Conference Realignment

[forensicbuzz]

To be precise ...

1. What did the average GT fan gain from missing a home game? Nothing gained. Opportunity to see the home team, at home, lost.
2. How many sidewalk fans did we gain in Dublin? Very very few, and if the ones gained live in Ireland, then a net zero for the program.

The average fan doesn't go to home football games anyway. We probably gain more sidewalk fans in Dublin by being the only show in town Week 0. We are center stage for the college football world, playing a game at a time when everyone is getting hyped to watch college football. All eyes on us. We show well (or even beat FSU), and the perception of what GT Football is right now changes. People see that we aren't running the spread option anymore. People see and hear the talking heads going on about Haynes King and Jamal Haynes. When GT shuts down FSU's offense, the narrative about GT having a lousy defense starts to change. We get a huge boost.

If we play FSU Week 3 or 4 at BDS, then we're just another game on TV, possibly on the ACCN, so not even a nationally televised game.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

To be precise ...

1. What did the average GT fan gain from missing a home game? Nothing gained. Opportunity to see the home team, at home, lost.

False. They gained a program that left that game better off financially than if they had played a sold out home game and with the recruiting pitch of playing for GT might get you a trip to Ireland. You never know what might tip a recruit our way.

1. How many sidewalk fans did we gain in Dublin? Very very few, and if the ones gained live in Ireland, then a net zero for the program.

Arguably more sidewalk fans were made by this game than what we make by playing at home. GT is maybe the 4th or 5th most popular college team in the ATL area. uga, Bama, Auburn, UF, and UT, and possibly even Clemson have more fans in the ATL than we do. If you don't believe that, check out the merchandise racks in the stores. Playing in Ireland does absolutely nothing to hurt us and has been financially beneficial as well as giving us needed TV exposure.

So again, I ask, how was the sharing of provably false information winning?

 

[Techster]

Has anyone seen the Cal Bears football recruiting billboard directly across from Main GT campus on 75/85? I saw it the other day while driving north on the 75/85 connector.

I thought that was interesting. Cal is located in one of the most fertile recruiting territories in the country, and they can take in JR college recruits a lot easier than GT can. They don't need to recruit in GA. It's interesting that they're spending money to recruit in GA, directly in front of another ACC member school.

This shows you the importance of Atlanta/GA in realignment, and also how realignment has changed how schools are operating.

 

[bobongo]

Has anyone seen the Cal Bears football recruiting billboard directly across from Main GT campus on 75/85? I saw it the other day while driving north on the 75/85 connector.

I thought that was interesting. Cal is located in one of the most fertile recruiting territories in the country, and they can take in JR college recruits a lot easier than GT can. They don't need to recruit in GA. It's interesting that they're spending money to recruit in GA, directly in front of another ACC member school.

This shows you the importance of Atlanta/GA in realignment, and also how realignment has changed how schools are operating.

 

[Techster]

View attachment 16451

Thanks. That one is placed in Charlotte, but the graphic is the same as Atlanta. Apparently, Cal Alumni want to get them placed in every ACC market. Here's more on it, with a post and photo of the Atlanta location:

Billboard Project | Bear Insider

Billboard Project discussion on the Bear Insider Football Growls forum.

bearinsider.com

 

[Schlandy]

Anyone know how ticket sales look for Dublin?

 

[Bennett]

Anyone know how ticket sales look for Dublin?

Supposedly sold out.

 

[AUFC]

Supposedly sold out.

I think they've been suppressing supply to make tickets look scarce. I know they've had a few periodic rollouts of certain seating blocks but I would expect sales to open up more the week of.

 

[HurricaneJacket]

https://www.myfloridalegal.com/sites/default/files/2024-08/acc-public-records.pdf

out.reddit.com

Heavily redacted, but the Florida sunshine law gives us this about the ACC Multimedia agreement

 

[CEB]

https://www.myfloridalegal.com/sites/default/files/2024-08/acc-public-records.pdf

out.reddit.com

Heavily redacted, but the Florida sunshine law gives us this about the ACC Multimedia agreement

Geees… not much to take from that. With all the redaction, everyone can see only what they want to see and the keyboard warriors will go nuts.

One thing I did notice is the extension language 14.1 in amended and restated agreement contemplates a start of July 1,2027 and the unredactwd “term” of the previous amendment contemplates and end date of June 30, 2027… so those would seem to tie. But why redact the “term” of the amended and restated agreement if it was unchanged from the previous amendment? Just to stir the conspiracy theory with us?

