Conference Realignment

[roadkill]

Once again, I am not a lawyer, but: Why does it matter if it is a penalty or not? Aren't court decisions on unconscionable consequences of a contract isolated to people who don't have the capability of understanding what they signed? Didn't all of the members of the ACC have teams of lawyers looking at the documents before they signed them? Didn't Clemson and FSU both publicly state the actual consequences of the documents and state that they were great for the conference and their schools when they signed them?

Do courts uphold things that I consider unconscionable? Yes they do. I saw a YouTube video discussion about someone who purchased an RV that had warranty issues. They tried to sue the retailer and the manufacturer. In the stack of documents that they signed while purchasing the RV was a promise not to sue the retailer, and an arbitration agreement with the manufacturer that requires arbitration be filed in the home county of the manufacturer. When he filed suit, the courts didn't say that it was unconscionable to take away his right to sue. The court said that he willingly signed contracts saying he wouldn't the retailer at all, and would use arbitration in any disagreement with the manufacturer. Too many people believe that you have rights that extend past contracts. You need to be very careful what you sign, because you might find out that your signature gave away rights that you thought you were unable to give away.

Not a lawyer either, but if a court rules that liquidated damages are unreasonably high, it becomes a penalty. According to this, that makes it unenforceable.

penalty clause

www.law.cornell.edu

Edit to add: That's why it's important that the exit fee has some connection to reality.

Edit (2): Arbitration clauses are considered as ways of mitigating what would otherwise seem to be unreasonable, thus they are allowed.

 

[RonJohn]

Well, right off the bat for the B1G that wouldn't be true because USC and UCLA are literally about 10 miles away from each other. They are two of the newest B1G expansion members.

As far as the SEC, that's actually a good question. I've read in several places by writers that's what they believe, but after some sleuthing I found this directly from SEC commissioner Sankey:

SEC commissioner on realignment: 'I hope everybody stays where they are' :: WRALSportsFan.com

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and other college athletics leaders lobbied members of Congress for federal legislation and participated in a summit on the future of college athletics.

www.wralsportsfan.com

Asked about the biggest myths surrounding conference expansion and realignment, Sankey said he had several:

• "There's a policy about not adding schools within a state. ... It may seem that way," he said, referencing the belief that Clemson or Florida State, for example, would not be welcomed because the league already has South Carolina and Florida. "There are rules and structures within these Grant of Rights, within TV contracts, within the conference bylaws. ... We follow those. I know what those are and it created a level of difficulty."

Could be posturing, but who really knows anymore. Guess we'll see when the ACC GOR is expired or figured out.

But he said that AFTER adding a second school from Texas. With people like Sankey you have to parse words very carefully to try to decipher what the actual meaning could be. Also, in that quote, there is a ...., which means that some words were left out of the quote. Those words could possibly change the meaning. Great salesmen tell you something that makes you believe one thing, when in fact the words they are using describe quote the opposite.

 

[RonJohn]

Not a lawyer either, but if a court rules that liquidated damages are unreasonably high, it becomes a penalty. According to this, that makes it unenforceable.

penalty clause

www.law.cornell.edu

Edit to add: That's why it's important that the exit fee has some connection to reality.

Edit (2): Arbitration clauses are considered as ways of mitigating what would otherwise seem to be unreasonable, thus they are allowed.

If three times your yearly earnings are legally unreasonable, then I want GT to get $10.5 million back from TFG. Same kind of contract breakage.

 

[roadkill]

At start
Espn - wanted to pay ACC for media rights.
Acc says yes& we all want equal pay from u.
Espn can you really all agree?
.ACC yes we can keep everyvbody together.
Acc - look we have poision pill deal called GOR.

ESPN ACC SAYS LETS DO IT.

Acc now says we are not together - GOR BEING TESTED.

ESPN - don't care about section numbers of GOR

Espn - you are hurting the brand. .

I haven't seen anything that the ACC and ESPN discussed the conference media payouts. That is all in the ACC Bylaws. As far as I know nobody has seen the ACC-ESPN contract, but i seriously doubt it details how the ACC is supposed to pay each member.

I don't disagree that ESPN probably isn't happy with how the ACC looks now. I just don't see anywhere that the ACC and ESPN have ever agreed to or even discussed even distributions of conference revenues.

