(03-01-2023 09:37 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 05:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the GOR serves one purpose and that is to prevent a member from leaving while taking their media rights with them.....you are free to leave, free to pay the exit fee as well, and free to go to another conference....but your media rights stay

Right...so just play out what that means.

What does it mean if FSU and Clemson say "Cool, bye, we're starting play in the SEC in 2031. Yes you have our media rights for the remaining five years of the GOR, enjoy them."

Then what?

ESPN continues to pay the ACC for the remainder of the contract, by contract terms, including for Clemson and FSU's rights. Essentially, the 12 teams remaining split 14 teams worth of rights fees, correct?

The SEC has a new deal coming up in 2032, for which an extension will probably be worked out by 2031, which will be a monster deal and reflect the inclusion of FSU and Clemson. It causes no logistical problems for ESPN whatsoever, because ESPN has FSU and Clemson's rights anyway because they bought them from the ACC already.

The only "issue" is that essentially ESPN is paying for FSU and Clemson's rights twice. They're paying for them in some form in the new SEC deal, and they already own them because they bought them from the ACC.

My premise is that ESPN would not care. By 2031 the ACC's deal will be even more pathetic, "overpaying" the ACC for two teams that aren't there anymore is going to look negligible.

Yes, the GOR means you leave your rights behind in the conference, and FSU and Clemson will.

This doesn't work for schools going to the B1G. The B1G most likely won't take FSU unless FSU can either buy back its rights or legally break the GOR. Because Fox won't pay for games it doesn't broadcast, or would have to buy them/negotiate them out like happened with Texas and OU.

But ESPN is not going to have to negotiate with ESPN to get the rights for FSU and Clemson when they go to the SEC.

I guess we will just have to sell the broadcasts to FOX or even RayCom.

(03-01-2023 09:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 09:37 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 05:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the GOR serves one purpose and that is to prevent a member from leaving while taking their media rights with them.....you are free to leave, free to pay the exit fee as well, and free to go to another conference....but your media rights stay

Right...so just play out what that means.

What does it mean if FSU and Clemson say "Cool, bye, we're starting play in the SEC in 2031. Yes you have our media rights for the remaining five years of the GOR, enjoy them."

Then what?

ESPN continues to pay the ACC for the remainder of the contract, by contract terms, including for Clemson and FSU's rights. Essentially, the 12 teams remaining split 14 teams worth of rights fees, correct?

The SEC has a new deal coming up in 2032, for which an extension will probably be worked out by 2031, which will be a monster deal and reflect the inclusion of FSU and Clemson. It causes no logistical problems for ESPN whatsoever, because ESPN has FSU and Clemson's rights anyway because they bought them from the ACC already.

The only "issue" is that essentially ESPN is paying for FSU and Clemson's rights twice. They're paying for them in some form in the new SEC deal, and they already own them because they bought them from the ACC.

My premise is that ESPN would not care. By 2031 the ACC's deal will be even more pathetic, "overpaying" the ACC for two teams that aren't there anymore is going to look negligible.

Yes, the GOR means you leave your rights behind in the conference, and FSU and Clemson will.

This doesn't work for schools going to the B1G. The B1G most likely won't take FSU unless FSU can either buy back its rights or legally break the GOR. Because Fox won't pay for games it doesn't broadcast, or would have to buy them/negotiate them out like happened with Texas and OU.

But ESPN is not going to have to negotiate with ESPN to get the rights for FSU and Clemson when they go to the SEC.

I guess we will just have to sell the broadcasts to FOX or even RayCom.

How would you do that, if the ACC contracted with ESPN through 2036?

(03-01-2023 10:23 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 09:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 09:37 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 05:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the GOR serves one purpose and that is to prevent a member from leaving while taking their media rights with them.....you are free to leave, free to pay the exit fee as well, and free to go to another conference....but your media rights stay

Right...so just play out what that means.

What does it mean if FSU and Clemson say "Cool, bye, we're starting play in the SEC in 2031. Yes you have our media rights for the remaining five years of the GOR, enjoy them."

Then what?

ESPN continues to pay the ACC for the remainder of the contract, by contract terms, including for Clemson and FSU's rights. Essentially, the 12 teams remaining split 14 teams worth of rights fees, correct?

The SEC has a new deal coming up in 2032, for which an extension will probably be worked out by 2031, which will be a monster deal and reflect the inclusion of FSU and Clemson. It causes no logistical problems for ESPN whatsoever, because ESPN has FSU and Clemson's rights anyway because they bought them from the ACC already.

The only "issue" is that essentially ESPN is paying for FSU and Clemson's rights twice. They're paying for them in some form in the new SEC deal, and they already own them because they bought them from the ACC.

My premise is that ESPN would not care. By 2031 the ACC's deal will be even more pathetic, "overpaying" the ACC for two teams that aren't there anymore is going to look negligible.

Yes, the GOR means you leave your rights behind in the conference, and FSU and Clemson will.

This doesn't work for schools going to the B1G. The B1G most likely won't take FSU unless FSU can either buy back its rights or legally break the GOR. Because Fox won't pay for games it doesn't broadcast, or would have to buy them/negotiate them out like happened with Texas and OU.

But ESPN is not going to have to negotiate with ESPN to get the rights for FSU and Clemson when they go to the SEC.

I guess we will just have to sell the broadcasts to FOX or even RayCom.

How would you do that, if the ACC contracted with ESPN through 2036?

The ACC owns the rights.
FSU breaks their contract with the ACC. The ACC breaks their contract with ESPN. You got a big mess that will be decided in court.

(03-01-2023 10:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 10:23 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 09:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 09:37 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 05:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the GOR serves one purpose and that is to prevent a member from leaving while taking their media rights with them.....you are free to leave, free to pay the exit fee as well, and free to go to another conference....but your media rights stay

Right...so just play out what that means.

What does it mean if FSU and Clemson say "Cool, bye, we're starting play in the SEC in 2031. Yes you have our media rights for the remaining five years of the GOR, enjoy them."

Then what?

ESPN continues to pay the ACC for the remainder of the contract, by contract terms, including for Clemson and FSU's rights. Essentially, the 12 teams remaining split 14 teams worth of rights fees, correct?

The SEC has a new deal coming up in 2032, for which an extension will probably be worked out by 2031, which will be a monster deal and reflect the inclusion of FSU and Clemson. It causes no logistical problems for ESPN whatsoever, because ESPN has FSU and Clemson's rights anyway because they bought them from the ACC already.

The only "issue" is that essentially ESPN is paying for FSU and Clemson's rights twice. They're paying for them in some form in the new SEC deal, and they already own them because they bought them from the ACC.

My premise is that ESPN would not care. By 2031 the ACC's deal will be even more pathetic, "overpaying" the ACC for two teams that aren't there anymore is going to look negligible.

Yes, the GOR means you leave your rights behind in the conference, and FSU and Clemson will.

