(03-06-2024 05:22 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  There is no way to calculate the loss of FSU in monetary terms, even if ESPN still decides to pay the ACC the same.

1) Recruiting - "Come to my school we play FSU" vs "Come to my school we play USF".

2) Exposure - Prime time game on ABC vs noon game on ESPN2.

3) Season ticket sales - "Oh looky we get a home game vs FSU" vs "we also play USF..."

4) Local economy - "FSU brings 8,000 fans to our town and spends money" vs "USF brings 2,000 fans to our town and spends money".

5) Post season - "FSU helped the ACC to get an at large playoff spot" vs "USF almost made it to a bowl".

6) Image - P4 vs M2


How do you possibly recover this? FSU might pay out the nose to leave, but joins a conference that commands the best bowl games and is working toward getting 3 auto-bids in the playoffs. The best thing the ACC could have done was worked with FSU to address their financial needs, the hard ball approach just insures FSU is gone.

In attempting to downplay USF, you just highlighted why FSU wants to leave.

That money has a direct relation to on-the-field performance, and school prestige.

The AAC deal apparently pays around $7M per school.

If USF was in the ACC and made ACC money, do you think that perhaps they might improve?

Somehow, I don't think it would be overly difficult to recruit to Tampa Bay.

It's just about setting priorities, and applying money.

And this is a school that created a plan to get into AAU, and achieved that.

(03-07-2024 12:11 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 05:22 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  There is no way to calculate the loss of FSU in monetary terms, even if ESPN still decides to pay the ACC the same.

1) Recruiting - "Come to my school we play FSU" vs "Come to my school we play USF".

2) Exposure - Prime time game on ABC vs noon game on ESPN2.

3) Season ticket sales - "Oh looky we get a home game vs FSU" vs "we also play USF..."

4) Local economy - "FSU brings 8,000 fans to our town and spends money" vs "USF brings 2,000 fans to our town and spends money".

5) Post season - "FSU helped the ACC to get an at large playoff spot" vs "USF almost made it to a bowl".

6) Image - P4 vs M2


How do you possibly recover this? FSU might pay out the nose to leave, but joins a conference that commands the best bowl games and is working toward getting 3 auto-bids in the playoffs. The best thing the ACC could have done was worked with FSU to address their financial needs, the hard ball approach just insures FSU is gone.

In attempting to downplay USF, you just highlighted why FSU wants to leave.

That money has a direct relation to on-the-field performance, and school prestige.

The AAC deal apparently pays around $7M per school.

If USF was in the ACC and made ACC money, do you think that perhaps they might improve?

Somehow, I don't think it would be overly difficult to recruit to Tampa Bay.

It's just about setting priorities, and applying money.

And this is a school that created a plan to get into AAU, and achieved that.

Nothing against USF, but they are the most direct comparison to make and USF has been floated on expansion threads. USF could go undefeated in the ACC and be a playoff team, but they won't bring the fans, ratings, recruiting leverage and economic boost over night, they are a project, but have potential.

(03-06-2024 04:48 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 04:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 04:15 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 03:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Call me a dummy, and I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I still am having a hard time grasping why a court would force FSU to pay $700 million or somesuch amount to get out of the GOR.

If I was a judge, if the ACC sought that amount, I'd be inclined to say "why do they owe you $700 million, what amount do you lose if they get their rights back for the next 12 years"?

Now if the ACC could say "well, ESPN has said they will cut our TV deal by $5m a year per school if FSU leaves", then that is what, about $60 million a year lost, times 12 years, is $720 million.

But if ESPN says they will pay the full amount per school anyway, even if FSU leaves, then IMO the ACC doesn't lose anything, hence doesn't merit any payment at all for the GOR. The GOR as I understand it was executed so as to meet the terms of ESPN deal. As long as ESPN doesn't negatively alter that deal as a result of an FSU exit, then no harm, no foul.

Now costs aren't the only possible loss factor, loss of future opportunities would be as well. For example, IIRC Marvel sold Sony the right to make Spiderman movies in exchange for a royalty on movie tickets sold. So if Marvel were to try to claim back those rights, Sony could say this would deprive them of future opportunities to earn off those rights via making more Spiderman movies. But IMO the ACC doesn't really have a claim in that regard either. As I understand it, the *sole* benefit of having FSU's rights was in leveraging them to get the ESPN contract. It's not like they have opportunities to sell those rights in other venues between now and 2036, above and beyond the ESPN deal, and again, my reading of the GOR is that FSU signed over the rights needed to secure the ESPN deal specifically. So again, so long as ESPN sticks to the bargain that the rights were used to leverage, I don't see any claim for the ACC.

But again, I don't claim to know anything, LOL.

Sure it's harmful. Virginia Tech once had a game scheduled in October of 2026 with FSU. Now that FSU is gone, they play Cal in that spot, for example. ESPN may keep the ACC "whole" with yearly payments, but they are losing a lot of exposure because nobody cares about VT vs. Cal the way they care about VT vs. FSU. Shouldn't that matter to the ACC? and Shouldn't they still receive compensation, not just keeping yearly payments the same, but for the loss of value as an entire conference when their premier brand leaves? Maybe I'm looking at this wrong?

What "loss of value" has the Conference suffered if ESPN continues to pay everybody exactly the same amount through 2036? It's 2 separate discussions. One is exit fees, which have generally ended up at about 1 years' worth of Conference distributions across numerous exits over the past couple decades, and that's what you're talking about. The other is who actually controls the rights to home games for school "XX" when said school has signed over the rights to another entity. If FSU really controls their rights then they can probably pay about $40m and leave immediately. If FSU really doesn't control their rights then the ACC can refuse to sell them back at any price, or they can demand $500m, $1b, whatever to sell them back.

