Conference Realignment

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,187
Maybe the FSU lawyers are 100% correct about this, but no one else is publicly agreeing with them. Or I missed the headlines. It seems like a very easy fact to verify. There are some really smart people in the ACC and I cannot, even in my most negative view of the ACC front office, see them signing an agreement with ESPN that gives 100% control over the economic value of the agreement to ESPN.
A very fair point… and another thing; I’d be pretty surprised if something like this wasn’t VERY thoroughly vetted with ESPN in the context of adding programs. ACC would not do ANYTHING to jeopardize an option, so with only 24 months until such a major decision, why does it come out now and not during the talks on SMU, Cal and Stanford?
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,294
If there’s a look-in clause leading to a potential opt-out post 2027, which I could see being the case, then I can also see a theory built on the only real guarantee to the ACC being through 2027. That might mean only 5 years of GOR at about $45M per year, or about $225M. FSU might try to swallow that and offset it through contributions. Still, the question remains: Who would want them then?
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,589
Location
Oriental, NC
If there’s a look-in clause leading to a potential opt-out post 2027, which I could see being the case, then I can also see a theory built on the only real guarantee to the ACC being through 2027. That might mean only 5 years of GOR at about $45M per year, or about $225M. FSU might try to swallow that and offset it through contributions. Still, the question remains: Who would want them then?
I participated in contracts for BellSouth throughout my career. Not once did I see, or hear about, a look-in that did not require mutual agreement for changes. 5-year and 10-year look-ins are not ware because economic and "real world" changes happen. An example might be FSU deciding that intercollegiate sports did not represent the values FSU sees as critical. So they disband their teams. At the next look-in the ACC might ask ESPN to increase the value now that the POIA school in Tallahassee was no longer a member.
 

Techwood Relict

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,135
I participated in contracts for BellSouth throughout my career. Not once did I see, or hear about, a look-in that did not require mutual agreement for changes. 5-year and 10-year look-ins are not ware because economic and "real world" changes happen. An example might be FSU deciding that intercollegiate sports did not represent the values FSU sees as critical. So they disband their teams. At the next look-in the ACC might ask ESPN to increase the value now that the POIA school in Tallahassee was no longer a member.
I believe it's been stated previously that the docs are, and remain on file, at the league office. Bc a party, say FuSU, declines to read them thoroughly, does not provide a defense.

I think the general feeling that is correct in the thread is this is noise making but with a goal of being a squeaky wheel rather than winning the actual suit.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,252
Location
North Shore, Chicago
A problem with this thinking is that the ACC is currently the most cost efficient college football programming for ESPN. (At least according to a couple of reports I have seen) Meaning that revenue per payout is higher for the ACC than for other conferences that ESPN carries. If ESPN gets four or six members into the SEC/Big10, it pays more for whichever schools go to the SEC. It loses whichever schools go to the Big10. It likely loses most of the rest of the schools. The net result would be losing content, paying more per school for content that ESPN already has at a cheaper price, and losing some content to competing networks. Even if I believe there is a conspiracy going on, it doesn't make financial sense for ESPN to do so.
The question becomes short-term versus long-term planning. I threw out a scenario where The SEC could preemptively lock B1G out of the Southeast in one of the other threads. It all depends on where The SEC/ESPN machine sees the future.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,633
The question becomes short-term versus long-term planning. I threw out a scenario where The SEC could preemptively lock B1G out of the Southeast in one of the other threads. It all depends on where The SEC/ESPN machine sees the future.
As much as people like to see ESPN and the SEC as the same thing, they have different interests. Is the SEC going to invite UVA, UNC, Miami, Duke, and GT, then possibly FSU, Clemson, NC State, and Wake Forrest at a full rate? Is ESPN going to pay a full rate for nine additional teams? ESPN has already told the SEC that they will not pay additional for nine conference games. If the ACC implodes, then UNC and UVA would get offers for full rates to both SEC and Big10. If both of those schools go to the SEC, then Miami, GT, and possibly Duke would get full rate offers from the Big10. Are those schools going to turn down a full offer from the Big10 for a reduced offer from the SEC? The other schools might get Big10 offers and might get SEC offers, but would likely have to negotiate more.