This doesn't work for schools going to the B1G. The B1G most likely won't take FSU unless FSU can either buy back its rights or legally break the GOR. Because Fox won't pay for games it doesn't broadcast, or would have to buy them/negotiate them out like happened with Texas and OU.

But ESPN is not going to have to negotiate with ESPN to get the rights for FSU and Clemson when they go to the SEC.

I guess we will just have to sell the broadcasts to FOX or even RayCom.

How would you do that, if the ACC contracted with ESPN through 2036?

The ACC owns the rights.
FSU breaks their contract with the ACC. The ACC breaks their contract with ESPN. You got a big mess that will be decided in court.

LOL...the ACC breaks its contract with ESPN?

I've just said, FSU isn't breaking anything. They're paying the exit fee, and leaving their rights with the ACC just like they granted.

(03-01-2023 10:53 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 10:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 10:23 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 09:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 09:37 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  Right...so just play out what that means.

What does it mean if FSU and Clemson say "Cool, bye, we're starting play in the SEC in 2031. Yes you have our media rights for the remaining five years of the GOR, enjoy them."

Then what?

ESPN continues to pay the ACC for the remainder of the contract, by contract terms, including for Clemson and FSU's rights. Essentially, the 12 teams remaining split 14 teams worth of rights fees, correct?

The SEC has a new deal coming up in 2032, for which an extension will probably be worked out by 2031, which will be a monster deal and reflect the inclusion of FSU and Clemson. It causes no logistical problems for ESPN whatsoever, because ESPN has FSU and Clemson's rights anyway because they bought them from the ACC already.

The only "issue" is that essentially ESPN is paying for FSU and Clemson's rights twice. They're paying for them in some form in the new SEC deal, and they already own them because they bought them from the ACC.

My premise is that ESPN would not care. By 2031 the ACC's deal will be even more pathetic, "overpaying" the ACC for two teams that aren't there anymore is going to look negligible.

Yes, the GOR means you leave your rights behind in the conference, and FSU and Clemson will.

This doesn't work for schools going to the B1G. The B1G most likely won't take FSU unless FSU can either buy back its rights or legally break the GOR. Because Fox won't pay for games it doesn't broadcast, or would have to buy them/negotiate them out like happened with Texas and OU.

But ESPN is not going to have to negotiate with ESPN to get the rights for FSU and Clemson when they go to the SEC.

I guess we will just have to sell the broadcasts to FOX or even RayCom.

How would you do that, if the ACC contracted with ESPN through 2036?

The ACC owns the rights.
FSU breaks their contract with the ACC. The ACC breaks their contract with ESPN. You got a big mess that will be decided in court.

LOL...the ACC breaks its contract with ESPN?

I've just said, FSU isn't breaking anything. They're paying the exit fee, and leaving their rights with the ACC just like they granted.

Yep and the ACC is just monetizing those rights.

(03-01-2023 11:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 10:53 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 10:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 10:23 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 09:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  I guess we will just have to sell the broadcasts to FOX or even RayCom.

How would you do that, if the ACC contracted with ESPN through 2036?

The ACC owns the rights.
FSU breaks their contract with the ACC. The ACC breaks their contract with ESPN. You got a big mess that will be decided in court.

LOL...the ACC breaks its contract with ESPN?

I've just said, FSU isn't breaking anything. They're paying the exit fee, and leaving their rights with the ACC just like they granted.

Yep and the ACC is just monetizing those rights.

Exactly...they would get paid by ESPN for 14 via the terms of the current contract, and divide by 12 instead of 14.

All FSU has to do is a find a conference that will take them with their home games not available to their partners.

Impossible now...not sure it's impossible when the B1G and and SEC contracts come up in 2030/2032 respectively.

(03-01-2023 02:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 11:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 10:53 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 10:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 10:23 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  How would you do that, if the ACC contracted with ESPN through 2036?

The ACC owns the rights.
FSU breaks their contract with the ACC. The ACC breaks their contract with ESPN. You got a big mess that will be decided in court.

LOL...the ACC breaks its contract with ESPN?

I've just said, FSU isn't breaking anything. They're paying the exit fee, and leaving their rights with the ACC just like they granted.

Yep and the ACC is just monetizing those rights.

Exactly...they would get paid by ESPN for 14 via the terms of the current contract, and divide by 12 instead of 14.

All FSU has to do is a find a conference that will take them with their home games not available to their partners.

Impossible now...not sure it's impossible when the B1G and and SEC contracts come up in 2030/2032 respectively.

Lou, I agree with most of what you wrote, but...

Quote:Starting in 2024, the deal will see the Disney-owned broadcaster and its sister commercial network ABC become the exclusive home of the SEC’s premium football package and basketball events until 2033/34.

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/sec-...ott=P6leIU

Sorry, the SEC doesn't come up for renewal in 2030 or even 2032, but 2034. But yes, when that happens, FSU will have no problem jumping ship if they still want to go by then.

(03-01-2023 03:23 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 02:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 11:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 10:53 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 10:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC owns the rights.
FSU breaks their contract with the ACC. The ACC breaks their contract with ESPN. You got a big mess that will be decided in court.

LOL...the ACC breaks its contract with ESPN?

I've just said, FSU isn't breaking anything. They're paying the exit fee, and leaving their rights with the ACC just like they granted.

Yep and the ACC is just monetizing those rights.

Exactly...they would get paid by ESPN for 14 via the terms of the current contract, and divide by 12 instead of 14.

All FSU has to do is a find a conference that will take them with their home games not available to their partners.

Impossible now...not sure it's impossible when the B1G and and SEC contracts come up in 2030/2032 respectively.

Lou, I agree with most of what you wrote, but...

Quote:Starting in 2024, the deal will see the Disney-owned broadcaster and its sister commercial network ABC become the exclusive home of the SEC’s premium football package and basketball events until 2033/34.

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/sec-...ott=P6leIU

Sorry, the SEC doesn't come up for renewal in 2030 or even 2032, but 2034. But yes, when that happens, FSU will have no problem jumping ship if they still want to go by then.

You are correct. I had seen the other SEC deal reported as 2032, but this says both are set through 2034.

(02-28-2023 10:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't think you guys are getting the purpose of the GoR. A Grant of Rights exists primarily to guarantee that media distributor (ESPN) and content provider (ACC) have a stable financial arrangement for the duration of the contract. What that means in this case is that (a) the ACC gets paid the same total amount every year of the contract, and (b) ESPN gets the same teams' home games (FSU in this case).

The fallout of the GoR is this: if FSU were to hypothetically move to the SEC, two things MUST happen:
(a) ESPN must agree to continue paying the ACC the same as they would've paid had FSU been there, and
(b) ESPN must continue to get the rights to broadcast all FSU home games.

