forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

Yoyo82 said:
I agree. Florida is the biggest prize left as far as media value goes.

Adding FSU adds value.
Adding Miami adds value.

Adding both doesn't just add both but multiplies that value.

All of a sudden Florida becomes just as much, if not more, a B1G state instead of an SEC state.
Click to expand...
There are probably more Michigan alums / fans living in Naples / Tampa / Jacksonville / Daytona Beach than there are current FSU alums / fans in the State of Florida. Then add the rest of the B10 and ND, with Miami and FSU in the B10 and the State of Florida will be B10 dominant with the SEC a distant second.
 
Advertisement
You'd have to imagine the Dolphins (Ross + Garfinkel are Michigan alums) would love to have Miami join the B10 just for the fact that Michigan would play at HRS every few years
 
CreativeCane said:
@TheOriginalCane are there any merits to doing this? Could the judge overseeing the FSU lawsuit look at this as trying to hide something?
Click to expand...


I don't think there are substantial merits here.

I'll put this into simple terms.

Until now, the ACC has succeeded in "keeping the ESPN deal secret" from the public (I think the GOR was published fairly soon after it was entered into, but it doesn't have a lot of "sensitive information" in it).

Of course, the ACC (and any P4 conference) is made up of more than half "public institutions", many of them in states which have versions of the Sunshine Law and/or other forms of public disclosure laws.

So from a STATE perspective, a legislator (or citizen) would say "why am I able to get information about my institution towards which I pay tax, but then SUDDENLY a conference negotiating a contract on behalf of my institution says 'nope, you can't see this contract'", and I very much understand and sympathize with that argument. Essentially, one could argue that a school could "use" a conference to shield information from the general public, simply by shifting some of its contracts to the "conference level" and then agreeing to secrecy and non-disclosure clauses.

This is particularly true when the ESPN TV contract is not nearly as sensitive as, say, the research of a professor who is working on a cure for cancer. Or the guidance system for a Star-Wars type laser weapon (kudos to the great 1985 film "Real Genius"). Instead, the only "sensitive" information in the document is how much ESPN is willing to pay the ACC (and the member schools).

And I can't imagine a judge would NOT think that this information is EXACTLY the kind of information that states intended to be discoverable when they passed public-disclosure laws.

In conclusion, I will reiterate what I have said all along (and my apologies in advance to any of the idiots who actually believed one single word that @NorthernVirginiaCane typed), but you can put ANYTHING YOU WANT into a contract. And anyone can sign it. And anyone can follow it, for a while. But NONE OF THAT means that you can never challenge those provisions in court as unenforceable. And I tend to think that the "secrecy" clauses the ACC drafted will not survive a legal challenge.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I don't think there are substantial merits here.

I'll put this into simple terms.

Until now, the ACC has succeeded in "keeping the ESPN deal secret" from the public (I think the GOR was published fairly soon after it was entered into, but it doesn't have a lot of "sensitive information" in it).

Of course, the ACC (and any P4 conference) is made up of more than half "public institutions", many of them in states which have versions of the Sunshine Law and/or other forms of public disclosure laws.

So from a STATE perspective, a legislator (or citizen) would say "why am I able to get information about my institution towards which I pay tax, but then SUDDENLY a conference negotiating a contract on behalf of my institution says 'nope, you can't see this contract'", and I very much understand and sympathize with that argument. Essentially, one could argue that a school could "use" a conference to shield information from the general public, simply by shifting some of its contracts to the "conference level" and then agreeing to secrecy and non-disclosure clauses.

This is particularly true when the ESPN TV contract is not nearly as sensitive as, say, the research of a professor who is working on a cure for cancer. Or the guidance system for a Star-Wars type laser weapon (kudos to the great 1985 film "Real Genius"). Instead, the only "sensitive" information in the document is how much ESPN is willing to pay the ACC (and the member schools).

And I can't imagine a judge would NOT think that this information is EXACTLY the kind of information that states intended to be discoverable when they passed public-disclosure laws.

In conclusion, I will reiterate what I have said all along (and my apologies in advance to any of the idiots who actually believed one single word that @NorthernVirginiaCane typed), but you can put ANYTHING YOU WANT into a contract. And anyone can sign it. And anyone can follow it, for a while. But NONE OF THAT means that you can never challenge those provisions in court as unenforceable. And I tend to think that the "secrecy" clauses the ACC drafted will not survive a legal challenge.
Click to expand...
There was a comment on Warchant that FSU found some "dirt" during their document review process at ACC headquarters when looking at documents that had not been seen by conference members ... apparently dealing with the media agreements and media payout distribution. There was a hint at some possible funds diversion ... similar to a kickback of some type that ended up giving North Carolina schools some level of incremental revenue. With the Tobacco Road crony group, you never know. Opinions are that the exit fee is punitive and the GOR is unenforceable, and the members have been significantly short changed in media payout for every year they have been ACC members (due to skimming / Raycom / inept management) therefore we should all simply be able to leave with no ADDITIONAL financial penalties. We have suffered enough. Adios.
 
Advertisement
So, @RightSaidFred , if you look at what the court did (and keep in mind that it's a "friendly" court in North Carolina), the judge said "hey, it would seem that the truly relevant party who might want this filed under seal is ESPN, and nobody bothered to include ESPN in this little 'seal' party."

The judge also talked about burden of proof, etc. If I understand the meaning (and it's possible I don't), it seems like the Court is not going to rule until ESPN makes ITS OWN case as to why this document should be sealed and/or redacted.

If any court is going to grant the ACC's motion, it will be a North Carolina court. Still, I'm not sure what is so important and "sensitive" in a **** TV contract that would need to be protected under seal. Unless the ESPN TV contract includes all the identies of US spies operating in foreign countries. Then I could see a reason...