 

[ChicagobasedJacket]

Geees… not much to take from that. With all the redaction, everyone can see only what they want to see and the keyboard warriors will go nuts.

One thing I did notice is the extension language 14.1 in amended and restated agreement contemplates a start of July 1,2027 and the unredactwd “term” of the previous amendment contemplates and end date of June 30, 2027… so those would seem to tie. But why redact the “term” of the amended and restated agreement if it was unchanged from the previous amendment? Just to stir the conspiracy theory with us?

Here’s an FSU On3 article about it https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-s...ts-to-florida-attorney-general-see-documents/

 

[RonJohn]

Geees… not much to take from that. With all the redaction, everyone can see only what they want to see and the keyboard warriors will go nuts.

One thing I did notice is the extension language 14.1 in amended and restated agreement contemplates a start of July 1,2027 and the unredactwd “term” of the previous amendment contemplates and end date of June 30, 2027… so those would seem to tie. But why redact the “term” of the amended and restated agreement if it was unchanged from the previous amendment? Just to stir the conspiracy theory with us?

It appears that the ESPN option to "cancel" the contract is actually an option to extend or not extend the agreement. It is heavily redacted after that language, so it isn't clear if it is the entire agreement or portions of the agreement. We do know for certain now that ESPN has some kind of option to extend or not extend something. But it doesn't help to understand exactly what that is.

It also appears that there is a chart for payment schedules included in Exhibit B of the extensión agreement. FSU posted a chart with the years 2027-2036 blank. The chart in this document is redacted, but I seriously doubt that the chart in Exhibit B show lines for those years with blank entries.

 

[HurricaneJacket]

Geees… not much to take from that. With all the redaction, everyone can see only what they want to see and the keyboard warriors will go nuts.

One thing I did notice is the extension language 14.1 in amended and restated agreement contemplates a start of July 1,2027 and the unredactwd “term” of the previous amendment contemplates and end date of June 30, 2027… so those would seem to tie. But why redact the “term” of the amended and restated agreement if it was unchanged from the previous amendment? Just to stir the conspiracy theory with us?

That date is an interesting one, just everything is so redacted I am not sure what to make of it

 

[RonJohn]

Geees… not much to take from that. With all the redaction, everyone can see only what they want to see and the keyboard warriors will go nuts.

One thing I did notice is the extension language 14.1 in amended and restated agreement contemplates a start of July 1,2027 and the unredactwd “term” of the previous amendment contemplates and end date of June 30, 2027… so those would seem to tie. But why redact the “term” of the amended and restated agreement if it was unchanged from the previous amendment? Just to stir the conspiracy theory with us?

Especially since ESPN and the ACC both made announcements in 2016 that the extension was until 2036.

 

[TechPhi97]

Here’s an FSU On3 article about it https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-s...ts-to-florida-attorney-general-see-documents/

This is hilarious. The article stats that "there appears to be confirmation of Florida State’s contention that the ACC’s long-term TV deal could actually be scrapped by ESPN in 2027" is just plain wrong. That section of the document is titled "Extension Option: [redacted]" and then goes on to tie the extension to the launch date of the ACC Network. There is heavy redaction, but it seems highly probably that the extension applies to the ACC Network, not the to the media rights agreement. The reason I say highly probable:

- This component wasn't in prior contracts, and was only introduced when other ACC Network language was introduced
- The Network Agreement that covers the formation and operation of the ACC Network includes wording about extensions
- The actual text in the paragraph ties the timeline for extension to "no later than two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network."

The ACC network launched on 8/12/2019, so it seems like this extension would have to be in the hands of the ACC by 8/11/2021. The last document is date 8/10/2021 which applies to the ACC Network extension option. By all accounts, this is the date when they have to declare if they will extend the option was moved to 2025 or 2026 (it's in the history of this thread).

That's my reading. The garnet-colored glasses crowd is reading into this something that isn't there, as usual. All IMHO.

 

[CEB]

Here’s an FSU On3 article about it https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-s...ts-to-florida-attorney-general-see-documents/

That’s a remarkably even handed take from Warchant. They were pretty careful to say “may” and “could” and refrained from a lot of speculation.

Florida AG seems to be a goof. This heavily redacted document is a “victory for transparency” and she refers to it as a public document being withheld by the ACC… She must be up for reelection.