The ACC would NOT be damaged in this scenario, but would in fact get a little more money as it would be able to divide the same amount of TV money 13 ways instead of 14. I don't think any amount of lawyering would prevent FSU from departing in this specific hypothetical case.

However, there's a huge problem for FSU. For this to happen, ESPN must agree to pay more than double what they are currently paying for the Seminoles. They'd have to pay (a) what FSU would've gotten in the ACC, PLUS (b) what FSU would get in the SEC. Why would ESPN want to do that? I can't think of a good reason, tbh. Maybe because FSU is a flight risk in 2036? That's a stretch, since there are only two places to go: the Big Ten or return to FBS independence.

So, really, it's ESPN who holds the key to getting out of the GoR - not the ACC.

Correct, which means the operative question, which is more debatable than you let on, would be "Is Florida State worth more to ESPN than the 35 million additional dollars against an SEC schedule, or not?" They easily could be worth that much more just in brand on brand strength for viewership and advertising associated with it.

Even if they are a wash, there is a question. Does ESPN feel the move stabilizes or destabilizes the ACC? One could argue that point either way as well. I tend to think that leads to another question, one which is like tugging on a loose thread, if Clemson also wanted to depart and would also be worth it to ESPN in the SEC, does that destabilize the ACC? I'd say yes. FSU by themselves likely would not. With Clemson you are taking 24% of the total value. At that point the loose thread begins to unravel the garment.

This leads to another question? IF ESPN honors the contract until 2036 in the event that both FSU and Clemson depart, what does that say for ESPN's intentions beyond 2036?

The value of the ACC does play into this as well. The ACCN is evidently profitable, so if it were rolled over into the SECN like the LHN how much value would it lose relative to the savings in overhead it would create? Only ESPN knows that one, but since the two networks do not have significant overlap, it might be assumed that the loss would be negligible if the rest of the ACC was still involved.

I raise this matter because it seems to me there are two ways to accomplish a merger, but ESPN has 3 options. One is to move the schools ESPN intends to pay more in order to keep beyond 2036, or the first legal challenge by the school seeking to leave ESPN for the Big 10 / FOX, and then merge the ACC at its established rate into the SEC so that all contracts and operational systems are streamlined for overhead, or merge with the SEC keeping its payout rate, the bulk of the ACC keeping its payout rate, and 3 to 6 schools in the ACC getting more, or ESPN decides simply to add those of the greater value and in 2036 let the rest go up for bid.

Once any school is permitted to leave the paragraph immediately above this one becomes a legitimate set of options. It absolutely becomes viable if 2 leave. What the remainder of schools not named Clemson and Florida State have to determine, and with ESPN, not each other, is what plans ESPN has for them in this changing collegiate sports landscape. Any answer ESPN gives that guarantees inclusion in the upper tier, and no loss of revenue is a gain. Because when the CFP expansion begins play each school in a 72 member upper tier will get an additional 18 million minimum from its proceeds. The only way to be a loser here is to miss being in the final 72. So guaranteed inclusion and access to the CFP means everyone profits regardless of the outcome.

Merger means you not only get those guarantees, but that you also stay together, just in a larger pool.

(03-01-2023 04:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 10:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't think you guys are getting the purpose of the GoR. A Grant of Rights exists primarily to guarantee that media distributor (ESPN) and content provider (ACC) have a stable financial arrangement for the duration of the contract. What that means in this case is that (a) the ACC gets paid the same total amount every year of the contract, and (b) ESPN gets the same teams' home games (FSU in this case).

The fallout of the GoR is this: if FSU were to hypothetically move to the SEC, two things MUST happen:
(a) ESPN must agree to continue paying the ACC the same as they would've paid had FSU been there, and
(b) ESPN must continue to get the rights to broadcast all FSU home games.

The ACC would NOT be damaged in this scenario, but would in fact get a little more money as it would be able to divide the same amount of TV money 13 ways instead of 14. I don't think any amount of lawyering would prevent FSU from departing in this specific hypothetical case.

However, there's a huge problem for FSU. For this to happen, ESPN must agree to pay more than double what they are currently paying for the Seminoles. They'd have to pay (a) what FSU would've gotten in the ACC, PLUS (b) what FSU would get in the SEC. Why would ESPN want to do that? I can't think of a good reason, tbh. Maybe because FSU is a flight risk in 2036? That's a stretch, since there are only two places to go: the Big Ten or return to FBS independence.

So, really, it's ESPN who holds the key to getting out of the GoR - not the ACC.

Correct, which means the operative question, which is more debatable than you let on, would be "Is Florida State worth more to ESPN than the 35 million additional dollars against an SEC schedule, or not?" They easily could be worth that much more just in brand on brand strength for viewership and advertising associated with it.

Even if they are a wash, there is a question. Does ESPN feel the move stabilizes or destabilizes the ACC? One could argue that point either way as well. I tend to think that leads to another question, one which is like tugging on a loose thread, if Clemson also wanted to depart and would also be worth it to ESPN in the SEC, does that destabilize the ACC? I'd say yes. FSU by themselves likely would not. With Clemson you are taking 24% of the total value. At that point the loose thread begins to unravel the garment.

This leads to another question? IF ESPN honors the contract until 2036 in the event that both FSU and Clemson depart, what does that say for ESPN's intentions beyond 2036?

The value of the ACC does play into this as well. The ACCN is evidently profitable, so if it were rolled over into the SECN like the LHN how much value would it lose relative to the savings in overhead it would create? Only ESPN knows that one, but since the two networks do not have significant overlap, it might be assumed that the loss would be negligible if the rest of the ACC was still involved.

I raise this matter because it seems to me there are two ways to accomplish a merger, but ESPN has 3 options. One is to move the schools ESPN intends to pay more in order to keep beyond 2036, or the first legal challenge by the school seeking to leave ESPN for the Big 10 / FOX, and then merge the ACC at its established rate into the SEC so that all contracts and operational systems are streamlined for overhead, or merge with the SEC keeping its payout rate, the bulk of the ACC keeping its payout rate, and 3 to 6 schools in the ACC getting more, or ESPN decides simply to add those of the greater value and in 2036 let the rest go up for bid.

Once any school is permitted to leave the paragraph immediately above this one becomes a legitimate set of options. It absolutely becomes viable if 2 leave. What the remainder of schools not named Clemson and Florida State have to determine, and with ESPN, not each other, is what plans ESPN has for them in this changing collegiate sports landscape. Any answer ESPN gives that guarantees inclusion in the upper tier, and no loss of revenue is a gain. Because when the CFP expansion begins play each school in a 72 member upper tier will get an additional 18 million minimum from its proceeds. The only way to be a loser here is to miss being in the final 72. So guaranteed inclusion and access to the CFP means everyone profits regardless of the outcome.

Merger means you not only get those guarantees, but that you also stay together, just in a larger pool.