With such a yawning chasm between the potential outcomes and a legitimate desire on the ACC's part to leave the GoR untested in court and on FSU's part to not run the real risk of being stuck in the ACC until 2036, there is certainly room for a settlement discussion. However, as I keep saying, any settlement that the ACC willingly enters into (rather than potentially being forced into after years of litigation) must be so ridiculously high that Clemson, UNC and Miami decide to stay in the ACC until 2036 or thereabouts. FSU's goal is a moving target, it's really just "get out of the ACC and pay whatever it costs to do so if we can possibly afford it and avoid the risk of losing a bunch of court cases and end up stuck there until 2036". At the end of the day, that's all that matters to the interested parties:

ACC: Keep FSU, or at least ensure that nobody other than FSU leaves b/c penalty to leave is so ridiculously high. And an extremely high fee serves the dual purpose of making the ACC more financially competitive with the P2 until 2036, thus making further exits that much less likely.

FSU: get out of the ACC. Settle if they can possibly afford to meet the ACC's final asking price, roll the dice in the courts and let judges decide only as a last resort.

Good post.

Bryan- I appreciate the detailed response and that's why I wrote "Good post" yesterday. I was very short on time and didn't get to respond, fully.

"Loss of value" absolutely is there if FSU leaves, even if ESPN still pays the conference the same.

For instance, the NFL East is very valuable with the Cowboys a part of that division. Remove them, and replace them with the Houston Texans and the value of that division plummets.

Even though ACC is paid the same, you still think their overall value is the same from 2026 to 2036 without FSU as it would be with them?

(03-06-2024 09:52 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 07:19 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  I decided to try to ballpark a number for FSU "buyout" of the ACC. The term "buyout" encompasses two elements: the exit fee (per reporting: 3x annual revenue) and buyback of the media rights from the GOR( this is the total value of the future media payouts over the length of the contract)
Annual Revenue of the ACC:
Based on Analysis by Hokie Mark, the current ACC revenue is 38.4 million a year, but these numbers do not include the pro rata shares from SMU, Cal and Stanford. It has been reported the Cal and Stanford each took a 30% share to start, and SMU took nothing. We don't know how long Cal and Stanford took a 30% share, so I am assuming that they will eventually get to a full share combined over the the course of the contract. This means there are 2 shares of 38.4 mil to be split among the 14 ACC members. 38.4*2/14= 5.5 mill. This brings us to 43.9. An undisclosed amount of money will be going to the success initiative. There will be fluctuations based on bowl payouts, and cord cutting after a projected rise for the additions of new markets. I factor these in by reducing starting payout to 40 mill for 2024.

Next there is the 4.5% T1 escalator that Hokie Mark's Analysis and reporting remains in place. It would be to difficult to breakout the T1 payouts so I discount this to a 4% escalator.

The Exit Fee:
Exit Fee, as stated before is 3x annual payout 120 mill
ACC media payouts
For each year I took 40 and added a 4% increase in each year and totaled this for the length of the contract .Each year the buy out drops by that amount.

The combined amount of the exit fee and GOR buyback are as follows:

2025: $747 mill
2026: $706 mill
2027: $663 mill
2028: $618 mill
2029: $571 mill
2030: $522 mill
2031: $472 mill
2032: $413 mill
2033: $359 mill
2034: $304 mill
2035: $245 mill
2036: $184 mill

ACC could likely argue for damages as a result of FSU breaking the contract ,but I'd say that is is a ballpark of the floor by year.

Thoughts?

Divide all of your numbers by 2 and you'll be much closer to a true settlement amount if it happens. No school in their right mind would pay 3/4 of a billion to get out of the ACC, and IMO there's no court in America that is going to force a school to come up with an amount that high.

A court is highly unlikely to set a GoR buyout number, they'll either uphold it or strike it down. If it's upheld, then price is "whatever the ACC wants if anything", and if it's struck down then the price is just 0. We'll know how close we were to getting which outcome when the eventual settle comes down. $200m? The GoR was on thin ice. $675m? The GoR was likely going to hold up.

(03-07-2024 05:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 10:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 10:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 08:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 05:22 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  There is no way to calculate the loss of FSU in monetary terms, even if ESPN still decides to pay the ACC the same.

1) Recruiting - "Come to my school we play FSU" vs "Come to my school we play USF".

2) Exposure - Prime time game on ABC vs noon game on ESPN2.

3) Season ticket sales - "Oh looky we get a home game vs FSU" vs "we also play USF..."

4) Local economy - "FSU brings 8,000 fans to our town and spends money" vs "USF brings 2,000 fans to our town and spends money".

5) Post season - "FSU helped the ACC to get an at large playoff spot" vs "USF almost made it to a bowl".

6) Image - P4 vs M2


How do you possibly recover this? FSU might pay out the nose to leave, but joins a conference that commands the best bowl games and is working toward getting 3 auto-bids in the playoffs. The best thing the ACC could have done was worked with FSU to address their financial needs, the hard ball approach just insures FSU is gone.

All good points.

If it's not a recoverable doesn't this just drive up FSU's settlement cost?

IMO, the things the other poster listed are all exit fee things. They aren't GOR things, which is where the big money claim in any settlement would appear to lie.

There is only one thing which will be certain. Whatever happens to FSU becomes the fate of the rest of the ACC. If they get out for under 500 million everyone knows the price to leave. If they get out for less than 300 million it becomes likely that others will follow because they stand to earn more than they lose. If they lose outright nobody's going anywhere. If they win outright, it's open season on the ACC.

The rest is incessant message board opinionating.

Now I still believe a settlement is likely. So, in my mind the question is about the sticker price.

This would then put ESPN and the SEC in a pickle.

With open season where do they go? Football brands (FSU & Clemson) become top priority? Markets ( Carolina and Virginia)? If they go larger to secure regionalism (Miami, FSU, Clemson and GT) that just guarantees that Carolina, State, VT and UVa move to the B1G (and probably Notre Dame too).
If any of the "open season" scenarios come to pass, it will eventually cost everyone. Overhead for FOX and ESPN go up and their overall inventory stays the same. Income from the ACCN dries up but the media payouts increase.

