e.g., SEC, AAC, B12, Fox, CBS, Comcast, DirectTV, etc.) will better understand their competitors tactics via detailed contractual terms. FSU and the FL AG are hoping that the public transparency provides some leverage for a favorable settlement.

Well FWIW, I think it very unlikely that disclosure of the contract would hurt ESPN and the ACC. The odds that anything in the details would help FOX or the B12 or anyone else is IMO very unlikely. Still, "trade secrets" are a thing and parties do have the right to protect them so the courts will figure this out.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what I was overthinking. The issue I was responding to was how disclosing the contract would help FSU in the court of public opinion, and IMO it would only do so if there is something weird about the contract. But maybe FSU has something else in mind.

(04-27-2024 09:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 10:42 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 08:51 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:34 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Maybe there are things within the "mysterious" ACC-ESPN agreement that, if revealed, would not be favorable to the cause of the ACC office?

Everyone involved in the case has the contract. The only people that haven't seen it are those not directly involved in the case. So it's not really mysterious. FSU just wants it available because they want to fight in the court of public opinion. They have a weak case so that's their best hope for a favorable settlement.

Seems to me that the only way having the contract available would help FSU in the court of public opinion is if there is something strange about the contract.

You’re overthinking this. Forcing public disclosure of the ACC-ESPN contract hurts the ACC and ESPN because other parties (e.g., SEC, AAC, B12, Fox, CBS, Comcast, DirectTV, etc.) will better understand their competitors tactics via detailed contractual terms. FSU and the FL AG are hoping that the public transparency provides some leverage for a favorable settlement.

Well FWIW, I think it very unlikely that disclosure of the contract would hurt ESPN and the ACC. The odds that anything in the details would help FOX or the B12 or anyone else is IMO very unlikely. Still, "trade secrets" are a thing and parties do have the right to protect them so the courts will figure this out.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what I was overthinking. The issue I was responding to was how disclosing the contract would help FSU in the court of public opinion, and IMO it would only do so if there is something weird about the contract. But maybe FSU has something else in mind.

The longer this drags out, the influence of "court of public opinion" diminishes to a one paragraph article on the 4th or 5th page of your local newspaper when new motions are filed or granted.
It will make a big splash when there is a settlement or final court decision, but the day to day comments we see now all over the internet will be replaced multiple times by the headline of the week on dozens of other stories.

(04-27-2024 09:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 10:42 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 08:51 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:34 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Maybe there are things within the "mysterious" ACC-ESPN agreement that, if revealed, would not be favorable to the cause of the ACC office?

Everyone involved in the case has the contract. The only people that haven't seen it are those not directly involved in the case. So it's not really mysterious. FSU just wants it available because they want to fight in the court of public opinion. They have a weak case so that's their best hope for a favorable settlement.

Seems to me that the only way having the contract available would help FSU in the court of public opinion is if there is something strange about the contract.

You’re overthinking this. Forcing public disclosure of the ACC-ESPN contract hurts the ACC and ESPN because other parties (e.g., SEC, AAC, B12, Fox, CBS, Comcast, DirectTV, etc.) will better understand their competitors tactics via detailed contractual terms. FSU and the FL AG are hoping that the public transparency provides some leverage for a favorable settlement.

Well FWIW, I think it very unlikely that disclosure of the contract would hurt ESPN and the ACC. The odds that anything in the details would help FOX or the B12 or anyone else is IMO very unlikely. Still, "trade secrets" are a thing and parties do have the right to protect them so the courts will figure this out.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what I was overthinking. The issue I was responding to was how disclosing the contract would help FSU in the court of public opinion, and IMO it would only do so if there is something weird about the contract. But maybe FSU has something else in mind.

They aren't afraid of any of that. The SEC's contract, for the SECN is exactly like the ACC's which was built upon it. Other than money for the T1 and T2 rights the rest of the contract is very similar.

What I suspect that ESPN doesn't want discovered, and which FSU and Clemson have some institutional memory about, which is the only reason either of them would have the guts to challenge the GOR, and why I think they will ultimately be freed, though for price, is what happened at that end of the deals being worked for the ACC via ESPN at the end of the 2011-2 realignment cycle. You'll remember the crawler, where FSU and Clemson were announced to the SEC and then 3 days later it was as if it never happened and called a mistake. That incident. That incident which saw a panic within the ACC, ESPN's having to give the SEC full carriage for the opening of the SECN, which wasn't part of the deal originally, which saw N.D. getting a partial membership, and which followed months of Clay Travis and Mr. SEC (Pennington) hawking N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC, and Dodds talking about Texas looking East. It's a failed deal and a cleanup that permitted Maryland to negotiate a way out which is the part of discovery some don't want to revisit.

How does one make that body stay buried? You let those who want to stay together do so. You act as though nothing happened with those who weren't privy to the shenanigans, and you appease the aggrieved. Then you pray like hell that Lake Mead's water levels don't fall so that bodies buried in barrels a decade ago don't resurface. The odd party here is UNC. They wanted things to remain as they were in 2011. Is that what they still want, or from the backside of knowing things in 2011 are they seeking to use that to get out now?