JR, you have hit the nail on the head.
If FSU leaves the ACC to play in the SEC with their rights still held by the ACC, the rights fees paid by ESPN to the ACC for Florida State's share would probably increase substantially, because those fees are based on market value. So if FSU's market value increases by participating in the SEC, ESPN would have to pay the then current market rate regardless of which league Florida State was participating in.
If Florida State were to buy their way out of the ACC, paying the exit fee and an agreed amount to buy out of the GOR, ESPN would no longer be obligated to pay any monies for FSU's participation to the ACC.

(03-01-2023 05:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 04:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 10:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't think you guys are getting the purpose of the GoR. A Grant of Rights exists primarily to guarantee that media distributor (ESPN) and content provider (ACC) have a stable financial arrangement for the duration of the contract. What that means in this case is that (a) the ACC gets paid the same total amount every year of the contract, and (b) ESPN gets the same teams' home games (FSU in this case).

The fallout of the GoR is this: if FSU were to hypothetically move to the SEC, two things MUST happen:
(a) ESPN must agree to continue paying the ACC the same as they would've paid had FSU been there, and
(b) ESPN must continue to get the rights to broadcast all FSU home games.

The ACC would NOT be damaged in this scenario, but would in fact get a little more money as it would be able to divide the same amount of TV money 13 ways instead of 14. I don't think any amount of lawyering would prevent FSU from departing in this specific hypothetical case.

However, there's a huge problem for FSU. For this to happen, ESPN must agree to pay more than double what they are currently paying for the Seminoles. They'd have to pay (a) what FSU would've gotten in the ACC, PLUS (b) what FSU would get in the SEC. Why would ESPN want to do that? I can't think of a good reason, tbh. Maybe because FSU is a flight risk in 2036? That's a stretch, since there are only two places to go: the Big Ten or return to FBS independence.

So, really, it's ESPN who holds the key to getting out of the GoR - not the ACC.

Correct, which means the operative question, which is more debatable than you let on, would be "Is Florida State worth more to ESPN than the 35 million additional dollars against an SEC schedule, or not?" They easily could be worth that much more just in brand on brand strength for viewership and advertising associated with it.

Even if they are a wash, there is a question. Does ESPN feel the move stabilizes or destabilizes the ACC? One could argue that point either way as well. I tend to think that leads to another question, one which is like tugging on a loose thread, if Clemson also wanted to depart and would also be worth it to ESPN in the SEC, does that destabilize the ACC? I'd say yes. FSU by themselves likely would not. With Clemson you are taking 24% of the total value. At that point the loose thread begins to unravel the garment.

This leads to another question? IF ESPN honors the contract until 2036 in the event that both FSU and Clemson depart, what does that say for ESPN's intentions beyond 2036?

The value of the ACC does play into this as well. The ACCN is evidently profitable, so if it were rolled over into the SECN like the LHN how much value would it lose relative to the savings in overhead it would create? Only ESPN knows that one, but since the two networks do not have significant overlap, it might be assumed that the loss would be negligible if the rest of the ACC was still involved.

I raise this matter because it seems to me there are two ways to accomplish a merger, but ESPN has 3 options. One is to move the schools ESPN intends to pay more in order to keep beyond 2036, or the first legal challenge by the school seeking to leave ESPN for the Big 10 / FOX, and then merge the ACC at its established rate into the SEC so that all contracts and operational systems are streamlined for overhead, or merge with the SEC keeping its payout rate, the bulk of the ACC keeping its payout rate, and 3 to 6 schools in the ACC getting more, or ESPN decides simply to add those of the greater value and in 2036 let the rest go up for bid.

Once any school is permitted to leave the paragraph immediately above this one becomes a legitimate set of options. It absolutely becomes viable if 2 leave. What the remainder of schools not named Clemson and Florida State have to determine, and with ESPN, not each other, is what plans ESPN has for them in this changing collegiate sports landscape. Any answer ESPN gives that guarantees inclusion in the upper tier, and no loss of revenue is a gain. Because when the CFP expansion begins play each school in a 72 member upper tier will get an additional 18 million minimum from its proceeds. The only way to be a loser here is to miss being in the final 72. So guaranteed inclusion and access to the CFP means everyone profits regardless of the outcome.

Merger means you not only get those guarantees, but that you also stay together, just in a larger pool.

JR, you have hit the nail on the head.
If FSU leaves the ACC to play in the SEC with their rights still held by the ACC, the rights fees paid by ESPN to the ACC for Florida State's share would probably increase substantially, because those fees are based on market value. So if FSU's market value increases by participating in the SEC, ESPN would have to pay the then current market rate regardless of which league Florida State was participating in.
If Florida State were to buy their way out of the ACC, paying the exit fee and an agreed amount to buy out of the GOR, ESPN would no longer be obligated to pay any monies for FSU's participation to the ACC.

They are only ever liable for the full contracted value to the ACC. The ACC doesn't get to benefit from any value outside of that to which it contributed.

(03-01-2023 09:37 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 05:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the GOR serves one purpose and that is to prevent a member from leaving while taking their media rights with them.....you are free to leave, free to pay the exit fee as well, and free to go to another conference....but your media rights stay

Right...so just play out what that means.

What does it mean if FSU and Clemson say "Cool, bye, we're starting play in the SEC in 2031. Yes you have our media rights for the remaining five years of the GOR, enjoy them."

Then what?

ESPN continues to pay the ACC for the remainder of the contract, by contract terms, including for Clemson and FSU's rights. Essentially, the 12 teams remaining split 14 teams worth of rights fees, correct?

The SEC has a new deal coming up in 2032, for which an extension will probably be worked out by 2031, which will be a monster deal and reflect the inclusion of FSU and Clemson. It causes no logistical problems for ESPN whatsoever, because ESPN has FSU and Clemson's rights anyway because they bought them from the ACC already.

The only "issue" is that essentially ESPN is paying for FSU and Clemson's rights twice. They're paying for them in some form in the new SEC deal, and they already own them because they bought them from the ACC.

My premise is that ESPN would not care. By 2031 the ACC's deal will be even more pathetic, "overpaying" the ACC for two teams that aren't there anymore is going to look negligible.

Yes, the GOR means you leave your rights behind in the conference, and FSU and Clemson will.

This doesn't work for schools going to the B1G. The B1G most likely won't take FSU unless FSU can either buy back its rights or legally break the GOR. Because Fox won't pay for games it doesn't broadcast, or would have to buy them/negotiate them out like happened with Texas and OU.