I do think a settlement is likely, because of it's not, it could turn ESPN's inventory into a one trick pony. It is likely that a solution has to be found in the short term to be able to limp along until the joint streaming venture can get off of the ground. What that look like, I do not know, but I would imagine that somewhere ESPN and FOX are working together to be able to present an acceptable solution for all parties before they have to open their wallets too wide.

It would only be a pickle in the sense of a kid in a candy store but he doesn't have enough money to buy every single piece of candy, and he maybe has room for 4 pieces of candy in his pockets. At that point, it just becomes "Which pieces does he want"? My choices if I were Emperor of the SEC would be FSU, Clemson, UNC and Miami. However, I could see a scenario where it is instead FSU, Clemson, VT and UNC, followed soon after by Miami and (reluctantly) ND to the B1G.

(03-07-2024 12:11 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 05:22 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  There is no way to calculate the loss of FSU in monetary terms, even if ESPN still decides to pay the ACC the same.

1) Recruiting - "Come to my school we play FSU" vs "Come to my school we play USF".

2) Exposure - Prime time game on ABC vs noon game on ESPN2.

3) Season ticket sales - "Oh looky we get a home game vs FSU" vs "we also play USF..."

4) Local economy - "FSU brings 8,000 fans to our town and spends money" vs "USF brings 2,000 fans to our town and spends money".

5) Post season - "FSU helped the ACC to get an at large playoff spot" vs "USF almost made it to a bowl".

6) Image - P4 vs M2


How do you possibly recover this? FSU might pay out the nose to leave, but joins a conference that commands the best bowl games and is working toward getting 3 auto-bids in the playoffs. The best thing the ACC could have done was worked with FSU to address their financial needs, the hard ball approach just insures FSU is gone.

In attempting to downplay USF, you just highlighted why FSU wants to leave.

That money has a direct relation to on-the-field performance, and school prestige.

The AAC deal apparently pays around $7M per school.

If USF was in the ACC and made ACC money, do you think that perhaps they might improve?

Somehow, I don't think it would be overly difficult to recruit to Tampa Bay.

It's just about setting priorities, and applying money.

And this is a school that created a plan to get into AAU, and achieved that.

USF has been trucked by UCF for the past 15 years, so much so that UCF cut them in line (and perhaps cut them out completely if there's a breakaway in the near future). FSU has no more reason to worry about USF than A&M or Texas do to worry about UTSA.

(03-07-2024 03:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 05:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 10:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 10:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 08:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  All good points.

If it's not a recoverable doesn't this just drive up FSU's settlement cost?

IMO, the things the other poster listed are all exit fee things. They aren't GOR things, which is where the big money claim in any settlement would appear to lie.

There is only one thing which will be certain. Whatever happens to FSU becomes the fate of the rest of the ACC. If they get out for under 500 million everyone knows the price to leave. If they get out for less than 300 million it becomes likely that others will follow because they stand to earn more than they lose. If they lose outright nobody's going anywhere. If they win outright, it's open season on the ACC.

The rest is incessant message board opinionating.

Now I still believe a settlement is likely. So, in my mind the question is about the sticker price.

This would then put ESPN and the SEC in a pickle.

With open season where do they go? Football brands (FSU & Clemson) become top priority? Markets ( Carolina and Virginia)? If they go larger to secure regionalism (Miami, FSU, Clemson and GT) that just guarantees that Carolina, State, VT and UVa move to the B1G (and probably Notre Dame too).
If any of the "open season" scenarios come to pass, it will eventually cost everyone. Overhead for FOX and ESPN go up and their overall inventory stays the same. Income from the ACCN dries up but the media payouts increase.

I do think a settlement is likely, because of it's not, it could turn ESPN's inventory into a one trick pony. It is likely that a solution has to be found in the short term to be able to limp along until the joint streaming venture can get off of the ground. What that look like, I do not know, but I would imagine that somewhere ESPN and FOX are working together to be able to present an acceptable solution for all parties before they have to open their wallets too wide.

It would only be a pickle in the sense of a kid in a candy store but he doesn't have enough money to buy every single piece of candy, and he maybe has room for 4 pieces of candy in his pockets. At that point, it just becomes "Which pieces does he want"? My choices if I were Emperor of the SEC would be FSU, Clemson, UNC and Miami. However, I could see a scenario where it is instead FSU, Clemson, VT and UNC, followed soon after by Miami and (reluctantly) ND to the B1G.

It actually would be good for the schools that are sought after, in that they could put themselves up for bid and then the networks will have to decide how much they are willing to spend. Do they blow their entire budget on 2 or take lesser choices to try to purchase 4 schools.
One would have to believe that the schools that have the greatest value to both conferences would command the highest bids.

(03-07-2024 03:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 12:11 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 05:22 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  There is no way to calculate the loss of FSU in monetary terms, even if ESPN still decides to pay the ACC the same.

1) Recruiting - "Come to my school we play FSU" vs "Come to my school we play USF".

2) Exposure - Prime time game on ABC vs noon game on ESPN2.

3) Season ticket sales - "Oh looky we get a home game vs FSU" vs "we also play USF..."

4) Local economy - "FSU brings 8,000 fans to our town and spends money" vs "USF brings 2,000 fans to our town and spends money".

5) Post season - "FSU helped the ACC to get an at large playoff spot" vs "USF almost made it to a bowl".

6) Image - P4 vs M2


How do you possibly recover this? FSU might pay out the nose to leave, but joins a conference that commands the best bowl games and is working toward getting 3 auto-bids in the playoffs. The best thing the ACC could have done was worked with FSU to address their financial needs, the hard ball approach just insures FSU is gone.

In attempting to downplay USF, you just highlighted why FSU wants to leave.

That money has a direct relation to on-the-field performance, and school prestige.

The AAC deal apparently pays around $7M per school.

If USF was in the ACC and made ACC money, do you think that perhaps they might improve?

