Conference Realignment

[RonJohn]

I get what you're saying, but given that the goal was for FSU to litigate their way out of the ACC, and the ESPN "opt out" clause is one of their central arguments that the ACC decision makers entered into an agreement that wasn't in the best interest of all ACC members, the "I stayed at a Holiday Inn" lawyer in me sees no benefit to FSU to make this detail up. The unilateral opt out clause, along with other contract details, will ultimately be exposed in court litigation. In fact, the unilateral option is listed in their lawsuit so it's not just PR bravado thrown out by FSU lawyers to win the PR war. Doesn't do FSU any good to lie to the media and in court filings.

Per the filed complaint:



33. The following spring, the ACC and ESPN renegotiated the key terms of the existing
agreement producing the May 9, 2012, ACC-ESPN Amendment (the “2012 ACC-ESPN
Amendment”), which provided for a lengthy 15-year term, expiring June 30, 2027.^2

^2
It is a widely repeated misconception that the ACC’s multi-media rights agreement expires in 2036. As explained
below, in truth, the multi-media rights agreement expires in 2027 unless ESPN chooses to exercise its unilateral option
through 2036, a decision ESPN has no duty to make until February 2025, thanks to other additional conference
mismanagement detailed below.


I don't think the courts will look kindly upon FSU for making up a rather important argument in their case against the ACC.

FSU also called the GOR "draconian" in their complaint. The FSU BOT called the GOR the best thing for the ACC and FSU when the GOR was first signed. The FSU BOT praised the fact that it would make it financially difficult for ANY school to leave the conference, when they signed it. They are now calling that same document "draconian" in a legal filing. That FSU filing that you linked to goes into great detail on how other conferences (Big10 and SEC) will make more money than the ACC and concludes that the fact that someone else will make more money is necessarily a lack of fiduciary responsibility.

I don't think that the supposed nine-year-option is even an important legal argument in their case. IF such an option exists, AND ESPN drops the ACC, then there might be a legal argument that the GOR is no longer valid, but that would not be a legal argument until that actually happened. They don't make the legal argument that the GOR is invalid because ESPN dropped the ACC. They try to insinuate an argument that the GOR might not be valid in a few years IF there is no longer an ACC/ESPN contract. What does that have to do with the current time? Can your bank forclose on your house because you might miss payments in the future?

Overall, in my non-lawyer opinion, the FSU lawsuit doesn't have much if any actual merit. They are asking for a legal contract to be negated, but don't explain any legal reasons why it should be. They include a lot of non-legalese arguments about how bad the ACC is, and how much better FSU is than anybody else in the ACC. They try to throw a lot of shade towards the ACC, but don't produce legal arguments. The fact that the lawsuit depends on emotional material than laws and facts pertaining to laws leads me to be skeptical of "facts" that are in the document. I won't say it isn't true, because I don't have any actual information. I only say that I don't believe it simply based on it being in the FSU filing.

There are a lot of ways to get such information into a lawsuit, even if it isn't true, or at least isn't accurate. Don't let the lawyers talk to people who actually know the details. "Spill" incorrect information to the people who actually will talk to the lawyers. Don't let the people with actual information be involved in the review of the documents. The people who provide information are doing their best to be accurate. The lawyers are submitting filings based on information they received from their client. If you are concerned that incorrect information might come back to bite you from a judge being upset about it, just ensure that the people with actual information are otherwise occupied when the lawyers are interviewing people. You can claim that the people with actual knowledge were at a conference out of the country and unavailable when the lawsuit was drafted.

 

[Techster]

FSU also called the GOR "draconian" in their complaint. The FSU BOT called the GOR the best thing for the ACC and FSU when the GOR was first signed. The FSU BOT praised the fact that it would make it financially difficult for ANY school to leave the conference, when they signed it. They are now calling that same document "draconian" in a legal filing. That FSU filing that you linked to goes into great detail on how other conferences (Big10 and SEC) will make more money than the ACC and concludes that the fact that someone else will make more money is necessarily a lack of fiduciary responsibility.