But ESPN is not going to have to negotiate with ESPN to get the rights for FSU and Clemson when they go to the SEC.

you are leaving out the very important parts

1. the ACC teams value those games with their known stable conference mates

teams leaving and going to the SEC SEC SEC means those teams that left will no longer be playing home and home games with the ACC, but instead with the SEC SEC SEC

one can claim that the exit fees covers that (in addition to lost ticket sales for ACC members, ACC members having to buy in games on short notice to cover lost games ect), but sometimes "damages" can be more than simple money

2. long term with those "top" ACC teams gone that will decrease the viewership for the remainder of the ACC contract and ESPN (and especially any other network, streaming company, or anyone else) is not simply going to look and say "OK well yea if you had those top teams your ratings would be better until the end so we will pay you like that"

they will look at those lower ratings and pay accordingly

one can try and make the argument that exit fees cover that as well or that those teams will be leaving at the end of the contract so the ACC needs to just go ahead and "deal with that", but I don't think that is reality

and I don't think that is reality because of #3

3. as stated before ESPN is a party to contracts with the ACC and SEC SEC SEC and enticing a party to break a contract for monetary gain for yourself (especially when you have dealings with all sides) is illegal and if proven can be very costly in court (3X damages)

one will argue "there are not damages the exit fees were paid and ESPN is keeping the ACC contract the same"

but the fact is if it is proven that ESPN is luring one party from the ACC to the SEC SEC SEC for their benefit then it is very illegal and can be very costly in court and it can be an issue even if monetary damages are small

and the most important part is no one knows what the future is.....we do not know who will be bidding on media rights in the future or what they will be paying or what metrics they will use

we do not know if ESPN will get loaded with debt and spun off from Disney and end up on BK in 5 years

we do not know if the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC will use their money to try and buy in coaches to the point that they simply burn through money and coaches and lose all program stability with 10 programs out of 16 trying to be the alpha dog and they all fall off the map

we really do not know what damage in the future will (or will not) be caused by ESPN luring teams from the ACC early

but we do know it is highly illegal for ESPN to attempt to do so and we do know that the administration of FSU is (very unwisely) out there talking about what FSU is worth to the ACC today and I don't think the vast majority of the members of the ACC are just going to sit back and be picked apart 10 years early because ESPN colludes with FSU and the SEC SEC SEC to make it happen and tries to pay off the ACC to let it happen

AOL, Time Warner, GE, AT&T, MySpace, GM, Chrysler, WorldCom. Lehman Brothers, Charter and on and on tell us you can be a big dog today and broke (or near broke and liquidating assets left and right) and busted a few years later (especially when you are as poorly run as ESPN seems to be lately)

there is also still a lot to play out with NIL and probably some more stupidity to come with athlete "compensation" so simply saying that the ACC needs to just accept fate, watch teams that CURRENTLY bring in RATINGS (and claim revenue) should just be allowed to walk off all the more so with collusion from a media partner that is working all sides of the equation is ridiculous

and as we can see with California and UCLA (and even in the past with realignment) states and state politicians are not going to continue to sit back and watch things happen if they feel they can do something about it

in the case of USC (private) and UCLA well the PAC 12 GOR is coming to an end, there are no exit fees, and those two fulfilled their contractual obligations so there is little that could be done other than internal state politics between Cal and UCLA

but I doubt politicians in North Carolina, Virginia, New York, Mass, Kentucky and others (depending on who moves) are just going to sit there and let ESPN make all the moves and interfere with GORs and other conference agreements based on "well they are paying them still right now" knowing full well that ESPN would be doing it for their own long term best interest and not for the interest of any of the remaining ACC members

I see it as HIGHLY unlikely that ESPN/Disney are looking to keep the ACC whole, pay FSU and one other (or more) another $30 million per year when they already control them, AND take the risk not only in court of collusion and the implications there, but the potential political and regulatory implications as well

there is not going to be any simple collusion/torturous interference/enticement with ESPN, SEC SEC SEC, and members of the ACC that is settled with "well we will just pay you the same ACC" for a couple or more schools to just walk away from the ACC 8 to 10 years early....not a chance in hell unless the ACC and the states with the universities left in the ACC are run by complete fools

and ESPN would have to be run by complete fools to look to make that happen and agree to pay that money knowing what is on the line for them when there is ZERO need for them to do so and in fact it cost them a lot of money to do so even if it goes as smooth as can be (it won't)

4. lastly what does ESPN care of FSU and Clemson are not happy in the ACC and with the money they make....where are they going to go?....the Big 10.....you mean the Big 10 that is owned by Fox that is about to collect a lot of money from Texas and OU for missing out on a few games for one season....you think ESPN would no go right back after Fox....and there is not a chance in hell that Fox wants to even remotely get in all of that especially right now

ESPN is not a benevolent benefactor for anyone that just hands out money to make some happy and to keep others happy.....thinking they want to just hand out money and take on massive legal and political liability because FSU is not happy is a pretty far reach for anyone that knows what is at stake vs the zero sum risk to ESPN for another 10+ years

(03-01-2023 05:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 05:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 04:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 10:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't think you guys are getting the purpose of the GoR. A Grant of Rights exists primarily to guarantee that media distributor (ESPN) and content provider (ACC) have a stable financial arrangement for the duration of the contract. What that means in this case is that (a) the ACC gets paid the same total amount every year of the contract, and (b) ESPN gets the same teams' home games (FSU in this case).

The fallout of the GoR is this: if FSU were to hypothetically move to the SEC, two things MUST happen:
(a) ESPN must agree to continue paying the ACC the same as they would've paid had FSU been there, and
(b) ESPN must continue to get the rights to broadcast all FSU home games.

The ACC would NOT be damaged in this scenario, but would in fact get a little more money as it would be able to divide the same amount of TV money 13 ways instead of 14. I don't think any amount of lawyering would prevent FSU from departing in this specific hypothetical case.

However, there's a huge problem for FSU. For this to happen, ESPN must agree to pay more than double what they are currently paying for the Seminoles. They'd have to pay (a) what FSU would've gotten in the ACC, PLUS (b) what FSU would get in the SEC. Why would ESPN want to do that? I can't think of a good reason, tbh. Maybe because FSU is a flight risk in 2036? That's a stretch, since there are only two places to go: the Big Ten or return to FBS independence.

So, really, it's ESPN who holds the key to getting out of the GoR - not the ACC.

Correct, which means the operative question, which is more debatable than you let on, would be "Is Florida State worth more to ESPN than the 35 million additional dollars against an SEC schedule, or not?" They easily could be worth that much more just in brand on brand strength for viewership and advertising associated with it.

Even if they are a wash, there is a question. Does ESPN feel the move stabilizes or destabilizes the ACC? One could argue that point either way as well. I tend to think that leads to another question, one which is like tugging on a loose thread, if Clemson also wanted to depart and would also be worth it to ESPN in the SEC, does that destabilize the ACC? I'd say yes. FSU by themselves likely would not. With Clemson you are taking 24% of the total value. At that point the loose thread begins to unravel the garment.

This leads to another question? IF ESPN honors the contract until 2036 in the event that both FSU and Clemson depart, what does that say for ESPN's intentions beyond 2036?