Somehow, I don't think it would be overly difficult to recruit to Tampa Bay.

It's just about setting priorities, and applying money.

And this is a school that created a plan to get into AAU, and achieved that.

USF has been trucked by UCF for the past 15 years, so much so that UCF cut them in line (and perhaps cut them out completely if there's a breakaway in the near future). FSU has no more reason to worry about USF than A&M or Texas do to worry about UTSA.

You completely missed the point of what I wrote.

It has zero to do with FSU having reason to worry about USF.

I was pointing out that Garrettabc's comparison had the interesting effect of highlighting FSU's complaint.

Just as FSU (a school that has been on the build for some time and is seeing that pay off) is saying that by staying in the ACC and not in a conference that makes more money and is more prestigious, would potentially hurt them competitively going forward; so too could that same thing be said about USF - a school on the beginning of a build, but in a lower-paid, less prestigious conference.

So my point is that, just as I agree that things are likely going to be good, if not better for FSU in a P2 conference from their perspective, so too would things likely get better for USF in the ACC.

Not every school is on the build or has assigned priority to such things, but I think it can be seen that USF is trying, even at the pay they have currently.

UCF may be a good school, but I don't see them on any lists of "near-AAU" in the near future, so I don't think they would be getting a Big10 or ACC invite any time soon. So I don't think their situations are comparable either.

UCF accepted what was likely their best chance out of the G5.

USF is on most pundits' shortlists for ACC backfill for when FSU leaves. Again - likely their best chance out of the G5.

So no, I don't think your UTSA analogy is applicable either - unless you think UTSA has a P4 invite on its radar in the near future?

(03-07-2024 05:06 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 03:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 12:11 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 05:22 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  There is no way to calculate the loss of FSU in monetary terms, even if ESPN still decides to pay the ACC the same.

1) Recruiting - "Come to my school we play FSU" vs "Come to my school we play USF".

2) Exposure - Prime time game on ABC vs noon game on ESPN2.

3) Season ticket sales - "Oh looky we get a home game vs FSU" vs "we also play USF..."

4) Local economy - "FSU brings 8,000 fans to our town and spends money" vs "USF brings 2,000 fans to our town and spends money".

5) Post season - "FSU helped the ACC to get an at large playoff spot" vs "USF almost made it to a bowl".

6) Image - P4 vs M2


How do you possibly recover this? FSU might pay out the nose to leave, but joins a conference that commands the best bowl games and is working toward getting 3 auto-bids in the playoffs. The best thing the ACC could have done was worked with FSU to address their financial needs, the hard ball approach just insures FSU is gone.

In attempting to downplay USF, you just highlighted why FSU wants to leave.

That money has a direct relation to on-the-field performance, and school prestige.

The AAC deal apparently pays around $7M per school.

If USF was in the ACC and made ACC money, do you think that perhaps they might improve?

Somehow, I don't think it would be overly difficult to recruit to Tampa Bay.

It's just about setting priorities, and applying money.

And this is a school that created a plan to get into AAU, and achieved that.

USF has been trucked by UCF for the past 15 years, so much so that UCF cut them in line (and perhaps cut them out completely if there's a breakaway in the near future). FSU has no more reason to worry about USF than A&M or Texas do to worry about UTSA.

You completely missed the point of what I wrote.

It has zero to do with FSU having reason to worry about USF.

I was pointing out that Garrettabc's comparison had the interesting effect of highlighting FSU's complaint.

Just as FSU (a school that has been on the build for some time and is seeing that pay off) is saying that by staying in the ACC and not in a conference that makes more money and is more prestigious, would potentially hurt them competitively going forward; so too could that same thing be said about USF - a school on the beginning of a build, but in a lower-paid, less prestigious conference.

So my point is that, just as I agree that things are likely going to be good, if not better for FSU in a P2 conference from their perspective, so too would things likely get better for USF in the ACC.

Not every school is on the build or has assigned priority to such things, but I think it can be seen that USF is trying, even at the pay they have currently.

UCF may be a good school, but I don't see them on any lists of "near-AAU" in the near future, so I don't think they would be getting a Big10 or ACC invite any time soon. So I don't think their situations are comparable either.

UCF accepted what was likely their best chance out of the G5.

USF is on most pundits' shortlists for ACC backfill for when FSU leaves. Again - likely their best chance out of the G5.

So no, I don't think your UTSA analogy is applicable either - unless you think UTSA has a P4 invite on its radar in the near future?

It's a crappy analogy.

UTSA has an enrollment of 29,500 undergraduate
USF has an enrollment of 55,000.

UTSA has an R1 research rating.
USF as we know is now AAU.

UTSA reaches no part of Texas not reached by UT and A&M.
USF reaches part of Florida where UF's reach is not as strong though UF reaches all of the state.

USF is clearly the superior candidate for the ACC, an academically minded conference to take over any of the other G5 schools available. And USF's hoops are ranked this year. Not a big deal in decision making but something I'm sure the ACC has noticed.

(03-07-2024 02:46 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 04:48 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 04:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 04:15 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 03:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Call me a dummy, and I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I still am having a hard time grasping why a court would force FSU to pay $700 million or somesuch amount to get out of the GOR.

If I was a judge, if the ACC sought that amount, I'd be inclined to say "why do they owe you $700 million, what amount do you lose if they get their rights back for the next 12 years"?

Now if the ACC could say "well, ESPN has said they will cut our TV deal by $5m a year per school if FSU leaves", then that is what, about $60 million a year lost, times 12 years, is $720 million.

But if ESPN says they will pay the full amount per school anyway, even if FSU leaves, then IMO the ACC doesn't lose anything, hence doesn't merit any payment at all for the GOR. The GOR as I understand it was executed so as to meet the terms of ESPN deal. As long as ESPN doesn't negatively alter that deal as a result of an FSU exit, then no harm, no foul.

