MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

[SyracuseMiami]

??? One has nothing to do with the other. LIFEW has been in the news from a financial performance perspective since January and just finally presented it's adjusted 2022 financials.

I'm just saying it's bad publicity at an inopportune time. I'd hope it has no bearing. And I also hope Miami is aggressively pursuing membership behind the scenes.

 

[NOLACane21]

VT??? Why them and not UVA?

No way I see the Virginia legislature allowing one to go if the other is stuck in the mud.

Unless you’re thinking that UVA goes SEC? Culturally, VT is more SEC-like than UVA.

I get that football pays the bills….but wouldn’t an SEC move (likely?)adversely impact things like Lax and soccer for the UVA and UNC of the world? Those schools care quite a bit about their non revenue/“Olympic” sportball stuff too.

 

[Ispyin]

I'm just saying it's bad publicity at an inopportune time. I'd hope it has no bearing. And I also hope Miami is aggressively pursuing membership behind the scenes.

you don’t change decades long strategy over blips.

 

[RVACane]

Reading this thread is like my 11 year old trying to explain calculus.

ESPN has a contract with the ACC and owns half of the ACCN. It didn't receive an absolute assignment of the GOR, a collateral assignment of sorts, and certainly can't unilaterally move ACC teams to the broadcast agreements of other conferences. That's laughable.

The GOR isn't breakable. Dissolution is a clever argument, but I'm pretty sure you need a supermajority to dissolve as it would be treated as an amendment. But even if you dissolve, the assignment was prior so that asset isn't extinguished and the assignment isn't void. It is an asset that goes to the successors (complicated with nonstock corporations but essentially to the board or members).

So a team is going to spend $120mm in exit fees plus another $700mm in loss of revenue to make up for $20-$30mm annual delta? Ok. SEC ADs are controlled by irrational rich boosters, presidents of Universities are not.

Anyways, when August 15 comes around and FSU and Miami are still in the ACC, will the coffee boy promise to take a 6 month sabbatical?

I am looking forward to the results, hopefully in our favor, but we’ll see. I don’t know what will happen. One of you two is going to have a **** ton of justification to stuff crow down the throat of the other.

 

[RVACane]

I get that football pays the bills….but wouldn’t an SEC move (likely?)adversely impact things like Lax and soccer for the UVA and UNC of the world? Those schools care quite a bit about their non revenue/“Olympic” sportball stuff too.

What about the research dollars and cooperation? There’s a lot going on here.

 

[Ispyin]

I am looking forward to the results, hopefully in our favor, but we’ll see. I don’t know what will happen. One of you two is going to have a **** ton of justification to stuff crow down the throat of the other.

In before the murder (google it) of crows enters the chat

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Question:

How do "media rights" work with NBC/Notre Dame and say Big10/Sec school matchup?

When ND plays Michigan, how are the "rights to that game" worked out?

Does each retain authority to re-broadcast as they see fit??

Traditionally, schools retain the "which TV broadcaster do we use" based on home games. But I would point out a little-known codicil in the Faber College Constitution (I love using that Animal House quote) that might help to explain Miami's prior deal with ND.

When we had a contract for THREE games (1 in Miami, 1 in South Bendover, and 1 in Chicago), Notre Dame got the TV rights for the neutral site game. So it was EFFECTIVELY like a 2-for-1 with them, even if it was sold to our fanbase as a "neutral site game".

That's also why the "scheduling agreement" with a conference like the ACC works itself out, because if ND had to negotiate with all of us separately, we might all have our issues with dates and times and locations. Most of the ACC probably wants a ND game in September, for instance. But if ND works it out with the ACC, and the ACC says "hey guys, we're doing this for the conference", then ND gets more games, and more spread through the season, then they otherwise might have been able to accomplish by individual negotiation.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

If I'm following...

Semenholes go to SEC today and join their conference.

Miami @ FSU contest would legally be broadcast on ACC Network until FSU gets out of ACC's GoR?

Essentially? Yes.

