Conference Realignment

[Richard7125]

If you gave the winning team more money than the losing team, there might be more incentive for teams to try and win bowl games.

 

[stinger78]

I dunno...if I was a player who just won 13 games in a row and the CFP Committee snubbed my team, I'd be tempted to sit out, also.

They did everything they were asked to do, and they still got screwed. If not playing kills the ratings, GOOD! Everyone knows what happened to FSU was wrong.

One suggestion I heard on a YouTube channel was that FSU should go through all the motions right up until game time...then walk off the field just before the kickoff on national television.

Have fun explaining that to your advertisers, ESPN.

So you’re going to quit when you get knocked down? Not a good life lesson.

I know, I’m old fashioned. CFB isn’t about life lessons anymore. It’s about ME.

 

[g0lftime]

Not really, the team that plays in the Orange Bowl will have very little in common with the team the competed in the ACC this season ...

Should have said "perceived weakness". My bad.

 

[bobongo]

If you gave the winning team more money than the losing team, there might be more incentive for teams to try and win bowl games.

May as well. It's already pro football as it is, so that wouldn't make it much worse.

 

[Root4GT]

I just don't get this, not only FSU but in general. Granted I'm from another era, but for us this would have been unthinkable, we would be excited just for another chance to suit-up and play anyone anywhere !

Bowl Games are now basically meaningless exhibition games. This year for GT the Bowl Game meant a lot as we have been a very bad team for several years and saw real improvement this year!

If we had been to Bowl Games 10 straight year's the Gasparella Bowl would not have been much of a thrill! It was great this year.

Our players haven't experienced a Bowl Game. New experience and it seemed fun. What is of interest to FSU or Georgia players this year as both expected to be in the CFP. The ones who can are moving on to the next phase of life. Logical but it does suck for fans!

 

[RonJohn]

It’s both. Players quit on their team to put their own interests first. Used to be there is no I in team, now it’s there is no team in I.

But what are the bowl games? Are they games to showcase college teams? Are they rewards to players for having a good season? Are they fun destinations for fans to go to in order to support their teams? Are the opportunities for players to play on TV? They used to be all of those things, but they are not any more. Now they are only TV content used to sell ads. ESPN owns almost half of all bowl games. Selections are not made based on performance of teams, they are made based solely on projected TV audiences. I have an affinity for bowl game history, but these are not the bowl games of the 1980s. These are not much better than reality TV shows with a sports theme.

For a player who wants to enter the NFL draft, what does the bowl game mean? There is almost no opportunity to improve draft status. There is an opportunity to be injured and lose millions of dollars. It isn't an opportunity to "band together with your brothers" for another game, it is only an opportunity to pad Disney's pockets.

For a player who is going to transfer, the transfer window closes very soon. Most of those guys would like to be at their new school the first or second week in January. To play in the Orange Bowl, under NCAA rules, a player couldn't talk to another team until he is in the portal. A player couldn't get into the portal until Sunday in that situation. The portal closes next Wednesday. The player would have to enter the portal, get offered by another team, and accept that offer in three days. Within a week from the game he would have to announce, get an offer, accept that offer, and move to the new school. I am not trying to say that all of the schools follow the rules. However, the timeline for transfers is set up in such a way that playing in a bowl game is problematic.

It is easy to blame the players. I think the college football machine has made the bowl games completely worthless. I think the players are simply reacting to the reality that the bowl games no longer mean anything. I take your statement as ignoring what ESPN has done to the bowl games. Ignoring what the CFP has done to the bowl games. Ignoring what coaches have done to the bowl games. And placing all of the blame for the bowl games not being what they once were on the players. The players playing today had nothing to do with what happened to the bowl games 10 years ago. They are only reacting to what the bowl games have become.

 

[Root4GT]

So you’re going to quit when you get knocked down? Not a good life lesson.

I know, I’m old fashioned. CFB isn’t about life lessons anymore. It’s about ME.