Now costs aren't the only possible loss factor, loss of future opportunities would be as well. For example, IIRC Marvel sold Sony the right to make Spiderman movies in exchange for a royalty on movie tickets sold. So if Marvel were to try to claim back those rights, Sony could say this would deprive them of future opportunities to earn off those rights via making more Spiderman movies. But IMO the ACC doesn't really have a claim in that regard either. As I understand it, the *sole* benefit of having FSU's rights was in leveraging them to get the ESPN contract. It's not like they have opportunities to sell those rights in other venues between now and 2036, above and beyond the ESPN deal, and again, my reading of the GOR is that FSU signed over the rights needed to secure the ESPN deal specifically. So again, so long as ESPN sticks to the bargain that the rights were used to leverage, I don't see any claim for the ACC.

But again, I don't claim to know anything, LOL.

Sure it's harmful. Virginia Tech once had a game scheduled in October of 2026 with FSU. Now that FSU is gone, they play Cal in that spot, for example. ESPN may keep the ACC "whole" with yearly payments, but they are losing a lot of exposure because nobody cares about VT vs. Cal the way they care about VT vs. FSU. Shouldn't that matter to the ACC? and Shouldn't they still receive compensation, not just keeping yearly payments the same, but for the loss of value as an entire conference when their premier brand leaves? Maybe I'm looking at this wrong?

What "loss of value" has the Conference suffered if ESPN continues to pay everybody exactly the same amount through 2036? It's 2 separate discussions. One is exit fees, which have generally ended up at about 1 years' worth of Conference distributions across numerous exits over the past couple decades, and that's what you're talking about. The other is who actually controls the rights to home games for school "XX" when said school has signed over the rights to another entity. If FSU really controls their rights then they can probably pay about $40m and leave immediately. If FSU really doesn't control their rights then the ACC can refuse to sell them back at any price, or they can demand $500m, $1b, whatever to sell them back.

With such a yawning chasm between the potential outcomes and a legitimate desire on the ACC's part to leave the GoR untested in court and on FSU's part to not run the real risk of being stuck in the ACC until 2036, there is certainly room for a settlement discussion. However, as I keep saying, any settlement that the ACC willingly enters into (rather than potentially being forced into after years of litigation) must be so ridiculously high that Clemson, UNC and Miami decide to stay in the ACC until 2036 or thereabouts. FSU's goal is a moving target, it's really just "get out of the ACC and pay whatever it costs to do so if we can possibly afford it and avoid the risk of losing a bunch of court cases and end up stuck there until 2036". At the end of the day, that's all that matters to the interested parties:

ACC: Keep FSU, or at least ensure that nobody other than FSU leaves b/c penalty to leave is so ridiculously high. And an extremely high fee serves the dual purpose of making the ACC more financially competitive with the P2 until 2036, thus making further exits that much less likely.

FSU: get out of the ACC. Settle if they can possibly afford to meet the ACC's final asking price, roll the dice in the courts and let judges decide only as a last resort.

Good post.

Bryan- I appreciate the detailed response and that's why I wrote "Good post" yesterday. I was very short on time and didn't get to respond, fully.

"Loss of value" absolutely is there if FSU leaves, even if ESPN still pays the conference the same.

For instance, the NFL East is very valuable with the Cowboys a part of that division. Remove them, and replace them with the Houston Texans and the value of that division plummets.

Even though ACC is paid the same, you still think their overall value is the same from 2026 to 2036 without FSU as it would be with them?

I agree the ACC schools lose value in ways other than the media deal if FSU leaves. But imo those things are what the exit fee is for.

IMO, regarding GOR damages, the media deal is the only thing that should matter.

(03-08-2024 05:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:46 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 04:48 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 04:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 04:15 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Sure it's harmful. Virginia Tech once had a game scheduled in October of 2026 with FSU. Now that FSU is gone, they play Cal in that spot, for example. ESPN may keep the ACC "whole" with yearly payments, but they are losing a lot of exposure because nobody cares about VT vs. Cal the way they care about VT vs. FSU. Shouldn't that matter to the ACC? and Shouldn't they still receive compensation, not just keeping yearly payments the same, but for the loss of value as an entire conference when their premier brand leaves? Maybe I'm looking at this wrong?

What "loss of value" has the Conference suffered if ESPN continues to pay everybody exactly the same amount through 2036? It's 2 separate discussions. One is exit fees, which have generally ended up at about 1 years' worth of Conference distributions across numerous exits over the past couple decades, and that's what you're talking about. The other is who actually controls the rights to home games for school "XX" when said school has signed over the rights to another entity. If FSU really controls their rights then they can probably pay about $40m and leave immediately. If FSU really doesn't control their rights then the ACC can refuse to sell them back at any price, or they can demand $500m, $1b, whatever to sell them back.

With such a yawning chasm between the potential outcomes and a legitimate desire on the ACC's part to leave the GoR untested in court and on FSU's part to not run the real risk of being stuck in the ACC until 2036, there is certainly room for a settlement discussion. However, as I keep saying, any settlement that the ACC willingly enters into (rather than potentially being forced into after years of litigation) must be so ridiculously high that Clemson, UNC and Miami decide to stay in the ACC until 2036 or thereabouts. FSU's goal is a moving target, it's really just "get out of the ACC and pay whatever it costs to do so if we can possibly afford it and avoid the risk of losing a bunch of court cases and end up stuck there until 2036". At the end of the day, that's all that matters to the interested parties:

ACC: Keep FSU, or at least ensure that nobody other than FSU leaves b/c penalty to leave is so ridiculously high. And an extremely high fee serves the dual purpose of making the ACC more financially competitive with the P2 until 2036, thus making further exits that much less likely.

FSU: get out of the ACC. Settle if they can possibly afford to meet the ACC's final asking price, roll the dice in the courts and let judges decide only as a last resort.

Good post.

Bryan- I appreciate the detailed response and that's why I wrote "Good post" yesterday. I was very short on time and didn't get to respond, fully.