I would just add "ESPN/ABC" to the possible list of channels, in addition to ACCN.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

haha I just got bored. wanted a new name. couldn't think of something yet. new name for the new season and hopefully new winning

 

[TheOriginalCane]

To the GOR attorneys on board ... the GOR applies to home games. If UM leaves the ACC and goes to the B10 ...

-ESPN continues to broadcast UM home games and the money goes to the ACC. HOWEVER if the ACC is dissolved
then WHO is ESPN making payment to? The individual schools? So if there is no conference then ESPN would actually
be paying the schools directly ... if they retain the broadcast rights for the HOME GAMES.

-AWAY games ... the ACC programs that join the B10 would be paid by the B10 for away games.

If that is the reality, if the conference is dissolved there would be NO economic penalties to the ACC schools leaving ... no exit fee
and they would be paid for home games directly by ESPN as the conference no longer exists.

Seems like the GOR isnt the issue ... the continued existence of the ACC is the problem. Sink the mother.

In a highly oversimplified explanation...

ESPN is paying the ACC for a bundle of games, true. Then they SEPARATELY (and unnecessarily) "required" us to sign over our rights.

So let's say UM and F$U joined the Big 10 in 2024, and then the ACC invites UConn and WVU to join (gettin' the old Big East band back together).

Assuming that ESPN continues to pay the ACC the same amount of money for games (and since the ACC TV contract is so BELOW fair market value, I fail to see how UConn and WVU would force ESPN to pay even less), then The Worldwide Leader could still pay the same to the ACC that they've always paid...

AND they would have the rights to broadcast UM and F$U home games. But the MONEY would go to whichever conference UM and F$U are in.

And before your head explodes, realize that this is the MOST LIKELY outcome when a conference goes and does stupid **** like creating two separate contracts to do what ONE contract should do in the first place.

Here are the two big issues:

1. Yeah but...ESPN doesn't currently have a contract with the Big 10. EXACTLY. Which is why they might want to do this, to get their foot back in the door with the Big 10.

2. But but but, what about the AMOUNT of money...this one is interesting. ESPN has the RIGHT to broadcast Miami and F$U home games...but for how much? The same peanuts they were offering the ACC? Probably not. A Miami-Ohio State or F$U-Pedo State matchup is going to be worth more money than Miami-BC or F$U-Syracuse.

3. And and and, what about the ACC? Again, if the ACC negotiated a TV deal ON BEHALF OF THE CONFERENCE FOR XX NUMBER OF GAMES EACH YEAR, then assuming ESPN still offers to pay the SAME (which is what they did with the Big 12 a few years ago when Nebraska/Mizzou left), then the ACC has not been harmed IN ANY WAY by the change of teams, at least for the TV deal.

On this third point, I have some experience, as the NASCAR TV deal with Fox/NBC/ESPN and/or whoever else had various rights (Speed Channel when it existed) was for RACE WEEKENDS. Therefore, if we moved race dates around between various racetracks, then the networks couldn't come back and say "hey, we want to renegotiate". Thus, if you move a race date from, say, Los Angeles to, say, Kansas, the networks can't say "but we're going to get lower ratings for a second race in Kansas that doesn't bring in the celebrities like LA does".

Events. Games. Time slots. As long as the ACC delivers those and ESPN pays for those, then there is no TV DEAL HARM that impacts the ACC if they have to take UConn/WVU to replace Miami/F$U. In other regards, sure, which is what the $120M exit fee is designed to pay for.

And then ESPN gets back into bed with the Big 10 (albeit for more money).

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Reading this thread is like my 11 year old trying to explain calculus.

ESPN has a contract with the ACC and owns half of the ACCN. It didn't receive an absolute assignment of the GOR, a collateral assignment of sorts, and certainly can't unilaterally move ACC teams to the broadcast agreements of other conferences. That's laughable.