Maybe the Life Lesson is to move on with your life at the right time. For a lot of the players this is the right time.

 

[slugboy]

Some FSU law graduates think that they’ll be able to keep a Florida venue, and that they have a good shot of winning under Florida law.
Their contention isn’t that the GOR isn’t valid. It’s that the GOR was extended to 2036 but the ESPN payments are not agreed to beyond 2027. That is, the GOR was extended but the ESPN contract and obligations weren’t. In that case, since member schools weren’t given something of value for the extension of GOR, the extended length isn’t valid.

 

[orientalnc]

Some FSU law graduates think that they’ll be able to keep a Florida venue, and that they have a good shot of winning under Florida law.
Their contention isn’t that the GOR isn’t valid. It’s that the GOR was extended to 2036 but the ESPN payments are not agreed to beyond 2027. That is, the GOR was extended but the ESPN contract and obligations weren’t. In that case, since member schools weren’t given something of value for the extension of GOR, the extended length isn’t valid.

I don't believe FSU can win with that argument. They are asking the court to rule based on a prediction of failure to make payments rather than actual failure.

 

[forensicbuzz]

But what are the bowl games? Are they games to showcase college teams? Are they rewards to players for having a good season? Are they fun destinations for fans to go to in order to support their teams? Are the opportunities for players to play on TV? They used to be all of those things, but they are not any more. Now they are only TV content used to sell ads. ESPN owns almost half of all bowl games. Selections are not made based on performance of teams, they are made based solely on projected TV audiences. I have an affinity for bowl game history, but these are not the bowl games of the 1980s. These are not much better than reality TV shows with a sports theme.

For a player who wants to enter the NFL draft, what does the bowl game mean? There is almost no opportunity to improve draft status. There is an opportunity to be injured and lose millions of dollars. It isn't an opportunity to "band together with your brothers" for another game, it is only an opportunity to pad Disney's pockets.

For a player who is going to transfer, the transfer window closes very soon. Most of those guys would like to be at their new school the first or second week in January. To play in the Orange Bowl, under NCAA rules, a player couldn't talk to another team until he is in the portal. A player couldn't get into the portal until Sunday in that situation. The portal closes next Wednesday. The player would have to enter the portal, get offered by another team, and accept that offer in three days. Within a week from the game he would have to announce, get an offer, accept that offer, and move to the new school. I am not trying to say that all of the schools follow the rules. However, the timeline for transfers is set up in such a way that playing in a bowl game is problematic.

It is easy to blame the players. I think the college football machine has made the bowl games completely worthless. I think the players are simply reacting to the reality that the bowl games no longer mean anything. I take your statement as ignoring what ESPN has done to the bowl games. Ignoring what the CFP has done to the bowl games. Ignoring what coaches have done to the bowl games. And placing all of the blame for the bowl games not being what they once were on the players. The players playing today had nothing to do with what happened to the bowl games 10 years ago. They are only reacting to what the bowl games have become.

Bowl games are a chance to watch your team play an additional game! Yea!

Bowl games allow teams to practice an additional 3 weeks after the regular season has ended. Yea!

Response to the bolded section. A player has to enter the Transfer Portal within the window, but there are no limits or restrictions from someone in the portal talking to teams/coaches or when they commit to the team. No restrictions on players in the Portal talking to other schools. There are no restrictions for portal players to continue practicing and playing with their existing teams. Playing is up to the coach.

 

[cpf2001]

Some FSU law graduates think that they’ll be able to keep a Florida venue, and that they have a good shot of winning under Florida law.
Their contention isn’t that the GOR isn’t valid. It’s that the GOR was extended to 2036 but the ESPN payments are not agreed to beyond 2027. That is, the GOR was extended but the ESPN contract and obligations weren’t. In that case, since member schools weren’t given something of value for the extension of GOR, the extended length isn’t valid.