There's no business process secrets, customer lists, patents, or anything else referenced that would suffer some sort of irreparable damage upon disclosure.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
So, @RightSaidFred , if you look at what the court did (and keep in mind that it's a "friendly" court in North Carolina), the judge said "hey, it would seem that the truly relevant party who might want this filed under seal is ESPN, and nobody bothered to include ESPN in this little 'seal' party."

The judge also talked about burden of proof, etc. If I understand the meaning (and it's possible I don't), it seems like the Court is not going to rule until ESPN makes ITS OWN case as to why this document should be sealed and/or redacted.

If any court is going to grant the ACC's motion, it will be a North Carolina court. Still, I'm not sure what is so important and "sensitive" in a **** TV contract that would need to be protected under seal. Unless the ESPN TV contract includes all the identies of US spies operating in foreign countries. Then I could see a reason...

There's no business process secrets, customer lists, patents, or anything else referenced that would suffer some sort of irreparable damage upon disclosure.
Click to expand...
Makes one wonder why ESPN wants the document/s sealed.

IMG_0384.jpeg
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
So, @RightSaidFred , if you look at what the court did (and keep in mind that it's a "friendly" court in North Carolina), the judge said "hey, it would seem that the truly relevant party who might want this filed under seal is ESPN, and nobody bothered to include ESPN in this little 'seal' party."

The judge also talked about burden of proof, etc. If I understand the meaning (and it's possible I don't), it seems like the Court is not going to rule until ESPN makes ITS OWN case as to why this document should be sealed and/or redacted.

If any court is going to grant the ACC's motion, it will be a North Carolina court. Still, I'm not sure what is so important and "sensitive" in a **** TV contract that would need to be protected under seal. Unless the ESPN TV contract includes all the identies of US spies operating in foreign countries. Then I could see a reason...

There's no business process secrets, customer lists, patents, or anything else referenced that would suffer some sort of irreparable damage upon disclosure.
Click to expand...

Adding to that, it seems ESPN has a business decision to make completely separate from legal merit. Up until now, ESPN could stay quiet and stay out of the way, which is what they want. But the judge basically told them, as you said above, if you want this stuff sealed, you need to make your intentions known.

And now if you're ESPN, what do you do? Do you jump in to bed with the ACC and fight for the Grant of Rights, or do you wash your hands of the ACC and jump in to bed with your customers, the fans of FSU, Miami, Notre Dame, UNC, etc?

They have to weigh from a PR and business standpoint whether this is a fight even worth fighting, nevermind the fact that it's a fight that they may or may not even win, even if they choose to jump in.

Frankly, I'm not so sure that ESPN is going to file anything in support of the ACC's position. Yes their ACC contract is valuable, but if I'm them, my calculus is that you're losing FSU anyway, no matter what. You're probably losing additional members of the ACC. So what's more important when the dust settles... being on good terms with those fanbases, or being on good terms with the remaining ACC G5 members like Wake and BC?

I don't know. But it's a fascinating **** or get off the pot moment for ESPN.
 
Advertisement
OrangeBowlMagic said:


Power 2. Crazy to think there are some people who are still not understanding this or are ok with staying in the ACC. Just trying to educate. This conference, along with all the other ones not named SEC or B1G are ******* DEAD.
Click to expand...


I don't think there's many if any on this board are advocating we stay in the ACC. Anyone with any intelligence see's where this sport is going to more of an NFL model with 2 leagues (AFC/NFC) compared to (B1G/SEC).
 
Advertisement
Rickd said:
There are probably more Michigan alums / fans living in Naples / Tampa / Jacksonville / Daytona Beach than there are current FSU alums / fans in the State of Florida. Then add the rest of the B10 and ND, with Miami and FSU in the B10 and the State of Florida will be B10 dominant with the SEC a distant second.
Click to expand...
I think you may be overzealous in your estimates on the number of Michigan alumni vs. FSU alumni in the state of Florida, and definitely overzealous on the number of fans of both schools in the state. I do see your point about the Big 10 power with 2 Florida schools and the SEC only having one.
 
A thing for all the people who, like to doubt when people provide information that eventually changes or gets delayed – what’s going on with the NCAA right now including losing case, after case, and new people, bringing cases against them, or bidding out the next round of the playoffs, not coming in at the $2 billion amount that everyone expected, or schools rebelling against the NCAA trying to enforce NIL rules that are vague at best- are perfect examples of why things move around and change and don’t make the information provided at the time bull****.

Half the stuff that has gone on, has completely changed time frames, and circumstances that people did not foresee happening, including those the most, and the no let alone others who get tidbits about it
 
CaneinBroward said:
I think you may be overzealous in your estimates on the number of Michigan alumni vs. FSU alumni in the state of Florida, and definitely overzealous on the number of fans of both schools in the state. I do see your point about the Big 10 power with 2 Florida schools and the SEC only having one.
Click to expand...


No, you are wrong. You only see Dade-Broward-Palm Beach.

I've lived in Orlando-Daytona, I've lived in Naples-Ft. Myers, I have family in Tampa and Jax. Big 10 is VERY strong in those regions.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
No, you are wrong. You only see Dade-Broward-Palm Beach.

I've lived in Orlando-Daytona, I've lived in Naples-Ft. Myers, I have family in Tampa and Jax. Big 10 is VERY strong in those regions.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying they aren't strong. Strong enough to say there are more Michigan fans in the entire state of Florida vs. the number of Florida State fans in the entire state of Florida. Sorry, I just don't see how that's possible.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top