The SEC might want to keep the Big10 out of the Southeast, but they won't have the means to do so. I don't think it is part of the consideration for ESPN.
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,187
I participated in contracts for BellSouth throughout my career. Not once did I see, or hear about, a look-in that did not require mutual agreement for changes. 5-year and 10-year look-ins are not ware because economic and "real world" changes happen. An example might be FSU deciding that intercollegiate sports did not represent the values FSU sees as critical. So they disband their teams. At the next look-in the ACC might ask ESPN to increase the value now that the POIA school in Tallahassee was no longer a member.
The term “option” leads me to believe this is structured like a lease agreement. It has a fixed term for agreed rates and at the expiration of the primary term, the “lessee” (ESPN in this case) has the option to renew to lease for an additional term. If the ACC was knocking it out of the park, the option would be very valuable to ESPN. If ESPN isn’t profiting the option has little value and they don’t exercise it.
I have a hard time believing it’s structured this way and we haven’t heard about it before now though…
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,252
Location
North Shore, Chicago
If there’s a look-in clause leading to a potential opt-out post 2027, which I could see being the case, then I can also see a theory built on the only real guarantee to the ACC being through 2027. That might mean only 5 years of GOR at about $45M per year, or about $225M. FSU might try to swallow that and offset it through contributions. Still, the question remains: Who would want them then?
I think that The ACC could claim that the value of the GOR per year is actually higher than that because, without FSU in the league, there is a diminished value, which could lead to other issues. I could see The ACC claiming that value is much greater because of the indirect and consequential damages to the conference.
 

GoJacketsInRaleigh

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
977
I hope UGA beats the ever loving crap out of them in the Orange Bowl. Not by a field goal but by 50-60 points and embarrasses the hell out of them. It won't help UGA at all and FSU needs some serious humble pie.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,252
Location
North Shore, Chicago
As much as people like to see ESPN and the SEC as the same thing, they have different interests. Is the SEC going to invite UVA, UNC, Miami, Duke, and GT, then possibly FSU, Clemson, NC State, and Wake Forrest at a full rate? Is ESPN going to pay a full rate for nine additional teams? ESPN has already told the SEC that they will not pay additional for nine conference games. If the ACC implodes, then UNC and UVA would get offers for full rates to both SEC and Big10. If both of those schools go to the SEC, then Miami, GT, and possibly Duke would get full rate offers from the Big10. Are those schools going to turn down a full offer from the Big10 for a reduced offer from the SEC? The other schools might get Big10 offers and might get SEC offers, but would likely have to negotiate more.

The SEC might want to keep the Big10 out of the Southeast, but they won't have the means to do so. I don't think it is part of the consideration for ESPN.
I agree they're separate, but in what I was saying, they could be acting in concert. No, I don't think Duke, WF, or a lot of other schools would be attractive in our current CFB format. However, once it all blows up, there may be a situation where the SEC decides to take the 2 anchor schools from each southern state and build a fence. Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana only have 1 anchor school, so if onlu UF and FSU in Florida and only OU in Oklahoma, then there's 24 teams. But, that doesn't happen if the whole thing doesn't blow up.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,633
I think that The ACC could claim that the value of the GOR per year is actually higher than that because, without FSU in the league, there is a diminished value, which could lead to other issues. I could see The ACC claiming that value is much greater because of the indirect and consequential damages to the conference.
The ACC owns FSU media rights full stop. It doesn't matter what the actual value is, the ACC can decide not to sell the media rights to FSU for any price. If I owned a 65 Mustang in mint condition and you wanted it, it wouldn't matter what the actual value is. What would matter is if you and I could come to an agreement for me to sell it to you. I am under no obligation to sell it to you for market price. If it had sentimental value to me, I might not sell it to you for $10 million.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,633
I agree they're separate, but in what I was saying, they could be acting in concert. No, I don't think Duke, WF, or a lot of other schools would be attractive in our current CFB format. However, once it all blows up, there may be a situation where the SEC decides to take the 2 anchor schools from each southern state and build a fence. Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana only have 1 anchor school, so if onlu UF and FSU in Florida and only OU in Oklahoma, then there's 24 teams. But, that doesn't happen if the whole thing doesn't blow up.
To keep the Big10 out of the Southeast, it would take more. They would need Miami in Florida in addition to UF and FSU. USF has a 49k enrollment and is an AAU member. The SEC might need to take them to keep them out of the Big10.