Iff the claims about the extension are true I hope they do win that. No contract without consideration or whatever it is a lawyer told me once. Shady AF to tie the GOR past the guaranteed benefit of the contract; if the contract is optional then make the GOR extending past 2027 contingent on the option.

Would be funny though if the court just said “yeah it should be contingent” and then FSU gets nothing in the short term and everyone just has to wait until 2025.

 

[Techster]

Some FSU law graduates think that they’ll be able to keep a Florida venue, and that they have a good shot of winning under Florida law.
Their contention isn’t that the GOR isn’t valid. It’s that the GOR was extended to 2036 but the ESPN payments are not agreed to beyond 2027. That is, the GOR was extended but the ESPN contract and obligations weren’t. In that case, since member schools weren’t given something of value for the extension of GOR, the extended length isn’t valid.

This is a very interesting point, actually. I'm not a lawyer (although I did watch My Cousin Vinny and the Suits series...which is the same as law school, amirite?!) but I do remember from business law class that a contract is not valid without consideration given to both sides. "Consideration" does not have to be equal, but what will be the court's interpretation of FSU's (or any ACC school) signing over their media rights for financial consideration (Tiered media rights) versus a GOR that extends almost a decade beyond the tiered media rights of the ACC's media partner that can unilaterally be cancelled in 2027? Will the courts tell the ACC the GOR is no longer valid after 2027 because after that date, "consideration" is no longer given to FSU (or any other ACC School) and holding a school "hostage" for a decade, under the GOR rules, would be an unreasonable burden to a school's financial well being?

I've actually seen several media figures that practice contract and media law bring up this point. If ESPN does decide not to continue with the agreement after 2027, FSU may have a case. However, if ESPN decides to stick with the agreement (which they would be dumb not to do given how lucrative/profitable the ACC contract is compared to the SEC's and B1G's media deal), FSU may have to bite the bullet and either stick with the ACC until 2036 or pay the $500+ million to get out of the contract.

There's also the legal reasoning that FSU (and every other ACC school) understood the terms and willingly signed the deal, therefore they have to live with it.

This much is certain: FSU is definitely taking the headshots as the school leading the GOR fight against the ACC. There are several school that will benefit from this if FSU wins, however, from the sounds of it, FSU is the only one willing to put their head above the firing line.

 

[forensicbuzz]

This is a very interesting point, actually. I'm not a lawyer (although I did watch My Cousin Vinny and the Suits series...which is the same as law school, amirite?!) but I do remember from business law class that a contract is not valid without consideration given to both sides. "Consideration" does not have to be equal, but what will be the court's interpretation of FSU's (or any ACC school) signing over their media rights for financial consideration (Tiered media rights) versus a GOR that extends almost a decade beyond the tiered media rights of the ACC's media partner that can unilaterally be cancelled in 2027? Will the courts tell the ACC the GOR is no longer valid after 2027 because after that date, "consideration" is no longer given to FSU (or any other ACC School) and holding a school "hostage" for a decade, under the GOR rules, would be an unreasonable burden to a school's financial well being?

I've actually seen several media figures that practice contract and media law bring up this point. If ESPN does decide not to continue with the agreement after 2027, FSU may have a case. However, if ESPN decides to stick with the agreement (which they would be dumb not to do given how lucrative/profitable the ACC contract is compared to the SEC's and B1G's media deal), FSU may have to bite the bullet and either stick with the ACC until 2036 or pay the $500+ million to get out of the contract.

There's also the legal reasoning that FSU (and every other ACC school) understood the terms and willingly signed the deal, therefore they have to live with it.

This much is certain: FSU is definitely taking the headshots as the school leading the GOR fight against the ACC. There are several school that will benefit from this if FSU wins, however, from the sounds of it, FSU is the only one willing to put their head above the firing line.

Mike Ross didn't go to law school, but he did pass the bar.

 

[RonJohn]

Bowl games are a chance to watch your team play an additional game! Yea!