The value of the ACC does play into this as well. The ACCN is evidently profitable, so if it were rolled over into the SECN like the LHN how much value would it lose relative to the savings in overhead it would create? Only ESPN knows that one, but since the two networks do not have significant overlap, it might be assumed that the loss would be negligible if the rest of the ACC was still involved.

I raise this matter because it seems to me there are two ways to accomplish a merger, but ESPN has 3 options. One is to move the schools ESPN intends to pay more in order to keep beyond 2036, or the first legal challenge by the school seeking to leave ESPN for the Big 10 / FOX, and then merge the ACC at its established rate into the SEC so that all contracts and operational systems are streamlined for overhead, or merge with the SEC keeping its payout rate, the bulk of the ACC keeping its payout rate, and 3 to 6 schools in the ACC getting more, or ESPN decides simply to add those of the greater value and in 2036 let the rest go up for bid.

Once any school is permitted to leave the paragraph immediately above this one becomes a legitimate set of options. It absolutely becomes viable if 2 leave. What the remainder of schools not named Clemson and Florida State have to determine, and with ESPN, not each other, is what plans ESPN has for them in this changing collegiate sports landscape. Any answer ESPN gives that guarantees inclusion in the upper tier, and no loss of revenue is a gain. Because when the CFP expansion begins play each school in a 72 member upper tier will get an additional 18 million minimum from its proceeds. The only way to be a loser here is to miss being in the final 72. So guaranteed inclusion and access to the CFP means everyone profits regardless of the outcome.

Merger means you not only get those guarantees, but that you also stay together, just in a larger pool.

JR, you have hit the nail on the head.
If FSU leaves the ACC to play in the SEC with their rights still held by the ACC, the rights fees paid by ESPN to the ACC for Florida State's share would probably increase substantially, because those fees are based on market value. So if FSU's market value increases by participating in the SEC, ESPN would have to pay the then current market rate regardless of which league Florida State was participating in.
If Florida State were to buy their way out of the ACC, paying the exit fee and an agreed amount to buy out of the GOR, ESPN would no longer be obligated to pay any monies for FSU's participation to the ACC.

They are only ever liable for the full contracted value to the ACC. The ACC doesn't get to benefit from any value outside of that to which it contributed.

When someone invests in an entertainer's career and has that person to sign a GOR while they are still washing dishes and playing clubs at night, the investor will continue to collect even after the entertainer's career takes off with a new manager until the GOR expires. The investor never contributes to the talent or the value of the entertainer, but does provide the means (or in FSU's case, the platform) for the entertainer to take his career to the next level and collects on that value until the GOR expires.

(03-01-2023 05:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 04:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 10:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't think you guys are getting the purpose of the GoR. A Grant of Rights exists primarily to guarantee that media distributor (ESPN) and content provider (ACC) have a stable financial arrangement for the duration of the contract. What that means in this case is that (a) the ACC gets paid the same total amount every year of the contract, and (b) ESPN gets the same teams' home games (FSU in this case).

The fallout of the GoR is this: if FSU were to hypothetically move to the SEC, two things MUST happen:
(a) ESPN must agree to continue paying the ACC the same as they would've paid had FSU been there, and
(b) ESPN must continue to get the rights to broadcast all FSU home games.

The ACC would NOT be damaged in this scenario, but would in fact get a little more money as it would be able to divide the same amount of TV money 13 ways instead of 14. I don't think any amount of lawyering would prevent FSU from departing in this specific hypothetical case.

However, there's a huge problem for FSU. For this to happen, ESPN must agree to pay more than double what they are currently paying for the Seminoles. They'd have to pay (a) what FSU would've gotten in the ACC, PLUS (b) what FSU would get in the SEC. Why would ESPN want to do that? I can't think of a good reason, tbh. Maybe because FSU is a flight risk in 2036? That's a stretch, since there are only two places to go: the Big Ten or return to FBS independence.

So, really, it's ESPN who holds the key to getting out of the GoR - not the ACC.

Correct, which means the operative question, which is more debatable than you let on, would be "Is Florida State worth more to ESPN than the 35 million additional dollars against an SEC schedule, or not?" They easily could be worth that much more just in brand on brand strength for viewership and advertising associated with it.

Even if they are a wash, there is a question. Does ESPN feel the move stabilizes or destabilizes the ACC? One could argue that point either way as well. I tend to think that leads to another question, one which is like tugging on a loose thread, if Clemson also wanted to depart and would also be worth it to ESPN in the SEC, does that destabilize the ACC? I'd say yes. FSU by themselves likely would not. With Clemson you are taking 24% of the total value. At that point the loose thread begins to unravel the garment.

This leads to another question? IF ESPN honors the contract until 2036 in the event that both FSU and Clemson depart, what does that say for ESPN's intentions beyond 2036?

The value of the ACC does play into this as well. The ACCN is evidently profitable, so if it were rolled over into the SECN like the LHN how much value would it lose relative to the savings in overhead it would create? Only ESPN knows that one, but since the two networks do not have significant overlap, it might be assumed that the loss would be negligible if the rest of the ACC was still involved.

I raise this matter because it seems to me there are two ways to accomplish a merger, but ESPN has 3 options. One is to move the schools ESPN intends to pay more in order to keep beyond 2036, or the first legal challenge by the school seeking to leave ESPN for the Big 10 / FOX, and then merge the ACC at its established rate into the SEC so that all contracts and operational systems are streamlined for overhead, or merge with the SEC keeping its payout rate, the bulk of the ACC keeping its payout rate, and 3 to 6 schools in the ACC getting more, or ESPN decides simply to add those of the greater value and in 2036 let the rest go up for bid.

Once any school is permitted to leave the paragraph immediately above this one becomes a legitimate set of options. It absolutely becomes viable if 2 leave. What the remainder of schools not named Clemson and Florida State have to determine, and with ESPN, not each other, is what plans ESPN has for them in this changing collegiate sports landscape. Any answer ESPN gives that guarantees inclusion in the upper tier, and no loss of revenue is a gain. Because when the CFP expansion begins play each school in a 72 member upper tier will get an additional 18 million minimum from its proceeds. The only way to be a loser here is to miss being in the final 72. So guaranteed inclusion and access to the CFP means everyone profits regardless of the outcome.

Merger means you not only get those guarantees, but that you also stay together, just in a larger pool.

JR, you have hit the nail on the head.
If FSU leaves the ACC to play in the SEC with their rights still held by the ACC, the rights fees paid by ESPN to the ACC for Florida State's share would probably increase substantially, because those fees are based on market value. So if FSU's market value increases by participating in the SEC, ESPN would have to pay the then current market rate regardless of which league Florida State was participating in.
If Florida State were to buy their way out of the ACC, paying the exit fee and an agreed amount to buy out of the GOR, ESPN would no longer be obligated to pay any monies for FSU's participation to the ACC.

That's silly, by that theory, ESPN would have to pay the ACC more if Clemson and FSU are good, because those games draw more ratings and revenue, and reduce the pay when they are bad.

