MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

[caneingville]

Also, Miami definitely did NOT vote in favor of suing FSU. I’m also a (former) attorney, and I read through FSU’s Response to the ACC’s Motion to Stay. It’s covered in Exhibit C - the UVA President’s Affidavit. The UVA President states that representatives from Duke, Syracuse, Wake, VT, and BC were the other schools that consulted with the ACC Management while the lawsuit was being prepared at his request, and that these representatives “agreed with this interpretation of the Conference Bylaws and the decision to proceed forward without a full meeting of the Board of Directors.”

He never mentions Miami or Rad at all. We were definitely only at the first meeting.

 

[Cane6]

It’s not a spot for us (publicly) because we’re in a contract. I’m sure FOX/BIG not going to openly invite a school that’s currently in a contract.

Bingo. Once path into the new conference (bigten) is clear, it opens the door for public announcement.

The other thing Miami is being very mindful of, is with the fsu/clemson suits and countersuits, they don’t wanna make their exit from acc unnecessarily messy

As much as some people wanna bash Rad, they are handling it the most strategically advantageous way possible

 

[Badbart43]

I think they're an 8-4/9-3 team. They're gonna take a big step back on offense. Travis did a lot to conceal the issues they had there, and they lost like 90% of their offensive production from last year. Their HS recruiting is also nowhere near the level necessary to maintain elite production. The portal works until you get a bust portal class.

As for the realignment info, I'd be surprised if they announced they were leaving the conference without a landing spot. If they did leave and played as an independent, it would indicate that neither the BIG or SEC extended offers to them. Also, one reason why I don't think the ACC settles is because the minute they do, you're gonna have us and every other team in the conference filing a lawsuit to get to the same result.

I think we are waiting until FSPoo, Clemmie, and possibly UNC leave and each pay their 120 million...then we take our share of that buyout to help finance our exit.

 

[Rickd]

I think we are waiting until FSPoo, Clemmie, and possibly UNC leave and each pay their 120 million...then we take our share of that buyout to help finance our exit.

At the end of the day it is chump change and they are most likely NOT paying the $120M at face value. There is more "****" to hit the fan in potential charges against the ACC regarding mismanagement. The best thing UM could do is get together with enough teams to have the 8 required to DISSOLVE the ACC before Cal/San/SMU join on July 1, 2024. Then there is NO exit fee or media buyback. Question is does UM have a seat at the big boys table, even with a partial share?

 

[Fluffhead]

I’ve also pointed out to him multiple times that his TV network data is irrelevant since the Nielsen numbers in his charts don’t include any ACC Network data. He includes that point in a footnote, but it makes the data meaningless for the conference.

And wasn’t the ACC Network unavailable in South Florida markets for the first few years? I seem to recall there being complaints and issues of people not having access to the channel on their cable networks, but I wasn’t local at the time. That would also skew the data.

The ACC Network was not available on Comcast for the first number of years. Not just SFL.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I think we are waiting until FSPoo, Clemmie, and possibly UNC leave and each pay their 120 million...then we take our share of that buyout to help finance our exit.

Not only is this not happening, it's also not good business practice.

We need OUT more than we need $30M. Think about this from a practical standpoint. For rounding, let's say there are 12 teams that split each $120M exit fee. That gives us $30M.

In the grand scheme of things, that is chump change. We would risk losing out on a Big 10 invitation, which is BY FAR the much larger prize.

Nope. Not happenin', cap'n.

 

[caneingville]

We may not be waiting for the other schools to pay up, BUT we may very well be waiting for the FSU case to progress a bit further to see how it will impact us legally. What’s the point in spending money right now when the Noles are fighting the battle for us? Our arguments aren’t any different, we’re both in Florida, so the cases would have to be joined.

The way I see it, we’re currently not spending any money, yet continuing to gather information from all sides. It’s actually a powerful position.

 

[SCarolina Ibis]

I’ve also pointed out to him multiple times that his TV network data is irrelevant since the Nielsen numbers in his charts don’t include any ACC Network data. He includes that point in a footnote, but it makes the data meaningless for the conference.

And wasn’t the ACC Network unavailable in South Florida markets for the first few years? I seem to recall there being complaints and issues of people not having access to the channel on their cable networks, but I wasn’t local at the time. That would also skew the data.

