forums

FSU testing the waters?

Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
The ACC’s grant of rights contract states member schools “irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference during the term all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement..”

This is the school’s ADs & BOTs reviewed & signed off on.

Simply put, any TV revenue a school is due from the ACC’s contract with ESPN is conference property through June 30, 2036 regardless of whether the school remains an ACC member or leaves for another conference.

So pls tell me what the loophole in this that can be fought in court since it was the participating schools who willingly agreed to this.
Click to expand...
Legal doctrine question on whether or not the contract is unconscionable is one angle. Willingly agreeing to it isn’t enough if the contract is that unfair or biased.
 
Empirical Cane said:
All the parties [in ACC] couldn't concieve of the existential threat posed by SEC/Big 10 revenue outpacing theirs to the degree it has.

They crafted it and signed it because Maryland showed them no one feared departing.
Click to expand...
Not intentionally bumping my own porst here, but I gave above a touch more thought.

Hindsight always scores much better on the eye chart than what you see in the moment; I'd offer if programs knew then what they know now, the Big 12, Pac-12, and ACC would look very different and far more G5 than even what they appear today.

USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Ok St, FSU, Clemson, UNC, probably Miami, probably UCLA, etc. would have found new homes.

In restrospect, history is filled with countless examples of very subtle "if this had happened, today would be waaay different..."
 
Rellyrell said:
The ACC’s grant of rights contract states member schools “irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference during the term all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement..”

This is the school’s ADs & BOTs reviewed & signed off on.

Simply put, any TV revenue a school is due from the ACC’s contract with ESPN is conference property through June 30, 2036 regardless of whether the school remains an ACC member or leaves for another conference.

So pls tell me what the loophole in this that can be fought in court since it was the participating schools who willingly agreed to this.
Click to expand...
ACC schools willingly did this as a dead-hand measure, a poison pill.

Contractual mutually assured destruction.

The haste they did it in also indicates some other schools might have been courted, but timing was off and momemtum faltered.

ACC didn't do this from a position of strength, they were desperately circling the wagons.
 
Rellyrell said:
The ACC’s grant of rights contract states member schools “irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference during the term all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement..”

This is the school’s ADs & BOTs reviewed & signed off on.

Simply put, any TV revenue a school is due from the ACC’s contract with ESPN is conference property through June 30, 2036 regardless of whether the school remains an ACC member or leaves for another conference.

So pls tell me what the loophole in this that can be fought in court since it was the participating schools who willingly agreed to this.
Click to expand...
I have the strategy!!!!!

ACC school leaves and becomes...

Screenshot_20230302_080736_DuckDuckGo.png



#BowDownToHisMostExaltedPurpleOne
 
The other side of this is desirability to the SEC or B1G. Last season was disastrous, could not have gone worse.

My guess is Clemson, FSU and UNC are likely all higher on conference "wish lists" than we are. Not just because of last season but -- 20 years of mediocrity. Another couple years in the same vein might find us unwanted, big media market or not.
 
Several other administrators who spoke to ESPN quibbled with Alford's exact numbers, but mostly agreed with his larger point: The teams serious about football deserve more because they're bringing in more.

"I think the schools who are helping create the revenue should have an opportunity to participate in the revenue more than they are right now, rather than just slicing the pie the way it is in equal shares." Miami athletic director Dan Radakovich said. "Rewarding success is a great motivator."

(..)

"At the end of the day, we need to try. And if, if we can't get things done, then, at least we can look around and say, 'All right, we attempted to get something done, we weren't able to do it,'" Radakovich said. "And then, if down the road, schools do choose to leave, it should not be a surprise."


 
Think of this scenario that is VERY* realistic depending on how cruel and swag'n big **** Greg "Emperor Palpatine" Sankey wanta to be:

SEC takes either FIU or FAU.

Before you go into full CIS meltdown, SEC doesn't need a particular team in location X, they just need a team.

Yes, FIU/FAU would be doormats for a time. The massive infusion of cash, cred, etc would draw top up amd coming staff and recruiters. The fan bases (alumni) are significantly larger than our Canes.b They win more, they get more, etx. etc.

SEC has SoFL market without Miami...and even better...at Miami's expense.

It would be an absolute Achilles "is there no one else" move.

*your mileage may vary
 
Advertisement
Tad Footeball said:
Here's Skipper and Samson discussing FSU and the ACC deal at large. I don't find either likable (or Skipper to actually be in-tune with today's CFB landscape) but it's essentially the ESPN perspective and the perspective of someone like Samson that finds contracts as just sources of future negotiations.