The GOR isn't breakable. Dissolution is a clever argument, but I'm pretty sure you need a supermajority to dissolve as it would be treated as an amendment. But even if you dissolve, the assignment was prior so that asset isn't extinguished and the assignment isn't void. It is an asset that goes to the successors (complicated with nonstock corporations but essentially to the board or members).

So a team is going to spend $120mm in exit fees plus another $700mm in loss of revenue to make up for $20-$30mm annual delta? Ok. SEC ADs are controlled by irrational rich boosters, presidents of Universities are not.

Anyways, when August 15 comes around and FSU and Miami are still in the ACC, will the coffee boy promise to take a 6 month sabbatical?

1. Your 11 year old knows more about calculus AND the law than you do.

2. SOMEBODY didn't bother to listen to the Bubba Cunningham comments that he himself linked in this thread.

3. Nobody said the GOR is breakable. But it's transferrable, and the extension is unenforceable.

4. You're "pretty sure" of exactly nothing. It only takes a majority to dissolve the conference. Which you would know if you bothered to talk to your "North Carolina partner" and allowed him to explain North Carolina law to you.

5. There will never. EVER. Be a "$700M in loss of revenue". Period. End of discussion.

6. Yes, Miami and F$U will still be in the ACC as of 8/15/2023. Nobody has ever said anything differently.

 

[Caballero]

I think B1G (primarily Fox) doesn’t need or want additional teams in the West Coast. Fox can get O&W at a reduced rate in B12.

I think B1G’s focus now is adding the minimum number of teams needed to achieve an ND scheduling partnership and adding the FL market.

My guess is B1G adds Miami and FSU… and possibly UNC and UVA.

If there is another west coast addition to B1G, my guess would be Stanford. But, again, I think this is unlikely.

 

[Ispyin]

1. Your 11 year old knows more about calculus AND the law than you do.

2. SOMEBODY didn't bother to listen to the Bubba Cunningham comments that he linked in this thread.

3. Nobody said the GOR is breakable. But it's transferrable, and the extension is unenforceable.

4. You're "pretty sure" of exactly nothing. It only takes a majority to dissolve the conference. Which you would know if you bothered to talk to your "North Carolina partner" and allowed him to explain North Carolina law to you.

5. There will never. EVER. Be a "$700M in loss of revenue". Period. End of discussion.

6. Yes, Miami and F$U will still be in the ACC as of 8/15/2023. Nobody has ever said anything differently.

Announcing an intent to leave and the date of which you’re actually leaving are two completely different things - just like telling everyone the date your period starts and your period actually starting are two different things for you northernvag

 

[calinative umstudent]

I think B1G (primarily Fox) doesn’t need or want additional teams in the West Coast. Fox can get O&W at a reduced rate in B12.

I think B1G’s focus now is adding the minimum number of teams needed to achieve an ND scheduling partnership and adding the FL market.

My guess is B1G adds Miami and FSU… and possibly UNC and UVA.

If there is another west coast addition to B1G, my guess would be Stanford. But, again, I think this is unlikely.

I think it's specifically being said that Fox does want Oregon and Washington and NOT to lose them to the B12. Think they're saying Fox has reduced their Football rights in B12 and increased their Basketball rights. So Them going to B12 would essentially be losing them to ESPN in their view.

 

[Ispyin]

I think it's specifically being said that Fox does want Oregon and Washington and NOT to lose them to the B12. Think they're saying Fox has reduced their Football rights in B12 and increased their Basketball rights. So Them going to B12 would essentially be losing them to ESPN in their view.

There’s a mistake going on here and I don’t know how it does or doesn’t play out because I don’t have any info personally on the latest wrinkle but fox would not be losing Oregon and Washington to the big 12 in theory.

Fox is part of the big 12 contract

There is an argument at Fox and get Oregon and Washington cheaper in the big 12 contract then they could even at a discounted share as part of the Big Ten contract. I legit have no idea what’s going on there specifically, but the misnomer is that ***** with lose them if they don’t bring them to the Big Ten out when they already could also have them potentially if they moved to the big 12. It’s just a big 12 deal is shared with ESPN.