I don't think so. I think they are wrestling with how to hold it together. I think FSU gets out. And I'm not sold on the fact that if Clemson could leave as well that they would. Old habits and relationships die hard, and an ACC without FSU is an easier annual path to the playoffs for Clemson. So, it isn't the current contract that anyone really cares about seeing, but the side negotiations in it which may include some things that both a few schools don't want discovered, and which ESPN might be antsy about. Otherwise, a contract is a contract.

I raised these inconsistencies and abrupt changes in directions as an issue when they happened, and I raise them again. Something hinky happened in 2011 which prevented a larger, and expected move, which impacted the SECN's projected opening value, prevented the planned opening of the ACCN a year after the SECN's opening, and for which ESPN paid the ACC schools 2 million a year not to have a network, and which caused and then permitted Maryland to bolt, and which led to the crawler announcing FSU and Clemson to the SEC only to have it retracted 3 days later.

Clearly the SEC has more than prospered since all of those "alleged" occurrences, but the ACC hasn't so much. SEC priorities today are likely different. That's not to say FSU wouldn't find a willing home in the SEC, but clearly Clemson's impact wouldn't be as significant, though the fit is undeniable. My point is getting into Virginia and North Carolina may be more of an SEC priority now than adding the last two most SEC like brands to the lineup.

I've felt that from the first mention of the possibility of Clemson and FSU wanting out that this whole move had more the feel of reciprocity for 2011 than it had for a bonified SEC priority. If FSU and Clemson want out and want into the SEC and ESPN pays for it will it happen? Very likely.

Will it solve the current dilemma for the ACC and ESPN? Somewhat doubtful. Why? More than just FSU and Clemson knew what happened in 2011. Some Tobacco Road parties knew as well. If those North Carolina schools desire that the ACC stick together then old bodies stay buried. If not? Maybe their University System has another reason to be so interested. Maybe one of those schools wanted out and is being told no. And maybe that's why they were so quick to make venue an issue in 2011 for Maryland and again now.

(04-26-2024 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 09:37 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2024 08:51 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:34 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Maybe there are things within the "mysterious" ACC-ESPN agreement that, if revealed, would not be favorable to the cause of the ACC office?

Everyone involved in the case has the contract. The only people that haven't seen it are those not directly involved in the case. So it's not really mysterious. FSU just wants it available because they want to fight in the court of public opinion. They have a weak case so that's their best hope for a favorable settlement.

Seems to me that the only way having the contract available would help FSU in the court of public opinion is if there is something strange about the contract.

There isn't anything strange about it, FSU just wants it out there because the ACC/ESPN don't want it out there, and perhaps they think the threat of that will force an early settlement. The ACC will drag their feet because FSU wants to get to a settlement quickly and the conference has absolutely no reason to do that.

It's just going to be a long, messy process. One thing I've noticed how both the FLA judge and now the AG are making this about FLA vs THEM. It's ego-fueled and they're taking it personally, maybe because most of the country thinks that state is a joke. I dunno.

FWIW, I think a long messy process works for FSU moreso than the ACC. The psychology of that IMO favors FSU, as the media wisdom about the GOR is that it is supposed to be an unchallengeable, ironclad thing such that anyone who runs in to it will got swatted down summarily in court.

if the judges involved start to treat this as an actual case, one with two sides that have to be thoroughly explored, rather than a slam-dunk, GOR is valid, ACC wins kind of thing, then that destabilizes the ACC even more, I think. So maybe FSU is challenging the contract availability because it gums the works up even more.

Beyond that, I think Florida is a fantastic state, at least the equal of North Carolina, which I think is a pretty cool state too. I doubt that many outside of Biden-hotbed (are there any such places these days?) areas look down on Florida, but maybe we need a poll.

We'll see.

Not sure why Esayem feels the need to call the entire state of Florida a joke. Perhaps he should be looking in the mirror. Give me Disney and a million beaches over Cancer Stick HQ any day.

I do think that you're wrong about this process, however. Despite media and forum warrior hype (formerly from myself as well as many others here fyi), no lawyer has ever really thought that a GoR in college athletics was "ironclad". It's just a mechanism to make departing mid-media contract very difficult and expensive. Dragging this thing out for years doesn't hurt the ACC, they've already been wounded by the lawsuit and the 2nd class citizenship status in the new CFP. They're not trying to make FSU happy anymore, they're trying to survive, while FSU is the entity far more anxious to reach a quick settlement. So, anything and everything that FSU requests, the ACC will fight it out and make extremely difficult. The ACC can spread out their legal costs amongst 18 members (yes FSU has to pay their share), while FSU pays their costs all by themselves, thus making a lengthy and discovery-heavy lawsuit far more difficult for FSU than for the ACC.

The way I see it, FSU has 2 options: a relatively quick and very expensive settlement, or a painful, drawn out process that takes many years and may or may not result in their freedom. ESPN isn't riding in to save the day. The ACC isn't going to cave. The ACC hasn't been done any favors by the P2 or the networks, any of them, and I suspect that there is no deal to be brokered for an "everybody wins" scenario. The closest will probably just be a quick and very expensive FSU exit that involves a $40-50m yearly check to the ACC, quickly followed by the same for Clemson, then the ACC takes a chunk of that money to help UNC make the decision that they already want to make: stay in the ACC but get paid more like a P2 program.