(03-02-2023 03:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 05:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 04:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 10:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't think you guys are getting the purpose of the GoR. A Grant of Rights exists primarily to guarantee that media distributor (ESPN) and content provider (ACC) have a stable financial arrangement for the duration of the contract. What that means in this case is that (a) the ACC gets paid the same total amount every year of the contract, and (b) ESPN gets the same teams' home games (FSU in this case).

The fallout of the GoR is this: if FSU were to hypothetically move to the SEC, two things MUST happen:
(a) ESPN must agree to continue paying the ACC the same as they would've paid had FSU been there, and
(b) ESPN must continue to get the rights to broadcast all FSU home games.

The ACC would NOT be damaged in this scenario, but would in fact get a little more money as it would be able to divide the same amount of TV money 13 ways instead of 14. I don't think any amount of lawyering would prevent FSU from departing in this specific hypothetical case.

However, there's a huge problem for FSU. For this to happen, ESPN must agree to pay more than double what they are currently paying for the Seminoles. They'd have to pay (a) what FSU would've gotten in the ACC, PLUS (b) what FSU would get in the SEC. Why would ESPN want to do that? I can't think of a good reason, tbh. Maybe because FSU is a flight risk in 2036? That's a stretch, since there are only two places to go: the Big Ten or return to FBS independence.

So, really, it's ESPN who holds the key to getting out of the GoR - not the ACC.

Correct, which means the operative question, which is more debatable than you let on, would be "Is Florida State worth more to ESPN than the 35 million additional dollars against an SEC schedule, or not?" They easily could be worth that much more just in brand on brand strength for viewership and advertising associated with it.

Even if they are a wash, there is a question. Does ESPN feel the move stabilizes or destabilizes the ACC? One could argue that point either way as well. I tend to think that leads to another question, one which is like tugging on a loose thread, if Clemson also wanted to depart and would also be worth it to ESPN in the SEC, does that destabilize the ACC? I'd say yes. FSU by themselves likely would not. With Clemson you are taking 24% of the total value. At that point the loose thread begins to unravel the garment.

This leads to another question? IF ESPN honors the contract until 2036 in the event that both FSU and Clemson depart, what does that say for ESPN's intentions beyond 2036?

The value of the ACC does play into this as well. The ACCN is evidently profitable, so if it were rolled over into the SECN like the LHN how much value would it lose relative to the savings in overhead it would create? Only ESPN knows that one, but since the two networks do not have significant overlap, it might be assumed that the loss would be negligible if the rest of the ACC was still involved.

I raise this matter because it seems to me there are two ways to accomplish a merger, but ESPN has 3 options. One is to move the schools ESPN intends to pay more in order to keep beyond 2036, or the first legal challenge by the school seeking to leave ESPN for the Big 10 / FOX, and then merge the ACC at its established rate into the SEC so that all contracts and operational systems are streamlined for overhead, or merge with the SEC keeping its payout rate, the bulk of the ACC keeping its payout rate, and 3 to 6 schools in the ACC getting more, or ESPN decides simply to add those of the greater value and in 2036 let the rest go up for bid.

Once any school is permitted to leave the paragraph immediately above this one becomes a legitimate set of options. It absolutely becomes viable if 2 leave. What the remainder of schools not named Clemson and Florida State have to determine, and with ESPN, not each other, is what plans ESPN has for them in this changing collegiate sports landscape. Any answer ESPN gives that guarantees inclusion in the upper tier, and no loss of revenue is a gain. Because when the CFP expansion begins play each school in a 72 member upper tier will get an additional 18 million minimum from its proceeds. The only way to be a loser here is to miss being in the final 72. So guaranteed inclusion and access to the CFP means everyone profits regardless of the outcome.

Merger means you not only get those guarantees, but that you also stay together, just in a larger pool.

JR, you have hit the nail on the head.
If FSU leaves the ACC to play in the SEC with their rights still held by the ACC, the rights fees paid by ESPN to the ACC for Florida State's share would probably increase substantially, because those fees are based on market value. So if FSU's market value increases by participating in the SEC, ESPN would have to pay the then current market rate regardless of which league Florida State was participating in.
If Florida State were to buy their way out of the ACC, paying the exit fee and an agreed amount to buy out of the GOR, ESPN would no longer be obligated to pay any monies for FSU's participation to the ACC.

That's silly, by that theory, ESPN would have to pay the ACC more if Clemson and FSU are good, because those games draw more ratings and revenue, and reduce the pay when they are bad.

I truly do like X and enjoy our verbal jousting, but XLance is not merely a man grasping at straws, he is straw fighting against the winds of change.

What he and I both loved is either going or gone. Raising our fists and shouting at the that Wind is not going to bring it back. Bending with it and accepting what is coming will allow those with roots still firmly in the soil to grow again once the Wind has passed. The Johnson case alone will likely free FSU and everyone else to align as they see fit. When players are paid, allowed to organize, and should the California profit sharing law pass, there will be many P5 schools who simply pack it in. Pay for Play will make Title IX moot. Employees are not scholarship holders and most non revenue sports offerings would be dropped, unless the AOC or some other entity provides for them. I may be unpleasantly surprised but if we are very lucky we could have 4 dozen or so schools left in the upper tier. More likely it falls between the 36 to 40 range. And that's for paid football and basketball. Once the semi-professional or professional tier exists, it may clear legal room for an Ivy approach to amateurism. No scholarships, just students volunteering time for sports.

In that world one set is nuked back to 1870's and the other is catapulted to the NFL-Lite and NBA-Lite.

The dire differences alone will likely kill existing GOR's. Like with a lot of political action today (either side of aisle) they enact laws or interpret them in ways beneficial to corporate interests and not that of the citizens, or even the states. It is a growing Imperial Federalism with Multi-nationals starring as the Emperor.

If we have been shocked and dismayed by the change we've witnessed so far, we are about to be blown through space by what is coming.

Has anyone here read the actual grants of rights? What about all the contracts between the ACC and its members? And what about the ACC's corporate charter and its bylaws -- who has read those?

There are massive assumptions about what these documents say. There is also the massive assumption that the lawyers who drafted them were fools who couldn't figure out how to bind the conference together during a time of stress, even though that was EXACTLY what they were trying to do. I'm pretty sure the ACC pays well for its legal help so that's probably a foolish bet.

(03-02-2023 04:32 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Has anyone here read the actual grants of rights? What about all the contracts between the ACC and its members? And what about the ACC's corporate charter and its bylaws -- who has read those?