ESPN and the SEC do act in concert on some things, however there have been cases where ESPN just told the SEC no. (Such as paying extra for a ninth SEC conference game) Business partners are only partners in so far as their needs align.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,252
Location
North Shore, Chicago
The ACC owns FSU media rights full stop. It doesn't matter what the actual value is, the ACC can decide not to sell the media rights to FSU for any price. If I owned a 65 Mustang in mint condition and you wanted it, it wouldn't matter what the actual value is. What would matter is if you and I could come to an agreement for me to sell it to you. I am under no obligation to sell it to you for market price. If it had sentimental value to me, I might not sell it to you for $10 million.
This is nice in theory, but the purpose of the GOR is to protect the members, en toto. I could easily see a judge assigning a "value" to the GOR and dictating that would be what would be fair and adequate compensation to the other members for damages incurred.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,252
Location
North Shore, Chicago
To keep the Big10 out of the Southeast, it would take more. They would need Miami in Florida in addition to UF and FSU. USF has a 49k enrollment and is an AAU member. The SEC might need to take them to keep them out of the Big10.

ESPN and the SEC do act in concert on some things, however there have been cases where ESPN just told the SEC no. (Such as paying extra for a ninth SEC conference game) Business partners are only partners in so far as their needs align.
UCF and USF are inconsequential in Florida big-boy football right now. Miami could be but is not a state school, only drawing from the very South Florida. I could see the SEC not caring about Miami, USF, or UCF. If they get UF and FSU, they've locked down most of the big-boy football. There are no other big state schools in the SEC footprint (outside of Florida) that would give the B1G a way in.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,589
Location
Oriental, NC
The only way the ACC is going to negotiate away some of the withdrawal or GOR money is because they feel FSU is poised to win on one or more points in a court of law. The ACC and FSU are parties to a Grant of Rights. Nowhere in the GOR does it requre the ACC to do anything other than collect the media revenue from ESPN and, supposedly, distribute it equally to the ACC member schools. In reality, that is what irks FSU. It's the "equal" share they object to. Wake Forest and GT are getting something FSU believes is rightful theirs.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,633
UCF and USF are inconsequential in Florida big-boy football right now. Miami could be but is not a state school, only drawing from the very South Florida. I could see the SEC not caring about Miami, USF, or UCF. If they get UF and FSU, they've locked down most of the big-boy football. There are no other big state schools in the SEC footprint (outside of Florida) that would give the B1G a way in.
So it is no longer keeping the Big10 out of the Southeast? It is only keeping the Big10 from getting a "big state" school? What is the definition of "big state" school? USF has a larger enrollment than FSU, but I guess they are a "small" state school. Miami has a big football name, but I guess they don't matter because they are a private school?