Bowl games allow teams to practice an additional 3 weeks after the regular season has ended. Yea!

Response to the bolded section. A player has to enter the Transfer Portal within the window, but there are no limits or restrictions from someone in the portal talking to teams/coaches or when they commit to the team. No restrictions on players in the Portal talking to other schools. There are no restrictions for portal players to continue practicing and playing with their existing teams. Playing is up to the coach.

To your first point, you seem to agree with me. Bowl games are nothing more than content for ESPN.

To your last point, you are assuming that the players have power to control things. They can't talk to other teams before entering the portal.(under the rules, and most actually know where they will land before entering.) The coaches might allow them to play and/or might allow them to remove themselves from the portal and return. The coaches also might throw them off the team as soon as they enter the portal. There aren't limits on timing once you are in the portal according to the rules. However, there are limits. A player will need to be at their new school the first or second week in January. A player can't realistically enter the portal on December 30th and then start talking to other teams and be on campus at the new school in a week or two. Players and teams do break the rules and talk beforehand. However, should we be proposing that players break the rules in order to continue to play for games that are in all reality totally meaningless? The bowls have been meaningless for at least 10 years. Fans keep on blaming the players who were in elementary school when those changes happened for causing the changes.

 

[Vespidae]

Some FSU law graduates think that they’ll be able to keep a Florida venue, and that they have a good shot of winning under Florida law.
Their contention isn’t that the GOR isn’t valid. It’s that the GOR was extended to 2036 but the ESPN payments are not agreed to beyond 2027. That is, the GOR was extended but the ESPN contract and obligations weren’t. In that case, since member schools weren’t given something of value for the extension of GOR, the extended length isn’t valid.

That won’t work. The purpose of the GOR wasn’t to guarantee a distribution, it was to offset expected startup costs and infrastructure for the ACCN. That DOES exist and FSU as a member institution, owns a pro rata share. If the value of the distribution is lower than expected, blame can be placed on FSU for poor performance for 15 years.

This wil get very ugly for FSU.

 

[Techster]

Mike Ross didn't go to law school, but he did pass the bar.

He passed it multiple times, for multiple people!

 

[RonJohn]

This much is certain: FSU is definitely taking the headshots as the school leading the GOR fight against the ACC. There are several school that will benefit from this if FSU wins, however, from the sounds of it, FSU is the only one willing to put their head above the firing line.

FSU is looking for a declaratory judgement before they are susceptible to the penalty and the GOR buyout. They are making a lot of stink, but they have not as of yet put their head above the firing line. If they announce their departure from the ACC and then file suit to try to mitigate the consequences, at that point they will have their head above the firing line.

 

[WreckinGT]

That won’t work. The purpose of the GOR wasn’t to guarantee a distribution, it was to offset expected startup costs and infrastructure for the ACCN. That DOES exist and FSU as a member institution, owns a pro rata share. If the value of the distribution is lower than expected, blame can be placed on FSU for poor performance for 15 years.

This wil get very ugly for FSU.

If ESPN owns the ACC network and has the ability to not renew their contract with the ACC for media rights past 2027, then does the ACC Network even exist anymore after that?

 

[MusicalBuzz]

I confess I’m struggling to accept the state of bowl games are any different than they were in the past. Were not the bowl games just exhibition then? Did not only a couple of teams, eg top 2 in the AP / Coaches have any tangible gain to play for and everyone else was playing only for the school and team pride.

And who cares if ESPN half the bowl games .. the game itself wouldn’t matter if the games were even dispersed across all networks. So what then has changed?

Well there a lot more bowl games such that some very marginal teams are playing. And there are some un-compelling venues hosting, see: Yankee Stadium, Detroit.

But there are also some exceptionally compelling matchups — namely, FSU-Georgia — that in any era would be worth watching.

The issue has been the steadily increasing number of players opting out in lieu of so-called NFL preparation, and then certainly the couple years with the Transfer Portal. So in the end one really could blame the kids for not having a greater sense of commitment and pride for the school and team.

