Conference Realignment

roadkill

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,601
LT 1967 said:
A pretty good article by ESPN's Andrea Adelson and David Hale on the ACC talks concerning a revised revenue sharing plan. They claim to have talked to a half dozen ACC school administrators
who would be open to a revised plan. They also say an approved plan is not imminent.

Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing. The only item of substance that I gleaned from the article is that the newly proposed media-share-based revenue distribution plan originated from FSU and Clemson.
 
AugustaSwarm

AugustaSwarm

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
723
roadkill said:
If what this article describes is true, then the ACC must feel like they are going to lose the lawsuits. Why else would you try to appease FSU with offers to pay out based on media value, and shorten the GOR term?
Also, has the ACC not learned from the appeasement they just implemented? FSU wanted unequal revenue sharing, they were given some, and their response was to slap the ACC with a lawsuit.

Edit to add: Shortening the term of the GOR makes no sense, as it was/is a requirement for the ESPN contract. Unless the ACC is hearing from ESPN that they won't extend, which is not what the word on the street is saying. Some of this stuff sounds like it's just rumor-mongering.
Click to expand...
It could also be posturing to be able to demonstrate a good faith attempt to resolve the case - even if it's only a half hearted attempt. If you feel they (FSU/Clemson) are being unreasonable, then you pepper them with deal after deal that you know they'll reject - but then you can show the judge that you were trying, but they just kept refusing.
 
roadkill

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,601
AugustaSwarm said:
It could also be posturing to be able to demonstrate a good faith attempt to resolve the case - even if it's only a half hearted attempt. If you feel they (FSU/Clemson) are being unreasonable, then you pepper them with deal after deal that you know they'll reject - but then you can show the judge that you were trying, but they just kept refusing.
Click to expand...
After reading that this proposal originated from the mediation in Tallahassee and was proposed by FSU and Clemson, it makes more sense now that it’s likely just a spitballed suggestion that sports media have amplified.

Obviously, if your side is in mediation, you’ll answer media questions with comments like “It’s under discussion” rather than “It’s ridiculous and makes no sense.”
 
bobongo

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,273
AugustaSwarm said:
It could also be posturing to be able to demonstrate a good faith attempt to resolve the case - even if it's only a half hearted attempt. If you feel they (FSU/Clemson) are being unreasonable, then you pepper them with deal after deal that you know they'll reject - but then you can show the judge that you were trying, but they just kept refusing.
Click to expand...
Why should you have to "try" or "demonstrate...good faith" when you have a contract? Just shove it down their throats.
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,669
bobongo said:
Why should you have to "try" or "demonstrate...good faith" when you have a contract? Just shove it down their throats.
Click to expand...
Impossible to negotiate with bullies. They just are never satisfied and will always want more. The ACC already agreed to allow larger share for post season to appease them. GT and one other school voted against it BTW.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,111
RonJohn

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,817
AugustaSwarm said:
Because if/when it goes to mediation, you want to be able to portray yourself as the good guy that is trying to find a middle ground to end the dispute.
Click to expand...
If you sign a contract to sell your house for $450k, and the buyer presents you with a check for $200k, do you negotiate a lower payment than the agreed to and contractually signed price? Or do you insist that the buyer pay you full price or return the house? If it goes to court, do you care if the judge thinks you are not "negotiating" in good faith? Or do you demand that the signed contract be honored as it was negotiated and signed by all parties?
 
slugboy

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,194
AugustaSwarm said:
It could also be posturing to be able to demonstrate a good faith attempt to resolve the case - even if it's only a half hearted attempt. If you feel they (FSU/Clemson) are being unreasonable, then you pepper them with deal after deal that you know they'll reject - but then you can show the judge that you were trying, but they just kept refusing.
Click to expand...
It may also be cheaper than legal fees
 

LT 1967

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
395
Article below from Andrew Carter of the Raleigh News and Observer. He makes several pro and con arguments similar to the ones made by our members. He summarizes by saying that both sides have something to gain by negotiating a settlement. No new facts in this article, but some good points.

IMHO, FSU and Clemson have discovered that the B1G and SEC are not all that interested in adding them, and they may not be finding the FSU (Homer) Judge to be quite as receptive as they had hoped. I am confident that the North Carolina Courts are not going to be very compliant. Obviously, the legal fees are going through the roof for both sides.

They decided to go for "half a loft" with their current proposal to the ACC.

 
RonJohn

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,817
LT 1967 said:
IMHO, FSU and Clemson have discovered that the B1G and SEC are not all that interested in adding them, and they may not be finding the FSU (Homer) Judge to be quite as receptive as they had hoped. I am confident that the North Carolina Courts are not going to be very compliant. Obviously, the legal fees are going through the roof for both sides.

They decided to go for "half a loft" with their current proposal to the ACC.
Click to expand...
Just my opinion: Neither P2 conference is going to add more teams until 2030 (Big10), and 2034(SEC). They might add a team at a reduced payout, but nothing close to a full payout. An agreement to pay more to Clemson and FSU until 2030, and then allow them to leave without consequence isn't a negotiation, it is a full fledged compitulance. Lawsuits will take a long time. It might be 2030 before either team could leave the ACC if they end up winning the lawsuit. It is like they are saying -- We can't go anywhere until about 2030 anyway, so pay us more money until 2030 and then we will leave with no consequences. Where is the plus side of this proposed agreement for the rest of the conference?
 