I don't think that the supposed nine-year-option is even an important legal argument in their case. IF such an option exists, AND ESPN drops the ACC, then there might be a legal argument that the GOR is no longer valid, but that would not be a legal argument until that actually happened. They don't make the legal argument that the GOR is invalid because ESPN dropped the ACC. They try to insinuate an argument that the GOR might not be valid in a few years IF there is no longer an ACC/ESPN contract. What does that have to do with the current time? Can your bank forclose on your house because you might miss payments in the future?

Overall, in my non-lawyer opinion, the FSU lawsuit doesn't have much if any actual merit. They are asking for a legal contract to be negated, but don't explain any legal reasons why it should be. They include a lot of non-legalese arguments about how bad the ACC is, and how much better FSU is than anybody else in the ACC. They try to throw a lot of shade towards the ACC, but don't produce legal arguments. The fact that the lawsuit depends on emotional material than laws and facts pertaining to laws leads me to be skeptical of "facts" that are in the document. I won't say it isn't true, because I don't have any actual information. I only say that I don't believe it simply based on it being in the FSU filing.

There are a lot of ways to get such information into a lawsuit, even if it isn't true, or at least isn't accurate. Don't let the lawyers talk to people who actually know the details. "Spill" incorrect information to the people who actually will talk to the lawyers. Don't let the people with actual information be involved in the review of the documents. The people who provide information are doing their best to be accurate. The lawyers are submitting filings based on information they received from their client. If you are concerned that incorrect information might come back to bite you from a judge being upset about it, just ensure that the people with actual information are otherwise occupied when the lawyers are interviewing people. You can claim that the people with actual knowledge were at a conference out of the country and unavailable when the lawsuit was drafted.

FSU's use of some language is obviously for effect. The unilateral option is a very specific clause in a very specific document. FSU's pointing to that very specific clause, in a very specific document constitutes their proclaiming it will be an exhibit in the lawsuit. It's also one of their central arguments that the ACC undermined their fiduciary duties.

I get that you don't think much of the merits of FSU's lawsuit (I also think they're grasping at straws...unless ESPN does steps out of the ACC agreement), and their puffery, but I highly doubt they would specifically point to a VERY specific unilateral clause if they didn't intend to use it. Also, there other ACC teams that are not happy with their station amongst their "peers" in the P2 and want out of the ACC. The fact that no one has refuted the FSU unilateral option claim is quite telling.

If you choose to question it, you should. This lawsuit will be very public, and the documents will be laid bare for all to see. We won't have long to wait to see what the truth is...either through the courts, or through ESPN exercising their right (reportedly) of opting out.

 

[yeti92]

The fact that no one has refuted the FSU unilateral option claim is quite telling.

ESPN is suggesting that members of FSU have possibly committed felonies by revealing trade secrets and they may go after them. On what planet would another ACC school see that, and say to themselves "yea, I think we should talk about this openly too"?

 

[Techster]

ESPN is suggesting that members of FSU have possibly committed felonies by revealing trade secrets and they may go after them. On what planet would another ACC school see that, and say to themselves "yea, I think we should talk about this openly too"?

That is true...for official school members. There are other ways to get that out.

Much like GT getting a bid to join the B1G. All of the details of that were under NDA (Jim Delany is on record saying he can't discuss it due to NDA), but it still got out eventually.

 

[yeti92]

Some of these are refutable from independent evidence and/or interpretation of terms like "fiduciary duty." Is it not exceedingly obvious that I'm talking specifically the termination option claims? Why are you asking me to defend FSU's case as a whole?

Because you are for some reason taking part of their claim as gospel that is completely unverified, even though many other parts of their claims have been found to be flawed/incorrect.

 

[yeti92]

That is true...for official school members. There are other ways to get that out.

Much like GT getting a bid to join the B1G. All of the details of that were under NDA (Jim Delany is on record saying he can't discuss it due to NDA), but it still got out eventually.