 

[CEB]

This is hilarious. The article stats that "there appears to be confirmation of Florida State’s contention that the ACC’s long-term TV deal could actually be scrapped by ESPN in 2027" is just plain wrong. That section of the document is titled "Extension Option: [redacted]" and then goes on to tie the extension to the launch date of the ACC Network. There is heavy redaction, but it seems highly probably that the extension applies to the ACC Network, not the to the media rights agreement. The reason I say highly probable:

- This component wasn't in prior contracts, and was only introduced when other ACC Network language was introduced
- The Network Agreement that covers the formation and operation of the ACC Network includes wording about extensions
- The actual text in the paragraph ties the timeline for extension to "no later than two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network."

The ACC network launched on 8/12/2019, so it seems like this extension would have to be in the hands of the ACC by 8/11/2021. The last document is date 8/10/2021 which applies to the ACC Network extension option. By all accounts, this is the date when they have to declare if they will extend the option was moved to 2025 or 2026 (it's in the history of this thread).

That's my reading. The garnet-colored glasses crowd is reading into this something that isn't there, as usual. All IMHO.

You’re right, but I thought the actual story was pretty fair. As usual, the headline was sensationalized.

 

[CEB]

It appears that the ESPN option to "cancel" the contract is actually an option to extend or not extend the agreement. It is heavily redacted after that language, so it isn't clear if it is the entire agreement or portions of the agreement. We do know for certain now that ESPN has some kind of option to extend or not extend something. But it doesn't help to understand exactly what that is.

It also appears that there is a chart for payment schedules included in Exhibit B of the extensión agreement. FSU posted a chart with the years 2027-2036 blank. The chart in this document is redacted, but I seriously doubt that the chart in Exhibit B show lines for those years with blank entries.

Agree… although the Extension being 14.1 (as opposed to a few bullets below) would suggest it’s comprehensive. That said, I don’t understand why they would redact the Term in one agreement and not the other unless it had changed… but an extension starting in 2027 wouldn’t be accurate if the term had already extended, which gives some credence to the notion that the extension is only partial.
We can talk it in circles, but the amended and restated agreement has a redacted term which we don’t know. As you point out in your next post, both ESPN and ACC touted an agreement to 2036, so it’s really hard to understand what extension is contemplated in 2027.

My conspiracy…
There is a notation at the bottom stating trade secrets are redacted in accordance with Florida Law. Are we to presume this was a clean document that was then redacted by FL attorneys (not the ACC / ESPN)? Maybe some “honest mistake” in redaction omission is here to create more pressure from public?

 

[CEB]

Agree… although the Extension being 14.1 (as opposed to a few bullets below) would suggest it’s comprehensive. That said, I don’t understand why they would redact the Term in one agreement and not the other unless it had changed… but an extension starting in 2027 wouldn’t be accurate if the term had already extended, which gives some credence to the notion that the extension is only partial.
We can talk it in circles, but the amended and restated agreement has a redacted term which we don’t know. As you point out in your next post, both ESPN and ACC touted an agreement to 2036, so it’s really hard to understand what extension is contemplated in 2027.

My conspiracy…
There is a notation at the bottom stating trade secrets are redacted in accordance with Florida Law. Are we to presume this was a clean document that was then redacted by FL attorneys (not the ACC / ESPN)? Maybe some “honest mistake” in redaction omission is here to create more pressure from public?

Missed the edit window… more evidence of my conspiracy.

The two snips below are paragraph 14.1 from the original agreement and the amended and restated agreement, respectively.

The original agreement has the entire paragraph redacted so it’s impossible to confirm the language was “extension” language, but there is little to no chance that they didn’t start with the original agreement when drafting the amended and restated.

With that, note the following:
- original paragraph 14.1 is less than 1/4 of the page. A&R version is the bottom third of the page plus several lines in the next page. The paragraph has grown considerably (nearly double) and the A&R version says its subject ti the rest of this very long paragraph before the rest of the paragraph is redacted
- the title of the paragraphs changed in length. The original title went only halfway across the page. The A&R version goes more than 3/4 across. Presumably there is more of a qualifier in the A&R version.

The only place extension language wasn’t redacted is the very first part of the A&R version. It looks like it was strategically done to show just what the FL AG and FSU wants us to see…

 

[UgaBlows]

That’s so redacted it’s not even worth talking about