"Loss of value" absolutely is there if FSU leaves, even if ESPN still pays the conference the same.

For instance, the NFL East is very valuable with the Cowboys a part of that division. Remove them, and replace them with the Houston Texans and the value of that division plummets.

Even though ACC is paid the same, you still think their overall value is the same from 2026 to 2036 without FSU as it would be with them?

I agree the ACC schools lose value in ways other than the media deal if FSU leaves. But imo those things are what the exit fee is for.

IMO, regarding GOR damages, the media deal is the only thing that should matter.

Quo,

I think you are mistaken.

FSU granted the media right to the ACC. If FSU leaves, the “total” amount that the ACC would receive from ESPN will be decreased although the per school payout amount might stay same. The ACC gets money from ESPN and distribute the money to its member schools. ESPN and the GOR have nothing to do with this distribution by the ACC.

The GoR is between the ACC and FSU. The per school payout is irrelevant.

(03-07-2024 06:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  UTSA has an enrollment of 29,500 undergraduate
USF has an enrollment of 55,000.

UTSA has an R1 research rating.
USF as we know is now AAU.

UTSA reaches no part of Texas not reached by UT and A&M.
USF reaches part of Florida where UF's reach is not as strong though UF reaches all of the state.

USF is clearly the superior candidate for the ACC, an academically minded conference to take over any of the other G5 schools available. And USF's hoops are ranked this year. Not a big deal in decision making but something I'm sure the ACC has noticed.

^^^ THIS ^^^

For these reasons, USF should know that if FSU leaves (and maybe even if they don't), they are the top G5 candidate and one of the top overall candidates for further ACC expansion/replacement.

Ballpark number?

I think the courts will take the FSU lawyers numbers and set the GOR figure at $572 Million (cash).

(03-08-2024 06:42 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 05:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:46 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 04:48 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 04:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  What "loss of value" has the Conference suffered if ESPN continues to pay everybody exactly the same amount through 2036? It's 2 separate discussions. One is exit fees, which have generally ended up at about 1 years' worth of Conference distributions across numerous exits over the past couple decades, and that's what you're talking about. The other is who actually controls the rights to home games for school "XX" when said school has signed over the rights to another entity. If FSU really controls their rights then they can probably pay about $40m and leave immediately. If FSU really doesn't control their rights then the ACC can refuse to sell them back at any price, or they can demand $500m, $1b, whatever to sell them back.

With such a yawning chasm between the potential outcomes and a legitimate desire on the ACC's part to leave the GoR untested in court and on FSU's part to not run the real risk of being stuck in the ACC until 2036, there is certainly room for a settlement discussion. However, as I keep saying, any settlement that the ACC willingly enters into (rather than potentially being forced into after years of litigation) must be so ridiculously high that Clemson, UNC and Miami decide to stay in the ACC until 2036 or thereabouts. FSU's goal is a moving target, it's really just "get out of the ACC and pay whatever it costs to do so if we can possibly afford it and avoid the risk of losing a bunch of court cases and end up stuck there until 2036". At the end of the day, that's all that matters to the interested parties:

ACC: Keep FSU, or at least ensure that nobody other than FSU leaves b/c penalty to leave is so ridiculously high. And an extremely high fee serves the dual purpose of making the ACC more financially competitive with the P2 until 2036, thus making further exits that much less likely.

FSU: get out of the ACC. Settle if they can possibly afford to meet the ACC's final asking price, roll the dice in the courts and let judges decide only as a last resort.

Good post.

Bryan- I appreciate the detailed response and that's why I wrote "Good post" yesterday. I was very short on time and didn't get to respond, fully.

"Loss of value" absolutely is there if FSU leaves, even if ESPN still pays the conference the same.

For instance, the NFL East is very valuable with the Cowboys a part of that division. Remove them, and replace them with the Houston Texans and the value of that division plummets.

Even though ACC is paid the same, you still think their overall value is the same from 2026 to 2036 without FSU as it would be with them?

I agree the ACC schools lose value in ways other than the media deal if FSU leaves. But imo those things are what the exit fee is for.

IMO, regarding GOR damages, the media deal is the only thing that should matter.

Quo,

I think you are mistaken.

FSU granted the media right to the ACC. If FSU leaves, the “total” amount that the ACC would receive from ESPN will be decreased although the per school payout amount might stay same. The ACC gets money from ESPN and distribute the money to its member schools. ESPN and the GOR have nothing to do with this distribution by the ACC.

The GoR is between the ACC and FSU. The per school payout is irrelevant.

I see your point, but IMO it would be easy for FSU to argue that the per-school payout is all that matters, not the gross payout to the ACC. That seems to be all that matters to the member schools themselves.

Particularly since, if FSU and anyone else leaves, the ACC would likely backfill anyway, and those new schools would get the payout that FSU and whoever would have.

Just MO.

(03-08-2024 08:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 06:42 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 05:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 02:46 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 04:48 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Good post.

Bryan- I appreciate the detailed response and that's why I wrote "Good post" yesterday. I was very short on time and didn't get to respond, fully.

"Loss of value" absolutely is there if FSU leaves, even if ESPN still pays the conference the same.

For instance, the NFL East is very valuable with the Cowboys a part of that division. Remove them, and replace them with the Houston Texans and the value of that division plummets.

Even though ACC is paid the same, you still think their overall value is the same from 2026 to 2036 without FSU as it would be with them?

I agree the ACC schools lose value in ways other than the media deal if FSU leaves. But imo those things are what the exit fee is for.

IMO, regarding GOR damages, the media deal is the only thing that should matter.

Quo,

I think you are mistaken.

FSU granted the media right to the ACC. If FSU leaves, the “total” amount that the ACC would receive from ESPN will be decreased although the per school payout amount might stay same. The ACC gets money from ESPN and distribute the money to its member schools. ESPN and the GOR have nothing to do with this distribution by the ACC.

The GoR is between the ACC and FSU. The per school payout is irrelevant.