I don't see ESPN being concerned about the ACC's "brand". On the other hand, they are probably concerned about the overall media market value of the ACC if key members leave. If I were ESPN, I would be looking at the current lawsuits as an opportunity to renegotiate their media contract with a risk discount.

 

[roadkill]

If three times your yearly earnings are legally unreasonable, then I want GT to get $10.5 million back from TFG. Same kind of contract breakage.

The problem with TFG's contract is that, at the outset, we agreed to pay him for 7 years regardless of performance. While it might seem unreasonable to continue paying him, that was stated upfront in the contract to pay him as long as he was not terminated for cause, with no other conditions attached.
I also think that the ACC's exit fee isn't that unreasonable, but I would have preferred that it be tied to the damage to the ACC's media market value rather than operating expenses. And again, all members signed it with their eyes open.

 

[Techster]

But he said that AFTER adding a second school from Texas. With people like Sankey you have to parse words very carefully to try to decipher what the actual meaning could be. Also, in that quote, there is a ...., which means that some words were left out of the quote. Those words could possibly change the meaning. Great salesmen tell you something that makes you believe one thing, when in fact the words they are using describe quote the opposite.

Yup...as I said, lots of posturing going on right now. Conference commissioners are great at it, and also great at double talk.

Last year, after USC and UCLA joined the B1G, their commissioner said they were done with expansion....only to add Oregon and Washington later on.

When it comes to realignment, it's fun to speculate and parse words, but it's all conjecture until the dust settles. Still pretty entertaining to speculate though...

 

[RonJohn]

The problem with TFG's contract is that, at the outset, we agreed to pay him for 7 years regardless of performance. While it might seem unreasonable to continue paying him, that was stated upfront in the contract to pay him as long as he was not terminated for cause, with no other conditions attached.
I also think that the ACC's exit fee isn't that unreasonable, but I would have preferred that it be tied to the damage to the ACC's media market value rather than operating expenses. And again, all members signed it with their eyes open.

I think we are making the same point. This isn't a case of a landlord-tenant in a poor neighborhood where the tenant is tricked into an unreasonable contract. Everyone had their eyes wide open when signing the contracts.

 

[orientalnc]

Once again, I am not a lawyer, but: Why does it matter if it is a penalty or not? Aren't court decisions on unconscionable consequences of a contract isolated to people who don't have the capability of understanding what they signed? Didn't all of the members of the ACC have teams of lawyers looking at the documents before they signed them? Didn't Clemson and FSU both publicly state the actual consequences of the documents and state that they were great for the conference and their schools when they signed them?

Do courts uphold things that I consider unconscionable? Yes they do. I saw a YouTube video discussion about someone who purchased an RV that had warranty issues. They tried to sue the retailer and the manufacturer. In the stack of documents that they signed while purchasing the RV was a promise not to sue the retailer, and an arbitration agreement with the manufacturer that requires arbitration be filed in the home county of the manufacturer. When he filed suit, the courts didn't say that it was unconscionable to take away his right to sue. The court said that he willingly signed contracts saying he wouldn't the retailer at all, and would use arbitration in any disagreement with the manufacturer. Too many people believe that you have rights that extend past contracts. You need to be very careful what you sign, because you might find out that your signature gave away rights that you thought you were unable to give away.

These are good points. If Phillips called it a penalty he needs to keep his mouth shut. But the issue is the contract language. That is why written contracts are essential.

 

[iceeater1969]

We'll know the fate of ACC by the beginning of upcoming FB season, will not know where every school ends up that will take longer. That is my call, we'll see.

Agree.
These young guns belive in court outcomes..

The only thing that makes ESPN happy about acc is with all the squabbling, they have cover to slice and dice - to restore order

"Sorry u college prez couldn't workout a deal. Take or leave it : u top 4 go here in to sec where u gradually get full pay based on performance. The rest of u= your tv money is cut 50% however each year the top 3 teams in conference are paid double. If your tv ratings increase we will escalate a verychealthy portion to you individually .

Lets make the people love acc football
See ya in the fall"

Everybody is happy

 

[bobongo]

And again, all members signed it with their eyes open.

Yeah, it's not like some unsuspecting tenant got conned by fine print. Presumably, every signee had lawyers going over the contract.

 

[GTflyer0116]

I think you guys need to get to the final understanding that all this realignment is about brand value NOT TV markets and definitely not academics!

I love GT but our brand is not that of the others (Clemson, UNC, FSU). Miami I honestly can’t say at this point.