Then, the other part that I sincerely believe is with the fans. Yes — the same fans clamoring for more and more money pouring into their football team and now players, which has now fundamentally altered CFB. These are the fans who have so deprecated the meaning of a “good season” such that any bowl short of playing for the championship is a waste of time — it’s the fans that are deprecating the value and beauty of bowl games. Today’s bowl games are otherwise the same as they were 30 yrs ago..

 

[BCJacket]

This is a very interesting point, actually. I'm not a lawyer (although I did watch My Cousin Vinny and the Suits series...which is the same as law school, amirite?!) but I do remember from business law class that a contract is not valid without consideration given to both sides. "Consideration" does not have to be equal, but what will be the court's interpretation of FSU's (or any ACC school) signing over their media rights for financial consideration (Tiered media rights) versus a GOR that extends almost a decade beyond the tiered media rights of the ACC's media partner that can unilaterally be cancelled in 2027? Will the courts tell the ACC the GOR is no longer valid after 2027 because after that date, "consideration" is no longer given to FSU (or any other ACC School) and holding a school "hostage" for a decade, under the GOR rules, would be an unreasonable burden to a school's financial well being?

I've actually seen several media figures that practice contract and media law bring up this point. If ESPN does decide not to continue with the agreement after 2027, FSU may have a case. However, if ESPN decides to stick with the agreement (which they would be dumb not to do given how lucrative/profitable the ACC contract is compared to the SEC's and B1G's media deal), FSU may have to bite the bullet and either stick with the ACC until 2036 or pay the $500+ million to get out of the contract.

There's also the legal reasoning that FSU (and every other ACC school) understood the terms and willingly signed the deal, therefore they have to live with it.

This much is certain: FSU is definitely taking the headshots as the school leading the GOR fight against the ACC. There are several school that will benefit from this if FSU wins, however, from the sounds of it, FSU is the only one willing to put their head above the firing line.

I read through both FSUs complaint and the GOR contract in entirety. I think this argument is conflating a few different things.

One, the media contract extending past 2027 to 2036 was in the original 2016 agreement. The agreement contains plenty of consideration in the form of media payments due. The only thing that isn't guaranteed after 2027 is minimum payments from the ACC Network if the network doesn't make enough money (or if ESPN decides to shut it down.) This is one of FSU's big complaints: there's no guaranteed payment minimum to the ACC after 2027. Just the share of the earnings from ACCN. So, ESPN could close down the ACCN and only have to pay for what games they air on their networks. But again, this was the agreement FSU signed. And it's not that there's no payments (consideration) after 2027. I see no reason this would be invalidated.

The extension to extend the GOR was a totally separate contract between the ACC and the schools. Which FSU agreed to. Has nothing to do with the ESPN agreement directly. And the consideration is the payments from the ACC to the schools which are the amount the ACC makes from selling the media rights and which will continue to 2036.

The amendment to the media contract which FSU is objecting to, and which didn't include 'additional consideration' was the agreement to move out the date ESPN had to commit to payments for 2027-2036 from 2021 to 2025. It's not the agreement to extend the contract. Only the date that ESPN has to tell the ACC that they are going to continue. The court could hold that that amendment was invalid, because there was no additional consideration given. However, it's not clear that that is the case. If the amendment has so much as a proforma '$1 and other goods' clause then it should be fine. And, again, the underlying contract has plenty of consideration. Even if the court holds that the amendment required additional consideration and didn't have any, what's the value of the extension? It doesn't cost the ACC or ESPN (or FSU) any money. The commitment date is still well before the date those payments will happen. Even if not, and the amendment is invalid because it didn't have additional consideration, it likely wouldn't invalidate the underlying contract. The court would just tell the ACC that later date is invalid and they have to demand ESPN commit to the option or not. (or re-sign the agreement with additional consideration). The GOR and media deal to 2036 would stand.