I am very confused. You seem to be saying that the SEC wants to keep the Big10 out of the Southeast, but then you changed and say that it is OK for the Big10 to be in the Southeast as long as their schools are not considered prime football schools at the present moment? What is the purpose of keeping the Big10 out of the Southeast? If USF joined the Big10, the Big10 would get media money in Florida. The Big10 would get better recruiting access to Florida. What exactly would the SEC be keeping the Big10 from getting? On top of that USF could be a prime football school in a few years with Big10 money, and the last argument about them not mattering would fade away.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
10,882
So it is no longer keeping the Big10 out of the Southeast? It is only keeping the Big10 from getting a "big state" school? What is the definition of "big state" school? USF has a larger enrollment than FSU, but I guess they are a "small" state school. Miami has a big football name, but I guess they don't matter because they are a private school?

I am very confused. You seem to be saying that the SEC wants to keep the Big10 out of the Southeast, but then you changed and say that it is OK for the Big10 to be in the Southeast as long as their schools are not considered prime football schools at the present moment? What is the purpose of keeping the Big10 out of the Southeast? If USF joined the Big10, the Big10 would get media money in Florida. The Big10 would get better recruiting access to Florida. What exactly would the SEC be keeping the Big10 from getting? On top of that USF could be a prime football school in a few years with Big10 money, and the last argument about them not mattering would fade away.
Miami got a top 5 recruiting class this year, right?
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,252
Location
North Shore, Chicago
So it is no longer keeping the Big10 out of the Southeast? It is only keeping the Big10 from getting a "big state" school? What is the definition of "big state" school? USF has a larger enrollment than FSU, but I guess they are a "small" state school. Miami has a big football name, but I guess they don't matter because they are a private school?

I am very confused. You seem to be saying that the SEC wants to keep the Big10 out of the Southeast, but then you changed and say that it is OK for the Big10 to be in the Southeast as long as their schools are not considered prime football schools at the present moment? What is the purpose of keeping the Big10 out of the Southeast? If USF joined the Big10, the Big10 would get media money in Florida. The Big10 would get better recruiting access to Florida. What exactly would the SEC be keeping the Big10 from getting? On top of that USF could be a prime football school in a few years with Big10 money, and the last argument about them not mattering would fade away.
USF and UCF are not on the same level in Florida or nationally as FSU, UF, or Miami. So, your claim about USF (or UCF) as being a target for B1G isn't relevant, in my opinion. I think Miami probably is, but in Florida, Miami is definitely a distant 3rd in terms of impact within the state. I'd suggest that UCF has a bigger impact than Miami. B1G might go after Miami, but I don't think The SEC would necessarily look at that as an infringement on the SEC footprint. That's merely an opinion, but I think it is supportable.

I didn't say The SEC wants to keep the B1G out of the Southeast. I said if they did, they could probably achieve this by locking down the anchor schools in each state. I didn't change anything I've said. I'm throwing out thoughts for discussion. They don't necessarily have to be fully fleshed out to be offered for discussion. Maybe you should approach this as a discussion instead of an argument.

The entire comment was a hypothetical scenario based on the whole CFB blowing up, which it hasn't. I also referenced a post I submitted in a different thread. I didn't feel it necessary to repeat that whole post. If you want further clarification regarding what I am saying, look at that other post.
 

Techwood Relict

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,135
This is nice in theory, but the purpose of the GOR is to protect the members, en toto. I could easily see a judge assigning a "value" to the GOR and dictating that would be what would be fair and adequate compensation to the other members for damages incurred.

The only way the ACC is going to negotiate away some of the withdrawal or GOR money is because they feel FSU is poised to win on one or more points in a court of law.
Forensic has a point of law that a judge could use. One can't require specific performance in a labor contract, (for lots of legal reasons, but plainly spoken, just bc you can't make a man do it); but the judge could assign a damages value to fsu and their unwillingness to perform. The Gordian Knot here is the athletic performance of the athletes is what most enhances the value of the media portion of the contract. Figuring out that value is where the ACC will say it is the value dictated by the contract. fsu arguing it should be less impeaches their prior arguments that they are worth more individually.

My legal analysis so far suggest the lawyers will do well, fsu will not.
 
Top