I see your point, but IMO it would be easy for FSU to argue that the per-school payout is all that matters, not the gross payout to the ACC. That seems to be all that matters to the member schools themselves.

Particularly since, if FSU and anyone else leaves, the ACC would likely backfill anyway, and those new schools would get the payout that FSU and whoever would have.

Just MO.

FSU can argue that. But that’s missing the point. The lawsuit is between FSU and the ACC not between FSU and the ACC schools.

The backfill is not an issue. The issue here is FSU’s media right which was granted to the ACC. The ACC getting another entity’s media right or not is irrelevant in my opinion.

To be fair, I see other people (some FSU fans and B12 fans) made the same argument. But did FSU raise that point? I don’t remember.

(03-07-2024 05:06 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 03:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 12:11 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 05:22 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  There is no way to calculate the loss of FSU in monetary terms, even if ESPN still decides to pay the ACC the same.

1) Recruiting - "Come to my school we play FSU" vs "Come to my school we play USF".

2) Exposure - Prime time game on ABC vs noon game on ESPN2.

3) Season ticket sales - "Oh looky we get a home game vs FSU" vs "we also play USF..."

4) Local economy - "FSU brings 8,000 fans to our town and spends money" vs "USF brings 2,000 fans to our town and spends money".

5) Post season - "FSU helped the ACC to get an at large playoff spot" vs "USF almost made it to a bowl".

6) Image - P4 vs M2


How do you possibly recover this? FSU might pay out the nose to leave, but joins a conference that commands the best bowl games and is working toward getting 3 auto-bids in the playoffs. The best thing the ACC could have done was worked with FSU to address their financial needs, the hard ball approach just insures FSU is gone.

In attempting to downplay USF, you just highlighted why FSU wants to leave.

That money has a direct relation to on-the-field performance, and school prestige.

The AAC deal apparently pays around $7M per school.

If USF was in the ACC and made ACC money, do you think that perhaps they might improve?

Somehow, I don't think it would be overly difficult to recruit to Tampa Bay.

It's just about setting priorities, and applying money.

And this is a school that created a plan to get into AAU, and achieved that.

USF has been trucked by UCF for the past 15 years, so much so that UCF cut them in line (and perhaps cut them out completely if there's a breakaway in the near future). FSU has no more reason to worry about USF than A&M or Texas do to worry about UTSA.

You completely missed the point of what I wrote.

It has zero to do with FSU having reason to worry about USF.

I was pointing out that Garrettabc's comparison had the interesting effect of highlighting FSU's complaint.

Just as FSU (a school that has been on the build for some time and is seeing that pay off) is saying that by staying in the ACC and not in a conference that makes more money and is more prestigious, would potentially hurt them competitively going forward; so too could that same thing be said about USF - a school on the beginning of a build, but in a lower-paid, less prestigious conference.

So my point is that, just as I agree that things are likely going to be good, if not better for FSU in a P2 conference from their perspective, so too would things likely get better for USF in the ACC.

Not every school is on the build or has assigned priority to such things, but I think it can be seen that USF is trying, even at the pay they have currently.

UCF may be a good school, but I don't see them on any lists of "near-AAU" in the near future, so I don't think they would be getting a Big10 or ACC invite any time soon. So I don't think their situations are comparable either.

UCF accepted what was likely their best chance out of the G5.

USF is on most pundits' shortlists for ACC backfill for when FSU leaves. Again - likely their best chance out of the G5.

So no, I don't think your UTSA analogy is applicable either - unless you think UTSA has a P4 invite on its radar in the near future?

UCF isn't on the B1G radar, but their Academics would fit ok in the ACC, certainly FAR better than, say, Louisville's. In fact, UCF's average SAT of 1259 is nearly as high as FSU's 1270 or A&M's 1275. Not IDEAL, but acceptable. The ACC is interesting to me Academically, they are almost all truly Elite schools, but as a group they have more of an undergraduate focus rather than the Research focus you see in the B1G.

I see your point now, and it's a good one. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

(03-08-2024 07:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 06:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  UTSA has an enrollment of 29,500 undergraduate
USF has an enrollment of 55,000.

UTSA has an R1 research rating.
USF as we know is now AAU.

UTSA reaches no part of Texas not reached by UT and A&M.
USF reaches part of Florida where UF's reach is not as strong though UF reaches all of the state.

USF is clearly the superior candidate for the ACC, an academically minded conference to take over any of the other G5 schools available. And USF's hoops are ranked this year. Not a big deal in decision making but something I'm sure the ACC has noticed.

^^^ THIS ^^^

For these reasons, USF should know that if FSU leaves (and maybe even if they don't), they are the top G5 candidate and one of the top overall candidates for further ACC expansion/replacement.

I'm going on record right now in saying that the ACC only invites USF if BOTH FSU and Miami leave. And if both FSU and Miami leave, it's not the same ACC that we see right now. If only 1 leaves, then the ACC will stay away from USF, but they'll send feelers out to UCF.

I still find it telling that the Big 12 considered USF in 2016, but in the midst of a near death experience 2021, USF was nowhere to be found. Here's the list:

The Big 12 ended up with 12 finalists for expansion in 2016: Air Force, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado State, Connecticut, Houston, Rice, South Florida, Southern Methodist, Temple and Tulane.

Other applications were received. Schools that did not make the cut were Arkansas State, Boise State, East Carolina, Memphis, New Mexico, Northern Illinois, San Diego State and Nevada-Las Vegas.

This time around, the top contenders are expected to be BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, Boise State, SMU and Memphis.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/2...647450001/

We all know who the chosen 4 were, and we all have endlessly discussed the other 3 in the interim. We've also seen SMU since jump to the ACC, Memphis make lots of noise about their new stadium and other improvements, and the Big 12 flirt aggressively with UConn. What happened to USF that relegated them to the same "afterthought" status as Rice, Temple, Tulane, and CSU? And of those 4 + USF, hasn't Tulane done more to attract positive attention than USF in the past couple years? USF has faded a bit, like Boise St though for different reasons.