Did the B1G or GT accuse anyone of committing felonies when that information finally came out though? It's one thing to discuss after the fact when you think no one cares, but ESPN and the ACC very clearly care in this situation.

 

[Dman374]

Wanted to pull my conference comparison to the proper thread, but this time adding the BIG 10. Below are the rankings of each conference per Fanduel odds to win their conference. Hot take at the end.

ACC	SEC	BIG10
Clemson	Georgia	Ohio State (My bet they win the natty)
Florida State	Texas	Oregon
Miami	Ole Miss	Michigan
Louisville	Alabama	Penn State
NC State	LSU	USC (Major Tier Falloff here for me)
SMU	Tennessee	Iowa (Then Drops here)
Virginia Tech	Missouri	Washington
North Carolina	Texas A&M	Maryland
Syracuse	Oklahoma	Nebraska
California	Auburn	Wisconsin
Georgia Tech	Kentucky	UCLA
Duke	South Carolina	Rutgers
Pitt	Florida	Michigan State
Virginia	Arkansas	Illinois
Boston College	Mississippi State	Northwestern
Wake Forest	Vandy	Minnesota / Purdue / Indiana

The BIG10 needs the SEC more than the SEC needs the BIG10. The ACC, in my opinion, is better in the middle, and would be curious if anyone has done a power rating comparison broken out like this. If these exact Fanduel matchups were head to head what's your predictions?

• Clemson loses to Mutts and Ohio State, I'm taking Ohio State over Mutts. Ohio State has the sickest roster in the country.
• Oregon over Texas and Florida State, Texas over Florida State
• Ole Miss with the sweep. This is where I debate. Michigan is taking a step back, but Miami is poorly coached. Could be talked into Miami, but I'll say Michigan over Miami.
• Alabama with the sweep. Wife is a Penn State grad, Franklin is CMR 2.0. I do think Louisville could beat Penn State, but it's closer than Penn State to Bama.
• LSU with the sweep, NC State vs USC is fascinating. I'll say USC, but wouldn't surprise me if NC State won that game.
• Tennessee with the sweep, then SMU, then Iowa. SMU just needs to score twice with one score being a TD to beat Iowa.
• Missouri with the sweep (pattern here), then VT, then depleted Washington. They should be lower, but going by Fanduel.
• A&M with the sweep, but would favor North Carolina over Maryland. Also understand don't sleep on Maryland, but NC takes that W.
• Interesting matchup, not sold on Nebraska. Oklahoma offensive line is huge question this year, would be a good game. I'll take Oklahoma to win both, Nebraska over Syracuse.
• Wisconsin over Auburn and Cal. Would take Auburn over Cal, Cal should be lower.
• Georgia Tech with the sweep. Kentucky could win that game, but this would be a great game to see how we stack up. I think we get the W, and Kentucky over UCLA.
• Really getting interesting here. Don't sleep on Rutgers. Manny & Duke with transfer QB is question mark, wouldn't bet any of these matchups, but I would take Rutgers over both South Carolina and Duke. Duke with the L due to turnover.
• I could see Florida with the sweep, and also Pitt with the sweep. Michigan State loses to both, I'll go hot seat Sun Belt Billy gets the W over Pitt.
• Illinois over both, but they should be higher on the BIG10 odds. Arkansas over Virginia, but could see Virginia winning this game.
• Which Boston College team shows up? Bill O'Brian first year, all the turnover, I'll take Miss State over both, but BC over Northwestern.
• Vandy dead last, the BIG10 vs Wake matchup here is fascinating, I'll take Wake, but would be a great game to watch.

When you get past Ohio State and Oregon... I think the ACC is better. The gap between the BIG10 and ACC is closer than the gap between the current BIG12 and the ACC...

 

[Techster]

Did the B1G or GT accuse anyone of committing felonies when that information finally came out though? It's one thing to discuss after the fact when you think no one cares, but ESPN and the ACC very clearly care in this situation.

GT joining the B1G was heavily discussed at the time. It wasn't after the fact. Funny how that even got out if there's an NDA. It still gets discussed occasionally now.