LT 1967

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
395
RonJohn said:
Just my opinion: Neither P2 conference is going to add more teams until 2030 (Big10), and 2034(SEC). They might add a team at a reduced payout, but nothing close to a full payout. An agreement to pay more to Clemson and FSU until 2030, and then allow them to leave without consequence isn't a negotiation, it is a full fledged compitulance. Lawsuits will take a long time. It might be 2030 before either team could leave the ACC if they end up winning the lawsuit. It is like they are saying -- We can't go anywhere until about 2030 anyway, so pay us more money until 2030 and then we will leave with no consequences. Where is the plus side of this proposed agreement for the rest of the conference?
Click to expand...

The only arguments I have seen for the rest of the conference agreeing to negotiate on the FSU/Clemson proposal is to just get past the PR beating the ACC is taking with two of their top football schools trying to leave plus the legal costs. These are the two arguments Andrew Carter made.

As Andrew Carter said in his article, FSU and Clemson really have very little leverage. I agree with your thinking. If the ACC goes along with their proposal, they will likely leave in 2030 anyway if they can find a willing conference. I am sure FSU would go to the SEC or B1G for no media money for 4 or 5 years (Similar to SMU to ACC). From old articles I have read over the years, FSU fans regretted the move to the ACC in 1992. The SEC was definitely considering them in 1991-92. In fact, I remember the LSU AD (Joe "String Music" Dean) talking on TV about had upset the SEC Presidents were when FSU choose the ACC over the SEC.
 
RonJohn

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,817
LT 1967 said:
The only arguments I have seen for the rest of the conference agreeing to negotiate on the FSU/Clemson proposal is to just get past the PR beating the ACC is taking with two of their top football schools trying to leave plus the legal costs. These are the two arguments Andrew Carter made.

As Andrew Carter said in his article, FSU and Clemson really have very little leverage. I agree with your thinking. If the ACC goes along with their proposal, they will likely leave in 2030 anyway if they can find a willing conference. I am sure FSU would go to the SEC or B1G for no media money for 4 or 5 years (Similar to SMU to ACC). From old articles I have read over the years, FSU fans regretted the move to the ACC in 1992. The SEC was definitely considering them in 1991-92. In fact, I remember the LSU AD (Joe "String Music" Dean) talking on TV about had upset the SEC Presidents were when FSU choose the ACC over the SEC.
Click to expand...
FSU doesn't have the big money donors that SMU has. If they did, then they would already have the revenue that UF has. They would not have reached out to private equity to try to gather money for a full payout if the GOR. FSU had a lot of people who can donate $1k. They have a few that can donate $1 million. They didn't have anyone that can and will donate $50 million. SMU has that.

I still don't see any advantage to the rest of the conference. Such an agreement would be too allow them to leave at about the same time they could otherwise, and pay them more in the mean time.
 

LT 1967

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
395
RonJohn said:
FSU doesn't have the big money donors that SMU has. If they did, then they would already have the revenue that UF has. They would not have reached out to private equity to try to gather money for a full payout if the GOR. FSU had a lot of people who can donate $1k. They have a few that can donate $1 million. They didn't have anyone that can and will donate $50 million. SMU has that.

I still don't see any advantage to the rest of the conference. Such an agreement would be too allow them to leave at about the same time they could otherwise, and pay them more in the mean time.
Click to expand...

Agree.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,111
LT 1967 said:
The only arguments I have seen for the rest of the conference agreeing to negotiate on the FSU/Clemson proposal is to just get past the PR beating the ACC is taking with two of their top football schools trying to leave plus the legal costs. These are the two arguments Andrew Carter made.

As Andrew Carter said in his article, FSU and Clemson really have very little leverage. I agree with your thinking. If the ACC goes along with their proposal, they will likely leave in 2030 anyway if they can find a willing conference. I am sure FSU would go to the SEC or B1G for no media money for 4 or 5 years (Similar to SMU to ACC). From old articles I have read over the years, FSU fans regretted the move to the ACC in 1992. The SEC was definitely considering them in 1991-92. In fact, I remember the LSU AD (Joe "String Music" Dean) talking on TV about had upset the SEC Presidents were when FSU choose the ACC over the SEC.
Click to expand...
If Clemson has spent over 1 million already on this already, then the ACC has likely spent far more. Nobody wants to keep shoveling millions to billable hours indefinitely.
 
Techster

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,131
RonJohn said:
Just my opinion: Neither P2 conference is going to add more teams until 2030 (Big10), and 2034(SEC). They might add a team at a reduced payout, but nothing close to a full payout. An agreement to pay more to Clemson and FSU until 2030, and then allow them to leave without consequence isn't a negotiation, it is a full fledged compitulance. Lawsuits will take a long time. It might be 2030 before either team could leave the ACC if they end up winning the lawsuit. It is like they are saying -- We can't go anywhere until about 2030 anyway, so pay us more money until 2030 and then we will leave with no consequences. Where is the plus side of this proposed agreement for the rest of the conference?
Click to expand...

Interesting to note:

Maryland, Rutgers, Oregon, Washington, Nebraska all came into the B1G at reduced shares for a period of time. Only USC and UCLA came at full "vested" shares.


It seems new members in the future most likely will come in at a reduced share (comparatively to the other B1G members), though not as reduced as Oregon and Washington were willing to take. USC and UCLA (most likely to incentivize them to leave the PAC 12) are the exceptions.
 
Top