We absolutely need to be realistic and accept that we and our other ACC ‘equals’ (BC, Syracuse, Wake, Duke, Pitt, and maybe VT/UVA) need to start talking to the Big12 about merging.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Well, right off the bat for the B1G that wouldn't be true because USC and UCLA are literally about 10 miles away from each other. They are two of the newest B1G expansion members.

As far as the SEC, that's actually a good question. I've read in several places by writers that's what they believe, but after some sleuthing I found this directly from SEC commissioner Sankey:

SEC commissioner on realignment: 'I hope everybody stays where they are' :: WRALSportsFan.com

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and other college athletics leaders lobbied members of Congress for federal legislation and participated in a summit on the future of college athletics.

www.wralsportsfan.com

Asked about the biggest myths surrounding conference expansion and realignment, Sankey said he had several:

• "There's a policy about not adding schools within a state. ... It may seem that way," he said, referencing the belief that Clemson or Florida State, for example, would not be welcomed because the league already has South Carolina and Florida. "There are rules and structures within these Grant of Rights, within TV contracts, within the conference bylaws. ... We follow those. I know what those are and it created a level of difficulty."

Could be posturing, but who really knows anymore. Guess we'll see when the ACC GOR is expired or figured out.

I agree. My comment was merely that the B1G was the only conference that had been discussed (by knowledgeable people) to not want to duplicate media markets. I didn't say I believed that. I could easily see the SEC circling the wagons around the top teams in their territory (or not),

 

[stinger 1957]

I think you guys need to get to the final understanding that all this realignment is about brand value NOT TV markets and definitely not academics!

I love GT but our brand is not that of the others (Clemson, UNC, FSU). Miami I honestly can’t say at this point.

We absolutely need to be realistic and accept that we and our other ACC ‘equals’ (BC, Syracuse, Wake, Duke, Pitt, and maybe VT/UVA) need to start talking to the Big12 about merging.

I think you guys need to get to the final understanding that all this realignment is about brand value NOT TV markets and definitely not academics!

IMO what you say depends on whether you're thinking short term or long term. Brands come and go with winning and losing. Many of the SEC people are making the argument about brands because that is what they are hanging their hat on. I would take both brands and media mkts. CFB is in massive change as we all know and the product is going to present itself very differently going fwd I'm pretty sure. Academics may become much more important ( along with endowments ) going fwd if we end up with half or less of higher education institutions which I have seen predicted more than once and makes a lot of sense when i look at the big picture. I could see a lot of the rural schools in the SEC with problems in coming years. Thus if I'm right and certainly that could be questioned I would want to go with the long term plan rather than hang my hat on brand alone. I remember when GT was one of the best brands in the country and have watched that go away over the years. I remember what 'bama was in 2007 and before, certainly not what it has become. It can head back the other way if they don't keep winning.

 

[RonJohn]

I think you guys need to get to the final understanding that all this realignment is about brand value NOT TV markets and definitely not academics!

I love GT but our brand is not that of the others (Clemson, UNC, FSU). Miami I honestly can’t say at this point.

We absolutely need to be realistic and accept that we and our other ACC ‘equals’ (BC, Syracuse, Wake, Duke, Pitt, and maybe VT/UVA) need to start talking to the Big12 about merging.

I think you are somewhat misguided also. All of those factors will come into play.

"definitely not academics!"? I don't think academics will be a primary reason for a conference selecting a school, but given similar schools, it could be a deciding factor. Take FSU vs Miami. If we consider that the "brand" is almost equal, and that the TV market (FL) is equal, then the Big10 would likely take AAU Miami over FSU. Once again, not saying it is THE factor in the decision, but it will play a role. (at least for the Big10).

"NOT TV markets"? If Texas A&M were to join the Big 10, the Texas market would add over $10 million per month to the Big Ten Network's revenue. That is just based on difference in price of the network in and out of market. That isn't even considering that some companies, like Comcast don't even carry the Big Ten Network out of market. The revenue would probably be significantly higher just for A&M being in Texas, not even anything to do with them being a big brand. Still to this day, there is a lot of money to be made in media markets, and the conferences are not going to just ignore that.