Important to remember this SEC exclusive to ESPN/ABC

Big ten - fox is primary As they own majority of big10 network but it is also CBS and NBC very much similar to an NFL type deal with multiple time slots available across multiple networks

Big 12 deal most closely resembles an NBA deal, but essentially it’s a shared between ESPN in Fox. It’s the one place where those two direct competitors actually come together.

 

[Caballero]

If B1G gets into FL market with Miami and FSU, then it will already have accomplished the goal of being a national conference by spanning coast to coast. I just don’t think O&W helps the B1G (Fox) with anything. O&W has no particular assistance with ND. The PNW is no where close to the value of Florida market. I just fail to see the additive value of O&W to B1G.

 

[hoops156]

Traditionally, schools retain the "which TV broadcaster do we use" based on home games. But I would point out a little-known codicil in the Faber College Constitution (I love using that Animal House quote) that might help to explain Miami's prior deal with ND.

When we had a contract for THREE games (1 in Miami, 1 in South Bendover, and 1 in Chicago), Notre Dame got the TV rights for the neutral site game. So it was EFFECTIVELY like a 2-for-1 with them, even if it was sold to our fanbase as a "neutral site game".

That's also why the "scheduling agreement" with a conference like the ACC works itself out, because if ND had to negotiate with all of us separately, we might all have our issues with dates and times and locations. Most of the ACC probably wants a ND game in September, for instance. But if ND works it out with the ACC, and the ACC says "hey guys, we're doing this for the conference", then ND gets more games, and more spread through the season, then they otherwise might have been able to accomplish by individual negotiation.

the Chicago game wasn't neutral as ND controlled it due to it being part of their own shamrock series.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I think it's specifically being said that Fox does want Oregon and Washington and NOT to lose them to the B12. Think they're saying Fox has reduced their Football rights in B12 and increased their Basketball rights. So Them going to B12 would essentially be losing them to ESPN in their view.

The problem is...this HYPOTHESIS that Fox values Washington and Oregon so much...

...flies in the face of reality, which is that the Pac 12 is trying to put Washington/Oregon (and others) on the CW on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, and the Big 10 (admin and member institutions, as well as media partners) simply do not see as much value in Washington/Oregon as a half-dozen schools in the ACC.

Those are facts, borne out by actions. Not by some overheated rumor article driven by PR flacks from Washington/Oregon.

And nobody disputes that there would be SOME value to a conference taking Washington/Oregon at half-price. But anyone with a brain would see that unequal revenue-sharing has failed to work wonders for decades. Yes, the offer seems attractive on its face, but I highly doubt that the Big 10 wants to take 20-22 teams at full price and 2-4 teams at half price.

Recipe for disaster.

 

[Ispyin]

The problem is...this HYPOTHESIS that Fox values Washington and Oregon so much...

...flies in the face of reality, which is that the Pac 12 is trying to put Washington/Oregon (and others) on the CW on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, and the Big 10 (admin and member institutions, as well as media partners) simply do not see as much value in Washington/Oregon as a half-dozen schools in the ACC.

Those are facts, borne out by actions. Not by some overheated rumor article driven by PR flacks from Washington/Oregon.

And nobody disputes that there would be SOME value to a conference taking Washington/Oregon at half-price. But anyone with a brain would see that unequal revenue-sharing has failed to work wonders for decades. Yes, the offer seems attractive on its face, but I highly doubt that the Big 10 wants to take 20-22 teams at full price and 2-4 teams at half price.

Recipe for disaster.

And again, Fox can get those two teams if they can’t move to the Big Ten potentially in their big 12 deal

 

[TheOriginalCane]

the Chicago game wasn't neutral as ND controlled it due to it being part of their own shamrock series.

Right. That's why I put "neutral site game" in quotes.

That's the point I'm making. What might "seem" like a neutral site game was not. It was, in all other respects, an unfavorable 2-for-1.

And I can't recall Miami doing an UNFAVORABLE 2-for-1 with ANYONE in decades. Maybe the 1970s?