Starts at around the 35:30 mark:

Click to expand...



Quite possibly two of the most loathesome possible people to speak about the sports business. Two absolute ****piles.
 
if you can get the SEC or Big 10 money, paying the $120M and leaving seems like an easy decision. Your investment at 10 years will be killing it. It’s a little more complicated, but the ACC is being put on notice by FSU and Miami who will try and move together. Likely to the Big 10.
 
3FW said:
if you can get the SEC or Big 10 money, paying the $120M and leaving seems like an easy decision. Your investment at 10 years will be killing it. It’s a little more complicated, but the ACC is being put on notice by FSU and Miami who will try and move together. Likely to the Big 10.
Click to expand...


120M is just the tip of the iceberg, unless we also get out of the GOR.
 
Empirical Cane said:
Think of this scenario that is VERY* realistic depending on how cruel and swag'n big **** Greg "Emperor Palpatine" Sankey wanta to be:

SEC takes either FIU or FAU.

Before you go into full CIS meltdown, SEC doesn't need a particular team in location X, they just need a team.

Yes, FIU/FAU would be doormats for a time. The massive infusion of cash, cred, etc would draw top up amd coming staff and recruiters. The fan bases (alumni) are significantly larger than our Canes.b They win more, they get more, etx. etc.

SEC has SoFL market without Miami...and even better...at Miami's expense.

It would be an absolute Achilles "is there no one else" move.

*your mileage may vary
Click to expand...

I think someone forgot to take their nap today.
 
AllAboutTheU said:
Legal doctrine question on whether or not the contract is unconscionable is one angle. Willingly agreeing to it isn’t enough if the contract is that unfair or biased.
Click to expand...
I am not a lawyer so I will defer to someone who knows better than me, but it seems like proving this is unfair or biased would be hard given so many parties (who should be competent) agreed to it. I would think the only way this would work is if one or more parties willingly deceived the other(s).
 
Alex Del Piero said:
Several other administrators who spoke to ESPN quibbled with Alford's exact numbers, but mostly agreed with his larger point: The teams serious about football deserve more because they're bringing in more.

"I think the schools who are helping create the revenue should have an opportunity to participate in the revenue more than they are right now, rather than just slicing the pie the way it is in equal shares." Miami athletic director Dan Radakovich said. "Rewarding success is a great motivator."

(..)

"At the end of the day, we need to try. And if, if we can't get things done, then, at least we can look around and say, 'All right, we attempted to get something done, we weren't able to do it,'" Radakovich said. "And then, if down the road, schools do choose to leave, it should not be a surprise."


Click to expand...

I mentioned this in another thread, but I don't see the upside in this for the schools that would have to give up money. Besides having to agree who gets more/less and how much more/less, whatever the schools that give up money give up is not going to be enough to satisfy the teams that are demanding more.

Even with an extra share of the revenue, the teams asking for more money would still likely be way behind the schools in the SEC/BIG10 and would continue to try to find ways to leave the conference.
 
Advertisement
Alex Del Piero said:
Several other administrators who spoke to ESPN quibbled with Alford's exact numbers, but mostly agreed with his larger point: The teams serious about football deserve more because they're bringing in more.

"I think the schools who are helping create the revenue should have an opportunity to participate in the revenue more than they are right now, rather than just slicing the pie the way it is in equal shares." Miami athletic director Dan Radakovich said. "Rewarding success is a great motivator."

(..)

"At the end of the day, we need to try. And if, if we can't get things done, then, at least we can look around and say, 'All right, we attempted to get something done, we weren't able to do it,'" Radakovich said. "And then, if down the road, schools do choose to leave, it should not be a surprise."


Click to expand...

I’m old enough to remember predicting that Miami would be following comments from FSU in Clemson when everybody else was freaking out about where was Dan?
 
3FW said:
if you can get the SEC or Big 10 money, paying the $120M and leaving seems like an easy decision. Your investment at 10 years will be killing it. It’s a little more complicated, but the ACC is being put on notice by FSU and Miami who will try and move together. Likely to the Big 10.
Click to expand...
That’s just the exit for you. It’s not the dollar amount to get out of the grant of rights. You still wouldn’t get any of that money until the gor expired basically
 
Since they are doing away with divisions in the ACC one method of "splitting up the revenue" ... just like a golf tournament ... top finishers get more money. A variety of formulas could be developed.
 
Back
Top