Conference Realignment

[Northeast Stinger]

Guest Post: Legal Analysis on ACC Stability

Do Cal fans need to fear that the ACC will fall apart as quickly as the Pac-12 fell apart?

writeforcalifornia.com

Here is a REALLY good link that discusses the ACC GOR, and it even talks about amendments of 2016. Even they admit they aren't fully confident if it is or isn't different from the final copy. So this VERY WELL might be in it's final form (@slugboy @orientalnc ...trying to be fair and keep you aware of what I find). However, we don't know for certain because the final copy isn't available

So, I think what @slugboy was suggesting is that final form simply means with signatures of all the parties. But who knows.

 

[Techster]

Still don't see how "There's a later amendment" follows from speculation that there might be changes to documents simply because we haven't seen one.

Not sure what you're fully asking. They specifically link to "later amendments".

The second is the Amendment To Atlantic Coast Conference Grant Of Rights Agreement (Amendment). This was signed on June 24, 2016

Here's a reporter also referring to those Amendments:



Note the date on the copy of the GOR floating around. It's dated April 19, 2013...well, at least by UNC.

Here's another:

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Y’all are going to worry yourself to death on this matter.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

You're being irrational about your cloudiness.

No. I’ve thought it through. But I could be wrong. Which is different.

 

[slugboy]

That's the one I linked to in an earlier post.

That GOR has been updated, and there are new amendments since 2016. Those are not available, and last I checked, amendments and any updated changes to contract language is pretty darn pertinent to any possible legal interpretation. I really don't care about the signatures (no reason to fight over semantics...and I'll concede that point if you want), but the claim that the GOR in its final and current existing form is "available to the public" is false so far as I can find.

Like I said, if it's available to the public, I'm more than happy to admit I'm wrong.

I believe that’s the version that the ACC had as an attachment in their North Carolina case.

 

[orientalnc]

@Techster

The Cal blog post you linked earlier has the same info that my neighbor's AA contact shared. The 2016 amendment to the GOR just changed the end date from 2027 to 2036. Otherwise it is the same agreement. He said his friend at the AA does not know of any changes since 2016. Is that ironclad? No, but speculation about possible changes isn't either.

 

[Techster]

@Techster

The Cal blog post you linked earlier has the same info that my neighbor's AA contact shared. The 2016 amendment to the GOR just changed the end date from 2027 to 2036. Otherwise it is the same agreement. He said his friend at the AA does not know of any changes since 2016. Is that ironclad? No, but speculation about possible changes isn't either.

I'll take your word. Honestly, I should have been in the shower already and getting ready for dinner with friends. I'm late because of you.

 

[roadkill]

Not sure what you're fully asking. They specifically link to "later amendments".

The second is the Amendment To Atlantic Coast Conference Grant Of Rights Agreement (Amendment). This was signed on June 24, 2016

Here's a reporter also referring to those Amendments:



Note the date on the copy of the GOR floating around. It's dated April 19, 2013...well, at least by UNC.

Here's another:

I'm going to attempt to re-phrase my question again since I don't seem to be able to communicate clearly.

There are two agreements in circulation - the 2013 GOR and the 2016 amendment which extended the term to 2036. Both these two are linked in the article you linked (good article, by the way). The article makes no mention of any additional agreements or amendments past the 2016 one. I tried to find any mention of "later amendments" beyond these two. Since I could not, I actually had Word do a search for the word "later" and it couldn't find it either. It did however find the word "latter" in reference to the 2016 amendment. So perhaps you could indulge me by quoting the entire sentence in the article that refers to "later amendments".

My question again is, can you show me a reference where there is evidence of any further amendment past the 2016 one, as you have previously stated as a fact?

 

[Techster]

I'm going to attempt to re-phrase my question again since I don't seem to be able to communicate clearly.

There are two agreements in circulation - the 2013 GOR and the 2016 amendment which extended the term to 2036. Both these two are linked in the article you linked (good article, by the way). The article makes no mention of any additional agreements or amendments past the 2016 one. I tried to find any mention of "later amendments" beyond these two. Since I could not, I actually had Word do a search for the word "later" and it couldn't find it either. It did however find the word "latter" in reference to the 2016 amendment. So perhaps you could indulge me by quoting the entire sentence in the article that refers to "later amendments".

My question again is, can you show me a reference where there is evidence of any further amendment past the 2016 one, as you have previously stated as a fact?

Jim Phillips became the ACC commissioner in 2021. That last tweet I posted specifically says:

That ESPN nine-year option was supposed to be decided upon by 2021 but the lawyer says ACC commissioner Jim Phillips signed an amendment to extend that window until February 2025.

 

[yeti92]

Jim Phillips became the ACC commissioner in 2021. That last tweet I posted specifically says:

That ESPN nine-year option was supposed to be decided upon by 2021 but the lawyer says ACC commissioner Jim Phillips signed an amendment to extend that window until February 2025.

Wouldn't that be an amendment to the ACC-ESPN contract, and not the GOR?