Jim Delany said he wouldn't discuss it a few years ago because the NDA was still in affect. President Peterson, when asked a decade after the invite about GT and B1G declined to comment (due to the same NDA most likely).

 

[bobongo]

ESPN is suggesting that members of FSU have possibly committed felonies by revealing trade secrets and they may go after them. On what planet would another ACC school see that, and say to themselves "yea, I think we should talk about this openly too"?

Could you elaborate? I'm pretty sure revealing an NDA would be a civil matter.

 

[cpf2001]

Because you are for some reason taking part of their claim as gospel that is completely unverified, even though many other parts of their claims have been found to be flawed/incorrect.

Hardly. Which part of "I've been growing more suspicious as we go longer and longer without the ACC refuting the claim." is taking it as gospel? RonJohn expressed annoyance that people were taking the option for granted, I was saying it's reasonable to see its existence as a non-zero probability and that if there's nothing to it then the ACC has a great opportunity to take back at least some of the narrative here.

But the ACC has failed at PR before. So it's believable that they think they can just ignore public opinion and let things play out in court. But some of the alternative explanations, like "the ACC is so cowed by ESPN that they would be scared of criminal prosecution if they refuted it", stretch credibility. Have we even seen a friendly reporter write something like "sources close to the conference indicate that FSU's claims about the termination option are incorrect"?

I've been growing more suspicious as we go longer and longer without the ACC refuting the claim.

The ACC is generally losing the PR battles around this, if they have an easy win like that to refute a falsehood, why not take it? Becuase the ESPN agreement is under NDA or somesuch? Why would it be that hard to get ESPN to let them share some news; ESPN could even turn it into more clicks and articles.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Too many have decided the ESPN option is to continue the broadcast contract with the ACC. I contend the ACC would not have signed that contract extension unless it was actually an extension. It is my opinion that the option is only for the ACC Network. Whether that works for ESPN or not will be the determinant for exercising the option. I believe the ACC and ESPN agreement to move the exercise date to 2025 is a sign that both parties understand the realities and have generally agreed.

The question that no one outside of ESPN can answer is which ACC events would no longer be covered. Would the coverage still be there, but move to ESPN3 or ESPN+ instead of ACCN? My guess is that fan access to football and basketball games on the ACCN might be more difficult in the future except for games with higher expected audience ratings.

If they move it off ACCN, then it becomes much more accessible through ESPN+. Right now, even on ESPN+ you have to have a subscription to ACCN through a provider (cable or streaming). It would not hurt my feelings (as far as watching games) if the ACCN went away and all the streaming games went through ESPN+. There might be less revenue, but access would be easier for remote fans.

 

[RonJohn]

Could you elaborate? I'm pretty sure revealing an NDA would be a civil matter.

I don't have the ESPN filing with me, but they cited some Florida laws that make it a felony to divulge trade secrets. They claim that information that FSU has released, or is planning to release are not simply covered by an NDA, but qualify under federal and Florida law as trade secrets and as such releasing such information is a felony.

They didn't specify exactly what information is a trade secret, and I don't recall that they said that the information was in FSU's original filing in Florida. If I recall correctly, ESPN wanted the information to be redacted in the court filings. I suppose if you save a copy of FSU's filings, and then get a copy after redactions are made then you can determine which information ESPN is talking about.

One thing that people are overlooking when believing that the "nine-year-option" is the NDA information, is that FSU included payment tables and rates in their filing. I would probably bet that that table was under the NDA. I don't know if ESPN would consider a payment schedule to be a "trade secret", but you never know.

 

[GTJackets]

Wanted to pull my conference comparison to the proper thread, but this time adding the BIG 10. Below are the rankings of each conference per Fanduel odds to win their conference. Hot take at the end.
...

 

[yeti92]

Hardly. Which part of "I've been growing more suspicious as we go longer and longer without the ACC refuting the claim." is taking it as gospel? RonJohn expressed annoyance that people were taking the option for granted, I was saying it's reasonable to see its existence as a non-zero probability and that if there's nothing to it then the ACC has a great opportunity to take back at least some of the narrative here.

