(02-18-2022 11:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  2026 is a long way off in today's legislative/political climate. Who knows what the NCAA or college football is going to look like then? NIL and pay for play will likely cause radical change. Why not wait and see what that change looks like?

It's more like 2024 because have to be done and set up by then.

Scared to death of the SEC. This is only going to frustrate the football factories not already under their umbrella. Stupid move "Alliance".

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Smart move by the Alliance. This ensures the championship is bid out to multiple platforms.

ESPN is probably pissed though. Time for them to meddle more in conference realignment.

What's to stop a conference from derailing negotiations in two years again?

(02-18-2022 12:16 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  What's to stop a conference from derailing negotiations in two years again?

From what I remember, It will be a new agreement. It doesnt need to be unanimous.

The current contract required agreement by all parties to change it.

(02-18-2022 12:18 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:16 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  What's to stop a conference from derailing negotiations in two years again?

From what I remember, It will be a new agreement. It doesnt need to be unanimous.

The current contract required agreement by all parties to change it.

Right. ACC could take their ball and go home, but the rest of college football would just move on. But realistically with recruiting could never do that. That's why the Big Ten/Pac 12 had to join the BCS because them being out of the Bowl Coalition was hurting them in recruiting.

(02-18-2022 12:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 11:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 11:26 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The requirement for a unanimous vote was a mistake. It allowed one conference to stop what everyone else wanted.

Well, that's probably just the nature of a contract. It would be kind of extraordinary if a contract was written such that one party, or a majority of parties, could unilaterally change the deal over the objection of another party.

If that's the case, then you as a party have huge uncertainty. You can't count on what you signed for, because the others could always pull the rug out from under you if they want.

I'm not sure how extraordinary it is. TLDR there are corporate contract structures that allow for non-unanimous alteration of the contract terms.

I'm following the saga of Diamond Sports Group, the Sinclair subsidiary that bought the Fox RSN's with $8B or so in borrowed money. And apparently they're doing a thing you can legally do and doesn't get you sent to prison or anything.

Diamond Sports Group is borrowing even more money to set up a streaming service for the NBA and NHL local rights they control, plus the Cubs. (MLB says DSG has no rights to anything but basic cable) To do so, they have to give the new loan priority over the existing $8B in loans (specifically the $3B or so in First Priority Debt, the other $3B is unsecured I guess and I forget what the deal is with the remaining $2B).

Since Diamond Sports Group is widely regarded as being headed for bankruptcy, you'd think that downgrading the First Priority Debt to Second Priority (behind the new loan) would be pretty much stealing from the First Priority Debt bondholders. But apparently if a defined percentage (66 2/3% in this case) of bondholders (counted by dollars) accept the new Second Priority Debt in exchange for their current bonds, it can happen. And on top of that, any of the First Priority Debt bondholders who don't accept the exchange get bumped down to Third Priority Debt. It looks like DSG is going to pull this off, getting the 66 2/3% agreement.

(Before we shed too many tears for these bondholders, I think a lot of them bought the bonds at 50% or so of their face value from the original holders as Diamond Sports Group's value has sunk since 2019. But it still seems like robbery to me, but it's apparently a thing you can do.)

Moody's is classifying the transaction as a default, for what that's worth.

Ultimately, it depends on what is within the 4 corners of this particular contract, though. Probably 99% of contracts have a standard boilerplate paragraph that any amendment requires all parties to agree it and I'd be shocked if this CFP contract had anything different (as everyone has made it clear unanimous consent is required).

Thanks again ACC! Everyone remember which conference is the reason we can't have nice things. I eagerly await the day when it is carved up and divvied out.

5,246 days until 6/30/2036...and I don't think we're going to have to wait that long.

(02-18-2022 12:41 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  5,246 days until 6/30/2036...and I don't think we're going to have to wait that long.

No, it won't. Maryland wanted out and it got out--others will follow.

Eventually, ESPN will carve up the ACC like it did the Big East and the Big 12. Its future is increasingly tied to the SEC.

(02-18-2022 12:18 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:16 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  What's to stop a conference from derailing negotiations in two years again?

From what I remember, It will be a new agreement. It doesnt need to be unanimous.

The current contract required agreement by all parties to change it.

Wrinkle--a non-unanimous contract would probably require another NCAA rule change. They'd get it, but it's a wrinkle

(02-18-2022 12:13 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  Smart move by the Alliance. This ensures the championship is bid out to multiple platforms.

ESPN is probably pissed though. Time for them to meddle more in conference realignment.

EXACTLY.

Rather than expand it for the exclusive property of ESPN, this allows other networks to bid on pieces of the playoff, making more money for everyone.

Thankfully this effort to ram through the change failed.

(02-18-2022 12:43 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:41 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  5,246 days until 6/30/2036...and I don't think we're going to have to wait that long.

No, it won't. Maryland wanted out and it got out--others will follow.

Eventually, ESPN will carve up the ACC like it did the Big East and the Big 12. Its future is increasingly tied to the SEC.

Um...UMCP had left before the GOR was enacted.

(02-18-2022 12:43 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:41 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  5,246 days until 6/30/2036...and I don't think we're going to have to wait that long.

No, it won't. Maryland wanted out and it got out--others will follow.

Eventually, ESPN will carve up the ACC like it did the Big East and the Big 12. Its future is increasingly tied to the SEC.

Maryland never signed a Grant of Rights. Which is why they only had to play $36 million some odd dollars to get out of the ACC (a negotiated settlement of the $50 million dollar exit fee the ACC had established).

The ACC GoR happened AFTER Maryland left.

But nice try.

(02-18-2022 12:48 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:18 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:16 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  What's to stop a conference from derailing negotiations in two years again?