According to that chart, we're behind heavy hitters like Indiana in TV attendance, which should've been a red flag. By excluding the ACC Network, it leaves us with numbers from Bally Sports, which is a regional broadcast.

If the ACC Network wasn't available in SF markets, it just makes all these viewership charts even more useless.

 

[Ispyin]

Just dropping in to say that none of the networks give a flying **** about that guys charts - they have the numbers - they don’t need him. Stop worrying about young old Tony

 

[caneingville]

Yeah, I’m definitely not worried about the actual networks. If the conferences and networks are getting their pseudodata from some unemployed consultant, then CFB as a whole is more screwed than we think.

I don’t think anyone really knows anything, and that includes the idiots on Warchant. Methinks this is their version of Gruden to Miami.

 

[Ispyin]

Putting aside whether or not Miami should launch a lawsuit now, which I think many of us might like but there are at least reasons you can argue intelligently for doing that or not, there is no magic bullet for this other than negotiated settlement between a team in the conference or the grant of rights losing in court.

I know everybody wants speed to resolution, but even all these things leaking out about ESPN not exercising their option to extend a contract or acc hiding things, still require the court to find that a contract is invalid or the parties to negotiate. It’s not gonna be like uploading a TikTok video of you doing a ladies dance craze .

The ACC, including the bottom half, are fighting for their lives in their own way, and as stupid as the administrators of that league has been to get us in this place, they’re not that dumb to just be like “hey yeah cool go independent we will still play you fsu for schedule this year and here are your TV rights go have at it”

Last thing if you think that ESPN has already told the conference that they are not re-upping on their option, and it hasn’t leaked in something other than one message board or one dude on, YouTube, please consider going into rehab for drug treatment

 

[TheOriginalCane]

We may not be waiting for the other schools to pay up, BUT we may very well be waiting for the FSU case to progress a bit further to see how it will impact us legally. What’s the point in spending money right now when the Noles are fighting the battle for us? Our arguments aren’t any different, we’re both in Florida, so the cases would have to be joined.

The way I see it, we’re currently not spending any money, yet continuing to gather information from all sides. It’s actually a powerful position.

As I've said before, this is the single dumbest legal strategy on the planet, and that's not a comment specific to any one person, that is directed against the general strategy, no matter who espouses it.

"How it will impact us legally"? It will NOT impact us legally. F$U is suing to get out. Clemson is suing to get out. Those cases WILL NOT WILL NOT WILL NOT create legal precedent. They are highly unlikely to ever get to trial, they will be settled INDIVIDUALLY long before then.

What's the point in spending money right now? Honest to God, how much money do you think "has been spent" thus far? A couple of law firms have drafted a couple of complaints and responses. There has been NO DISCOVERY yet. Almost no time spent in court. No motions. No witnesses. No testimony.

The myth of "massive legal bills" is just ridiculous AT THIS POINT IN TIME. "Gathering information from all sides". What a joke. This is NOT a "powerful position", it is a face-down-***-up position. Again, nothing personal, just a statement of fact.

I don't know how to say this any other way. THE NOLES ARE NOT FIGHTING THE BATTLE FOR US. They are fighting it for themselves. And winning. While we sit off to one side eating popcorn and DOING NOTHING.

Whoever espouses this ridiculous "sit on our hands" legal argument certainly does not understand the situation. F$U and Clemson escaping DOES NOT SET MIAMI FREE.

 

[caneingville]

I am NOT saying that we are waiting for the case to come to completion. But if UM is my client, I am not advising them to jump in right now, while jurisdiction is still up in the air until everyone is just filing the initial motions to dismiss. I am advising them to at least wait a few months and everyone knows where the negotiations will be held. But the majority of my career was in-house, so my perspective may be a bit different.

Edit: and obviously there is no jurisdiction for negotiating, but I am referring to any arbitration clauses, seeing what other surprises get thrown out, etc. This thing is getting nasty.

 

[Felonious Monk]

If UM was my client, I'd bill them for the time I spend reading this thread.

 

[caneingville]

Also, my perspective is less about money and more about strategy.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I am NOT saying that we are waiting for the case to come to completion. But if UM is my client, I am not advising them to jump in right now, while jurisdiction is still up in the air until everyone is just filing the initial motions to dismiss. I am advising them to at least wait a few months and everyone knows where the negotiations will be held. But the majority of my career was in-house, so my perspective may be a bit different.