Brand only? Another thing to consider is that if the super conferences expel Vanderbilt and Rutgers and fill themselves up with powerhouse teams is that there won't be anyone left to beat up on. Teams that are used to having very good seasons, like LSU and Auburn will find themselves the new Rutgers and Vanderbilt. I don't think that building the top-level only admittance league that people are projecting is going to occur.

I am not saying that brand doesn't matter. I am not saying that academics is going to trump everything else. What I am saying is that all of these items, plus others will be considerations. What level each plays, I don't know. I don't believe that anybody does.

 

[Techwood Relict]

I could easily see the SEC circling the wagons around the top teams in their territory (or not),

Seems like you've locked in your answer

 

[airspace]

I think you guys need to get to the final understanding that all this realignment is about brand value NOT TV markets and definitely not academics!

IMO what you say depends on whether you're thinking short term or long term. Brands come and go with winning and losing. Many of the SEC people are making the argument about brands because that is what they are hanging their hat on. I would take both brands and media mkts. CFB is in massive change as we all know and the product is going to present itself very differently going fwd I'm pretty sure. Academics may become much more important ( along with endowments ) going fwd if we end up with half or less of higher education institutions which I have seen predicted more than once and makes a lot of sense when i look at the big picture. I could see a lot of the rural schools in the SEC with problems in coming years. Thus if I'm right and certainly that could be questioned I would want to go with the long term plan rather than hang my hat on brand alone. I remember when GT was one of the best brands in the country and have watched that go away over the years. I remember what 'bama was in 2007 and before, certainly not what it has become. It can head back the other way if they don't keep winning.

Just my 2 cents from Big 10 country (been following Big 10 expansion since the mid 80's).
When USC/UCLA were added, the Big 10 did not plan to expand further west at the time. There focus was on the SE. But when the PAC blew up, they were forced to act. Thus they added Oregon and Washington at 40%, more than what they would get in the PAC but less than a whole share till the next media deal at 100%.
Important part. Fox wanted Oregon and the Presidents wanted Washington.
Now the Big 10 is looking to expand SE. Do you think they are only going to add 2? Like the west coast was never going to leave usc/ucla on an island, why would they leave FSU and who else on an island? I believe they will add at least 4 from the SE. Who don't know, but I would have to.imagine GT fits in there with the Presidents (much like Washington).
Again just my 2 cents - good luck.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Seems like you've locked in your answer

I could see the SEC doing both, neither, or some portion thereof.

 

[Richard7125]

I think you guys need to get to the final understanding that all this realignment is about brand value NOT TV markets and definitely not academics!

IMO what you say depends on whether you're thinking short term or long term. Brands come and go with winning and losing. Many of the SEC people are making the argument about brands because that is what they are hanging their hat on. I would take both brands and media mkts. CFB is in massive change as we all know and the product is going to present itself very differently going fwd I'm pretty sure. Academics may become much more important ( along with endowments ) going fwd if we end up with half or less of higher education institutions which I have seen predicted more than once and makes a lot of sense when i look at the big picture. I could see a lot of the rural schools in the SEC with problems in coming years. Thus if I'm right and certainly that could be questioned I would want to go with the long term plan rather than hang my hat on brand alone. I remember when GT was one of the best brands in the country and have watched that go away over the years. I remember what 'bama was in 2007 and before, certainly not what it has become. It can head back the other way if they don't keep winning.

Bama is a bad example. They had 12 national titles prior to Saban going on his run. Sure, they had a lull from the mid 90s to mid 2000s, but suggesting they weren't a massive football brand prior to Saban is inaccurate.

 

[Richard7125]

This is a very good point...an angle I hadn't considered before.

The SEC might think it better to have Tech on board than to give the Big a foothold.

How impactful would it be to the SEC if the Big10 had a team in Atlanta? I can see why that may have been important 30 years ago, but I don't think it carries that much weight anymore. I'm sure it's mentioned during discussions, but not enough to instigate a preemptive move by the SEC.

 

[iceeater1969]

Brand is about fan enthusiasm.
The higher the enthusiam the more advertisers love to be associateed with that brand.

Good sests at the recent uga verses alabama championship cost more than my 50vyd line gt season tickets Clearly positive for uga and ala brand.

At the uga game when we were besten 45 to 0, the season ticket sests on the east stands had uga fans wesring red. Clearly negative about gt millionaire brand. How broke or disloyal does a gt alumni have to be to sell ticket to dog fan.

That is the day gt went to g5--- unless Angel , Batt Key are miracle workers.