 

[Vespidae]

I don't see the ACC as a dead conference walking.
I don't see it as a Top 2 conference now or in the future. It hasn't been that for a decade and the way the college environment changed it was unlikely to ever be that.
ACC is likely to survive partially due to ND. Say the worst scenario for the ACC happens and 6-7 teams ultimately leave. That still leaves 9-10 teams plus ND. ND has no intention of joining a conference and with the new CFP structure has even less incentive to ever do so. It needs a place to have all its other sports and the ACC is the best fit for it - so it would likely stay with the ACC even with some of its biggest brands leaving. The issue then would be do the ACC and B12 stay as independent conferences or do they form one.

I don't see FSU as likely prevailing in a lawsuit. Their lawsuit barely even mentions any legal statutes - I think 2 are mentioned over 6 counts. Mostly its a bunch of word soup.
FSU is hoping that it can get out without crippling debt and hope that 1 of the P2 want it bad enough to give them a full share. There are alot of assumptions in there that may not pan out.
Note I read an article where both FOX and ESPN are rooting for ACC in this matter. They negotiate with conferences - if GoR's are determined to be legally unenforceable then it makes it more difficult for them as they would not know who is going to be in the media contract year to year.

2019 was the last time the ACC had a team good enough to be in the CFP. FSU would have been in it this year if Travis didn't get hurt.

It feels like long term we are moving to a 2 league power structure. The FOX league and the ESPN league. If that happens GT is likely one of the last in or first out of those leagues.

FSU, instead of constantly bad mouthing the ACC - which it has done for years, could have been working to make it stronger. Note, when FSU was really mediocre it wasn't complaining, only in the last 2 years as it has performed better.

I think it is more likely that should FSU leave, ND would join for the same reasons as Bobby Bowden. It's the easiest path to a playoff.

 

[Techster]

Wouldn't that be an amendment to the ACC-ESPN contract, and not the GOR?

That's a good point. I think I confused that with something else I read. I've gone through a lot of tweets and articles about this today so keeping track of everything has been a job.

I'll try to find it again after dinner and get back to you and @roadkill

 

[ThatGuy]

My neighbor just told me the UNC AA has a copy of the GOR and the only change made in 2016 was to extend the GOR to 2036. It is otherwise the same as the 2013 version.

That said, there is/will be an update to include Cal, Stanford and SMU. He said those changes may simply be the addition of the signature pages for those university presidents.

...which FSU is contractually bound (by said Grant of Rights) to sign.

Again, back to my Inception perspective of this whole thing - what happens when/if FSU decides they won't sign an updated Grant of Rights with the only change being to include the new members (which they're quite unhappy about, because THEY DIDN'T GET THEIR WAY)? The ACC files another lawsuit, sure, but they're already in breach of contract re: multiple other clauses in the Grant of Rights and their Member Agreement. So will they refuse to sign, because they're being "compelled" to do so?

And why will this take any less time to deal with than the lawsuit that's expected to take years to progress through the courts? Not sure how it all works, but this could hang up the ACC's plans to bring in the new teams. I guess the ACC could prepare a separate-but-identical Grant of Rights for those teams, which might be the easier way to go about it?

I'm going to have a beer and then start drawing flow charts.

 

[roadkill]

That's a good point. I think I confused that with something else I read. I've gone through a lot of tweets and articles about this today so keeping track of everything has been a job.

I'll try to find it again after dinner and get back to you and @roadkill

Thanks, I was always referring to the GOR agreements exclusively, perhaps that wasn't clear.

 

[ThatGuy]

Y’all are going to worry yourself to death on this matter.

Not me! Hell, I just said I'm going to grab a beer or 20 and flowchart it out. Just your normal Friday night.

 

[Techster]

Thanks, I was always referring to the GOR agreements exclusively, perhaps that wasn't clear.

Lol, you were clear, my mind was not clear.

 

[ThatGuy]

And, unlike Tech leaving the SEC, even people who side with FSU over the ACC can’t figure out what in the world they are thinking.

Whatever you do, don't venture into the Reddit r/CFB cesspool. In that world, it's clearly not the case.

When the ACC filed to remove FSU as voting members of the Board, and amended their motion to call out FSU for breaking their NDA, the prevailing assessment there was "Wow, the ACC is getting desperate, FSU has them right where they want them. Settlement incoming."

 

[4shotB]

I think it is more likely that should FSU leave, ND would join for the same reasons as Bobby Bowden. It's the easiest path to a playoff.

I am not sure if that would be classified as a conundrum, a paradox, or the ultimate irony given the reasons FSU wants to leave.

 

[Vespidae]

I am not sure if that would be classified as a conundrum, a paradox, or the ultimate irony given the reasons FSU wants to leave.

The ACC was supposed to be relevant IF FSU and MIA maintained their programs. They didn't. It would be the ultimate irony to watch them leave and ND literally walk into the CFP.

 

[4shotB]

The ACC was supposed to be relevant IF FSU and MIA maintained their programs. They didn't. It would be the ultimate irony to watch them leave and ND literally walk into the CFP.

But why would ND walk into the playoff when FSU didn't (excluding the obvious expansion to 12 teams)? heck under a 12 team scenario FSU has every bit the chance of making it as does ND.