But the ACC has failed at PR before. So it's believable that they think they can just ignore public opinion and let things play out in court. But some of the alternative explanations, like "the ACC is so cowed by ESPN that they would be scared of criminal prosecution if they refuted it", stretch credibility. Have we even seen a friendly reporter write something like "sources close to the conference indicate that FSU's claims about the termination option are incorrect"?

Fair enough, not you in particular but there are plenty who have taken it so.

So what this boils down to is that I think ESPN made the ACC and its members sign an NDA for a reason (to protect valuable trade information), and you think they just did it for fun(?) and won't really care if some of the information gets shared (even though they've already brought it up as an issue).

Could it be possible that as soon as FSU mentioned it, an email went out from ESPN to the ACC and its members, reminding all of them of the NDA they signed and how they are not to talk to discuss details of the contract, period? ESPN is going to protect it's business interests 1st and foremost, they do not care so much about ACC PR or they would have been championing the conference a long time ago like they do the SEC.

 

[orientalnc]

Could it be possible that as soon as FSU mentioned it, an email went out from ESPN to the ACC and its members, reminding all of them of the NDA they signed and how they are not to talk to discuss details of the contract, period?

I think this email could have come from the ACC office in Charlotte reminding everyone that the ACC members have a legal and contractual responsibility to respect the terms of the contract with ESPN. This would be normal when one member seems to be stepping over the line.

 

[iceeater1969]

Wanted to pull my conference comparison to the proper thread, but this time adding the BIG 10. Below are the rankings of each conference per Fanduel odds to win their conference. Hot take at the end.

ACC	SEC	BIG10
Clemson	Georgia	Ohio State (My bet they win the natty)
Florida State	Texas	Oregon
Miami	Ole Miss	Michigan
Louisville	Alabama	Penn State
NC State	LSU	USC (Major Tier Falloff here for me)
SMU	Tennessee	Iowa (Then Drops here)
Virginia Tech	Missouri	Washington
North Carolina	Texas A&M	Maryland
Syracuse	Oklahoma	Nebraska
California	Auburn	Wisconsin
Georgia Tech	Kentucky	UCLA
Duke	South Carolina	Rutgers
Pitt	Florida	Michigan State
Virginia	Arkansas	Illinois
Boston College	Mississippi State	Northwestern
Wake Forest	Vandy	Minnesota / Purdue / Indiana

The BIG10 needs the SEC more than the SEC needs the BIG10. The ACC, in my opinion, is better in the middle, and would be curious if anyone has done a power rating comparison broken out like this. If these exact Fanduel matchups were head to head what's your predictions?

• Clemson loses to Mutts and Ohio State, I'm taking Ohio State over Mutts. Ohio State has the sickest roster in the country.
• Oregon over Texas and Florida State, Texas over Florida State
• Ole Miss with the sweep. This is where I debate. Michigan is taking a step back, but Miami is poorly coached. Could be talked into Miami, but I'll say Michigan over Miami.
• Alabama with the sweep. Wife is a Penn State grad, Franklin is CMR 2.0. I do think Louisville could beat Penn State, but it's closer than Penn State to Bama.
• LSU with the sweep, NC State vs USC is fascinating. I'll say USC, but wouldn't surprise me if NC State won that game.
• Tennessee with the sweep, then SMU, then Iowa. SMU just needs to score twice with one score being a TD to beat Iowa.
• Missouri with the sweep (pattern here), then VT, then depleted Washington. They should be lower, but going by Fanduel.
• A&M with the sweep, but would favor North Carolina over Maryland. Also understand don't sleep on Maryland, but NC takes that W.
• Interesting matchup, not sold on Nebraska. Oklahoma offensive line is huge question this year, would be a good game. I'll take Oklahoma to win both, Nebraska over Syracuse.
• Wisconsin over Auburn and Cal. Would take Auburn over Cal, Cal should be lower.
• Georgia Tech with the sweep. Kentucky could win that game, but this would be a great game to see how we stack up. I think we get the W, and Kentucky over UCLA.
• Really getting interesting here. Don't sleep on Rutgers. Manny & Duke with transfer QB is question mark, wouldn't bet any of these matchups, but I would take Rutgers over both South Carolina and Duke. Duke with the L due to turnover.
• I could see Florida with the sweep, and also Pitt with the sweep. Michigan State loses to both, I'll go hot seat Sun Belt Billy gets the W over Pitt.
• Illinois over both, but they should be higher on the BIG10 odds. Arkansas over Virginia, but could see Virginia winning this game.
• Which Boston College team shows up? Bill O'Brian first year, all the turnover, I'll take Miss State over both, but BC over Northwestern.
• Vandy dead last, the BIG10 vs Wake matchup here is fascinating, I'll take Wake, but would be a great game to watch.