There are massive assumptions about what these documents say. There is also the massive assumption that the lawyers who drafted them were fools who couldn't figure out how to bind the conference together during a time of stress, even though that was EXACTLY what they were trying to do. I'm pretty sure the ACC pays well for its legal help so that's probably a foolish bet.

the ACC membership contract was posted on this forum just recently

there is (or was) what was said to be the Big 12 GOR posted online though some said it was not a real one

but it has been said in the past that the Big 12 and ACC GOR are very similar and the ACC actually reached out to look at the Big 12 GOR to craft theirs

there has also been a lot of legal analysis on the Big 12 GOR over the years (by lawyers in contract law) and I believe a recent discussion on the one for the ACC that concludes they are very hard to break and there is not a lot of room to do so

the key aspects being they offer "no out" there is no mechanism to leave at all and there is also no mechanism for compensation (by design) which further complicates the aspect of a member trying to leave "placing a value and paying it" to leave

some have suggested that a valid contract requires something to be given by each side IE media rights given and money given in return and without something given in return the contract could just be tossed in the trash

but the legal analysis I have seen said that was a sophomoric analysis that views money as the only source of "compensation" for something given and that places no value on other things like surety of games and what teams you will be in a conference with or having your games shown or something even as simple as "stability"

in addition the discussion of the Big 12 centered around the aspect that a member leaving had to prove their damages for not leaving with their media rights......while a conference contract for membership with an exit fee requires the conference to prove the damages (which is why they are often challenged)

the aspect of the conference member LEAVING proving damages to them for them breaking a contract they willingly signed and while also trying to claim no damages for breaking the GOR to the conference or other members was said to be a legal challenge that no lawyer would really want to advise a client to take on unless that lawyer was simply interested in racking up a hell of a lot of billable hours and watching a client potentially take a major financial loss

those that claim a GOR is easily broken center their arguments around the idea that a couple of programs dominate a conference and thus they had a crappy GOR drawn up with tons of legal loopholes in it.....the conference and their lawyers, other members with law schools (just to look something over and give an opinion since law schools are not legal counsel for universities), internal legal counsel for university members, external legal counsel for conference members, high power legal graduates of member universities, and wealthy alumni of conference members with powerful legal counsel all either failed to look at the GOR or they failed to see any flaws in it or discuss legal loopholes and then a piece of worthless crap was signed and the members that had it drawn up will just walk away when the feel like it

or it centers around the very "basic" idea of something given, something given back with money being the only form of accepted compensation for media rights

or it centers around the even more "basic" idea of "all contracts can be broken" or "all contracts have a price" so lets just take it to court

and the arguments always try and ignore the very dangerous aspect of collusion, torturous interference, and enticement that can bring 3X damages and the idea is "you can't make ESPN mad it is ESPN!!" or "no one will ever tell about these secret negotiations that involve dozens and dozens of people to break contracts for financial gain while causing harm to others"

or it involves the idea of "well they are state entities they are not collectable" (never mind private universities)

all of which ignore the idea that as the stakes get bigger so does the desire to go to court to protect something and so do the damages if one side takes a major loss especially with illegal acts like collusion or interference or enticement involved

and you get to a point where any lawyer worth a damn is advising universities they are going to face a very expensive fight, they are partnering with a fool if ESPN (or any other media partner especially one with contracts with all involved parties) is working with them to make it happen, and the risk can be massive and the chances of winning are probably a lot lower than the chances of losing

but that will not stop those that claim otherwise while ignoring that as of now even after 6 or 7 years or various universities not being happy with a GOR none have taken it to court yet and the stakes are only getting much higher for any that try and the evidence of media partner meddling is only getting more evident

ESPN doesn’t pay FSU directly, they pay the ACC. If FSU moved, the ACC would still be the one being paid for games in Tallahassee. This likely won’t come to pass because (a) FSU may not get paid for those games by the ACC, and (b) the SEC doesn’t want their teams playing in Tallahassee if they are not the ones paid for those games.

(03-06-2023 10:31 PM)Crayton Wrote:  ESPN doesn’t pay FSU directly, they pay the ACC. If FSU moved, the ACC would still be the one being paid for games in Tallahassee. This likely won’t come to pass because (a) FSU may not get paid for those games by the ACC, and (b) the SEC doesn’t want their teams playing in Tallahassee if they are not the ones paid for those games.

The ONLY way this happens is if ESPN is willing to pay both the ACC and the SEC for those FSU home games. More than double paid out by a network that's trying to cut costs? Think about that for a moment. Not impossible, but everyone needs to understand what it would take to make this happen. Yes, FSU is valuable - but are they worth as much as an SEC share and an ACC share combined?

(03-07-2023 12:55 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 10:31 PM)Crayton Wrote:  ESPN doesn’t pay FSU directly, they pay the ACC. If FSU moved, the ACC would still be the one being paid for games in Tallahassee. This likely won’t come to pass because (a) FSU may not get paid for those games by the ACC, and (b) the SEC doesn’t want their teams playing in Tallahassee if they are not the ones paid for those games.

The ONLY way this happens is if ESPN is willing to pay both the ACC and the SEC for those FSU home games. More than double paid out by a network that's trying to cut costs? Think about that for a moment. Not impossible, but everyone needs to understand what it would take to make this happen. Yes, FSU is valuable - but are they worth as much as an SEC share and an ACC share combined?

Except that's not how it works. ESPN would replace FSU and/or Clemson or Miami with two additions which hold the home slots for the departing schools. The inventory remains the same, and if ESPN chooses to continue to pay all ACC schools the contracted rate there are no monetary damages and GOR settlements are solely about actual monetary damages. No Damage means no damages. FSU and Clemson or Miami would be in an awful bargaining position for the exit fees. So, both would pay the 3 x the annual media earnings which this year were around 37.5 so 112.5 million each which would be divided by the 12 conference members prior to additions. Each current ACC school would get 18.75 million for the two departures combined.

Now for that to happen ESPN has to agree to the moves and the placement of the departing schools into the SEC where ESPN needs to be willing to pay pro rata, or perhaps a reduced amount where ESPN would hold a portion of the media distribution annually until the departure fee was paid in full. I could see each departing school losing 1 whole year of media revenue by the ACC simply withholding it and paying two other years' worth spread over 5 years which would mean reduced shares in the SEC for that period of time. They would get around 60 million in SEC money and ESPN would withhold 15 million a year from each until the exit fee was satisfied.

Now why do this if you are the ACC? Well, that money from exit fees for one, and that means two unhappy malcontents are gone which means two less votes for dissolution and that means security and security means you stay healthy and with access to the playoffs (another 18 million per school) and the new tourney. You would lose South Carolina as a market so adding Cincinnati for a piece of Ohio is a plus, you still keep Florida with Miami. So the only question for the second replacement school is what would you prefer, sports talent or markets?

Now if Notre Dame slips away that's another exit fee too, just not as large.

It's not ideal but it's better than staying in the bitter marriage, especially if you get the alimony.

I think N.D. would have the harder time leaving peacefully if ESPN simply doesn't want to let them go. If ESPN is content with the other two in the SEC, then they can make that one smooth and guarantee that the ACC gets their fees.