Edit: and obviously there is no jurisdiction for negotiating, but I am referring to any arbitration clauses, seeing what other surprises get thrown out, etc. This thing is getting nasty.

If UM was your client, I would advise them to seek new representation.

Jurisdiction is still up in the air? WHO CARES? Like I said, this will never go to verdict.

Motions to dismiss? WHO CARES? Honestly, can you show me the million-dollar legal bill for a couple of complaints and a couple of motions to dismiss? The irrational fear of legal costs is comical.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, if you've been in-house, I can respect that. I work in-house (Tax, S-Ox, etc.), and we tend to be conservative in those roles. I get it. Nobody LIKES to pay legal bills.

But the alternative is BRUTAL. As in...existential...

Penny-wise, pound-foolish. We have to get in the game. NOW. The ante is not cheap. We're going to have to push all of our chips into the middle of the table. No more lollygagging. No more pussyfooting.

We have to be third to file. We need to make our intentions known, we need to get in line for our golden ticket before some punk-*** mid-tier ACC school decides to start cutting in line by offering to take a half (or worse) share, the way that Oregon and Washington ****ed us last year.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

If UM was my client, I'd bill them for the time I spend reading this thread.

You'd make the same amount of money as you would winning PowerBall, but with better odds...

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Also, my perspective is less about money and more about strategy.

OK, I'll play along.

WHAT IS THE STRATEGY?

Keep in mind, nothing that F$U or Clemson has done YET has (a) freed them from the ACC, (b) gotten them a public bid from the Big 10 or SEC, and/or (c) set the dollar amount of their exit fee(s).

Therefore, Miami has NOT benefited one iota from watching those two schools from the sidelines.

We would be better served by having three, four, seven, or eight schools all suing the ACC at one time from different jurisdictions. The ACC's collective head would explode. The member institutions would have to think twice about wasting a bunch of money to defend EIGHT lawsuits, and ESPN would know **** well that it doesn't need to exercise its option to extend the ACC.

And then the inevitable would happen. The entire conference would implode, and we would ALL be free with NO penalties at all.

Which will NOT happen if two teams leave. But WILL happen if more teams leave, especially the most attractive teams.

 

[RightSaidFred]

If ESPN doesn't renew its media rights agreement with the ACC, then there's a strong argument that the GOR extension would no longer be enforcable.

"WHEREAS the Conference is a party to a Multi-Media Agreement with ESPN... and WHEREAS the Conference has negotiated an Amended and Restated Multi-Media Agreement with ESPN.... and WHEREAS ESPN has informed the Conference that it will enter in to the Prospective Agreements only if each of the Member Institutions agrees to amend the Grant of Rights Agreement to extend the terms thereof...

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth in this Amendement and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the parties agree as follows.... the Original Grant Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence of the existing Section 5 in its entirety and substituting the following therefor: 'The Term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall continue until June 30, 2036'"


No Multi-Media agreement with ESPN => no more consideration => no more GOR as of 2027.

Now the exit penalty is still a thing. But those have historically been negotiated down and shouldn't hinder anyone from actually leaving.

 

[Fluffhead]

If UM was your client, I would advise them to seek new representation.

Jurisdiction is still up in the air? WHO CARES? Like I said, this will never go to verdict.

Motions to dismiss? WHO CARES? Honestly, can you show me the million-dollar legal bill for a couple of complaints and a couple of motions to dismiss? The irrational fear of legal costs is comical.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, if you've been in-house, I can respect that. I work in-house (Tax, S-Ox, etc.), and we tend to be conservative in those roles. I get it. Nobody LIKES to pay legal bills.

But the alternative is BRUTAL. As in...existential...

Penny-wise, pound-foolish. We have to get in the game. NOW. The ante is not cheap. We're going to have to push all of our chips into the middle of the table. No more lollygagging. No more pussyfooting.

We have to be third to file. We need to make our intentions known, we need to get in line for our golden ticket before some punk-*** mid-tier ACC school decides to start cutting in line by offering to take a half (or worse) share, the way that Oregon and Washington ****ed us last year.

Counterpoint - Does having a wink-wink nudge-nudge landing spot impact that strategy? Let's say the B10 really is only taking two and it winds up being FSU/ND and the SEC isn't interested. Of course if we have a guaranteed landing spot then this should be a no-brainer and is fireable if it isn't. I, personally would still file, as I would rather be in the B12 long term than the ACC if the P2 are off the table.