When you get past Ohio State and Oregon... I think the ACC is better. The gap between the BIG10 and ACC is closer than the gap between the current BIG12 and the ACC...

Thanks for all the data.

Quick side question.
Your list (from "fanduel" ) lists every acc team that we play ( except duke) above us. Are we predicted to be nesr bottom of acc in 24?
I have high hopes. At least middle!
Would love to play Kentucky agsin in Gator bowl!

 

[orientalnc]

If they move it off ACCN, then it becomes much more accessible through ESPN+. Right now, even on ESPN+ you have to have a subscription to ACCN through a provider (cable or streaming). It would not hurt my feelings (as far as watching games) if the ACCN went away and all the streaming games went through ESPN+. There might be less revenue, but access would be easier for remote fans.

I see your point. ACCN comes with my YouTube TV account and I don't subscribe (yet) to ESPN+.

 

[iceeater1969]

Yearly tv viewership growth:
ATL increasing 70,000
Houston 140,000
Dallas Fort Wort 150,000

 

[stinger 1957]

Why do you think the Big12 is third? They don't have better teams. They don't make more money? By what measure are they better than the ACC?

Probably as it stands today they are not better, I see them soon being a coast to coast National conference with what appears to be really good leadership at the top of their conference and filling a need for what is happening and going to happen. It looks to me like the real difference with where I am and others on here is the difference in belief of what is and will happen going forward, we seem to see that very differently. I'm one that believes at this point their train(Big10, SEC) will not stop and others seem to think it either can be stopped or it will not make much difference what they do if we can just keep the ACC together. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I expect we will get an answer to all of that in 5 years or less and I'm guessing less.

 

[RonJohn]

Probably as it stands today they are not better, I see them soon being a coast to coast National conference with what appears to be really good leadership at the top of their conference and filling a need for what is happening and going to happen. It looks to me like the real difference with where I am and others on here is the difference in belief of what is and will happen going forward, we seem to see that very differently. I'm one that believes at this point their train(Big10, SEC) will not stop and others seem to think it either can be stopped or it will not make much difference what they do if we can just keep the ACC together. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I expect we will get an answer to all of that in 5 years or less and I'm guessing less.

I don't think anyone believes that the Big10 and SEC can be "stopped". I just think that the ACC isn't as weak as many seem to believe. It was the public opinion that the ACC was going to be the first P5 conference to fold, yet it is the number three conference at the moment instead of the first to fold. The Big12 lost their first tier of teams. How many members of the Big12 were G5 teams 10 years ago? If you had listed their members as a conference 10 years ago, everyone would have believed that they were a G5 conference.

I think there is going to be a huge shift in FBS football in the next few years. I think it is highly possible that before the next round of "conference realignment" there is an entire realignment of FBS football. That is part of the reason that I question FSU's lawsuit. IF half of FBS is moved to a "professional" division and half is moved to an "academic" division, then there will be issues to work through with conference affiliations and GORs. Those issues will be probably be worked through in a more civil manner. FSU is setting themselves up as a team that everyone wants in the "professional" division, but nobody wants in their circle. i.e. Everyone wants them in the "professional" division, but nobody wants them in their conference or whatever the setup is.