From what I remember, It will be a new agreement. It doesnt need to be unanimous.

The current contract required agreement by all parties to change it.

Wrinkle--a non-unanimous contract would probably require another NCAA rule change. They'd get it, but it's a wrinkle

I don't think it would require a rule change - the parties *could* agree to non-unanimous amendments in the contract if they wanted to. In fact, any NCAA rule prohibiting it would likely be another instance of that organization breaking antitrust laws in preventing the conferences/schools to freely contract with each other.

However, the practicality is that there's NFW that any lawyer representing any of the conferences plus ND would allow for anything other than 100% unanimous consent to amend the agreement. My brain would explode if I were in that room negotiating and anyone suggested something to the contrary. It doesn't matter if it's the SEC, Big Ten or C-USA - they would ALL nix it.

Whatever fight the leagues want to have should be ironed out *before* the new contract is signed. I honestly don't believe that it's a controversial issue - it's *supposed* to be a very high bar to amend an agreement, especially when there are multiple parties involved.

This is today's news. Tomorrow, we'll see. I think there's too much money on the table for playoff expansion to wait until 2026. I expect informal discussions to continue behind the scenes and an agreement to resume formal negotiations to be announced later this year.

Not suprised at all. I have been sayig this many times: The ACC prefers a smaller playoff expansion. And that’s not entirely because of ND.

(02-18-2022 01:09 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Not suprised at all. I have been sayig this many times: The ACC prefers a smaller playoff expansion. And that’s not entirely because of ND.

Maybe it's true that the ACC wants a smaller playoff expansion.

However, there's a point in every negotiation where you have to face the practical reality if a deal is going to get done.

Absolutely no one else wants that smaller playoff expansion for different reasons (6 at-large bids for the SEC and ND and the need for conference champ bids for everyone else).

So, the ACC can stand in the way from a contractual perspective right now with the requirement for a unanimous consent to an amendment. However, when everyone is starting with a clean sheet of paper and it's an 11-1 majority in favor of a 12-team playoff, then the ACC needs to get in line.

I'd say the same thing about my own Big Ten if it's still pushing for P5 auto-bids. If it's an 11-1 majority in favor of 6+6, then the Big Ten needs to move on, too (and I say that as someone that personally favors P5 auto-bids). It's more reasonable for them to concentrate on getting what they want regarding the Rose Bowl as opposed to pushing a structural format that everyone else disagrees with.

It's not the ACC that is **** blocking this. That was the classic "Look here, don't look there" put out media heads spinning the story. It's the Rose Bowl and conference autonomy that is the issue. The Rose does not want their Bowl relegated to a QF especially if they can't control the seeding. And they simply cannot cram in 3 rounds in December on top of Conference Championships. Everybody knows this but cannot admit it for some strange reason. No fan base has money to blow traveling all over the country for playoff games, unless it's campus sites all the way through.

(02-18-2022 01:14 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  It's not the ACC that is **** blocking this. That was the classic "Look here, don't look there" put out media heads spinning the story. It's the Rose Bowl and conference autonomy that is the issue. The Rose does not want their Bowl relegated to a QF especially if they can't control the seeding. And they simply cannot cram in 3 rounds in December on top of Conference Championships. Everybody knows this but cannot admit it for some strange reason. No fan base has money to blow traveling all over the country for playoff games, unless it's campus sites all the way through.

Because it's clear to everyone that has seen what the priorities have been in college sports for the past two decades is that they don't care about this at all.

This CFP expansion is getting paid for by one thing: TV, TV, TV and more TV. They can play these games on a soundstage in Los Angeles and that's where almost all of the revenue from an expanded CFP will come from.

The only rational financial reason that I can see for delaying this until 2026 is that the expanded playoff can unambiguously go to the open market for bidding without any encumbrances with the existing contract with ESPN. That's entirely about the TV money. It's not that ticket sales don't matter, but they're just way less important than the TV money by comparison.

(02-18-2022 01:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:48 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:18 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(02-18-2022 12:16 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  What's to stop a conference from derailing negotiations in two years again?

From what I remember, It will be a new agreement. It doesnt need to be unanimous.

The current contract required agreement by all parties to change it.

Wrinkle--a non-unanimous contract would probably require another NCAA rule change. They'd get it, but it's a wrinkle

I don't think it would require a rule change - the parties *could* agree to non-unanimous amendments in the contract if they wanted to. In fact, any NCAA rule prohibiting it would likely be another instance of that organization breaking antitrust laws in preventing the conferences/schools to freely contract with each other.

However, the practicality is that there's NFW that any lawyer representing any of the conferences plus ND would allow for anything other than 100% unanimous consent to amend the agreement. My brain would explode if I were in that room negotiating and anyone suggested something to the contrary. It doesn't matter if it's the SEC, Big Ten or C-USA - they would ALL nix it.

Whatever fight the leagues want to have should be ironed out *before* the new contract is signed. I honestly don't believe that it's a controversial issue - it's *supposed* to be a very high bar to amend an agreement, especially when there are multiple parties involved.

The current rule is

Quote:17.11.6.2.1 Bowl Subdivision. [FBS] In bowl subdivision football, the maximum number of football contests shall exclude the following: (Revised: 1/10/90, 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08, 10/28/10, 10/27/11 effective 4/1/12, Adopted: 8/2/12
effective 8/1/14, 1/15/16 effective 8/1/16)

.....

Quote:(d) Additional Football Bowl Subdivision Postseason Game. One postseason game between the winners of two exempted postseason bowl games per Bylaw 17.11.6.2.1-©. The participants in the two post-season bowl
games will be selected by Football Bowl Subdivision conferences and independent institutions.

New rule for a 12-team tournament instead of 4, plus clean up that ambiguous phrasing.