I get it. I understand the enthusiasm about USF, their enrollment is huge and I've given then plenty of props for making the AAU. But I also think that it's important to view these things anew regularly, and the only current reason I can see for slotting USF ahead of schools that would otherwise attract more interest from the M2 is their location, a reason that is less important today than it was a few years ago, and could very well fade even more in importance over time.

Everything is a comparison, and USF's comparison to peers and near-peers like UConn, UCF, Memphis, SDSU, Tulane, BYU, UH, SMU, Boise St, etc etc is generally weaker today than it was a decade ago, despite their recent AAU ascension.

(03-07-2024 02:33 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 12:11 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 05:22 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  There is no way to calculate the loss of FSU in monetary terms, even if ESPN still decides to pay the ACC the same.

1) Recruiting - "Come to my school we play FSU" vs "Come to my school we play USF".

2) Exposure - Prime time game on ABC vs noon game on ESPN2.

3) Season ticket sales - "Oh looky we get a home game vs FSU" vs "we also play USF..."

4) Local economy - "FSU brings 8,000 fans to our town and spends money" vs "USF brings 2,000 fans to our town and spends money".

5) Post season - "FSU helped the ACC to get an at large playoff spot" vs "USF almost made it to a bowl".

6) Image - P4 vs M2


How do you possibly recover this? FSU might pay out the nose to leave, but joins a conference that commands the best bowl games and is working toward getting 3 auto-bids in the playoffs. The best thing the ACC could have done was worked with FSU to address their financial needs, the hard ball approach just insures FSU is gone.

In attempting to downplay USF, you just highlighted why FSU wants to leave.

That money has a direct relation to on-the-field performance, and school prestige.

The AAC deal apparently pays around $7M per school.

If USF was in the ACC and made ACC money, do you think that perhaps they might improve?

Somehow, I don't think it would be overly difficult to recruit to Tampa Bay.

It's just about setting priorities, and applying money.

And this is a school that created a plan to get into AAU, and achieved that.

Nothing against USF, but they are the most direct comparison to make and USF has been floated on expansion threads. USF could go undefeated in the ACC and be a playoff team, but they won't bring the fans, ratings, recruiting leverage and economic boost over night, they are a project, but have potential.

Not going to argue, we probably ARE a project for a P5 conference. I'll just point out, we are really no different than any other recent G5 'call up'. If we were a juggernaut, we would already be in the P5. But once you get there, generally, the increased dollars, better opponents, all ramps up your quality. Plenty of examples of this... you 'grow up' quickly.

I'll avoid the temptation to tout our upside... it's all pretty much been said on these threads, which is why most folks seem to have us on the ACC radar... We've beat enough big teams to make our splash, and our athletics are most definitely on an upswing. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't... time will tell. But we'll be fine either way, winning in the AAC, or the ACC. I hope.

(03-08-2024 09:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-08-2024 07:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-07-2024 06:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  UTSA has an enrollment of 29,500 undergraduate
USF has an enrollment of 55,000.

UTSA has an R1 research rating.
USF as we know is now AAU.

UTSA reaches no part of Texas not reached by UT and A&M.
USF reaches part of Florida where UF's reach is not as strong though UF reaches all of the state.

USF is clearly the superior candidate for the ACC, an academically minded conference to take over any of the other G5 schools available. And USF's hoops are ranked this year. Not a big deal in decision making but something I'm sure the ACC has noticed.

^^^ THIS ^^^

For these reasons, USF should know that if FSU leaves (and maybe even if they don't), they are the top G5 candidate and one of the top overall candidates for further ACC expansion/replacement.

I'm going on record right now in saying that the ACC only invites USF if BOTH FSU and Miami leave. And if both FSU and Miami leave, it's not the same ACC that we see right now. If only 1 leaves, then the ACC will stay away from USF, but they'll send feelers out to UCF.

I still find it telling that the Big 12 considered USF in 2016, but in the midst of a near death experience 2021, USF was nowhere to be found. Here's the list:

The Big 12 ended up with 12 finalists for expansion in 2016: Air Force, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado State, Connecticut, Houston, Rice, South Florida, Southern Methodist, Temple and Tulane.

Other applications were received. Schools that did not make the cut were Arkansas State, Boise State, East Carolina, Memphis, New Mexico, Northern Illinois, San Diego State and Nevada-Las Vegas.

This time around, the top contenders are expected to be BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, Boise State, SMU and Memphis.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/2...647450001/

We all know who the chosen 4 were, and we all have endlessly discussed the other 3 in the interim. We've also seen SMU since jump to the ACC, Memphis make lots of noise about their new stadium and other improvements, and the Big 12 flirt aggressively with UConn. What happened to USF that relegated them to the same "afterthought" status as Rice, Temple, Tulane, and CSU? And of those 4 + USF, hasn't Tulane done more to attract positive attention than USF in the past couple years? USF has faded a bit, like Boise St though for different reasons.

I get it. I understand the enthusiasm about USF, their enrollment is huge and I've given then plenty of props for making the AAU. But I also think that it's important to view these things anew regularly, and the only current reason I can see for slotting USF ahead of schools that would otherwise attract more interest from the M2 is their location, a reason that is less important today than it was a few years ago, and could very well fade even more in importance over time.

Everything is a comparison, and USF's comparison to peers and near-peers like UConn, UCF, Memphis, SDSU, Tulane, BYU, UH, SMU, Boise St, etc etc is generally weaker today than it was a decade ago, despite their recent AAU ascension.

You may have a point.

From ESPN’s perspective, moving USF or Tulane to the ACC doesn't help the bottom line, as ESPN already owns the media rights of AAC. At least SMU helped boost ACCN revenue.

There's no reason for any school's ACC exit costs to be astronomical.

When you look at the revenue gap situation... You realise the ACC has always been pretty chill about making less than top dollar.