Conference Realignment

[SOWEGA Jacket]

I get it, it's fun to speculate about conspiracy theories and discount the plain facts of the situation that the Committee, the Chair of which was from the ACC, stated as their reasoning. Even if they were looking for an excuse, I happen to agree that FSU with Brock Glenn was not CFP material. It doesn't matter one iota that an NFL team won a Super Bowl with good defense and a mediocre QB. FSU wasn't winning anything in the playoff with Brock Glenn.

That’s fine, but neither was Bama with Milroe at QB. But they sure were given the chance.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Your last paragraph is pure speculative nonsense.

Welcome to the world of message boards.

 

[RonJohn]

This guy is a lawyer and has been following the case pretty closely. I expect him to add more to his response soon. David McKenzie

Another lawyer noted in the comments that, should FSU prevail in this, the decision by the "FSU judge" will be appealable anyway.

In the Tampabay.com article linked in the tweet he responded to, it says that the argument is that the GOR includes all of the rights “necessary for the Conference to perform” the obligations of the ESPN contract. FSU is saying that if FSU is no longer a member of the ACC, then the rights to their sports programs are not necessary for the ACC to perform the obligations of the ESPN contract. I believe part of the Clemson lawsuit basically said that the "whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term" only applies to games that were played while a former member was a member of the ACC. That the ACC would still own the copyrights of any games played before Clemson left the conference, but not after they leave.

Like I said earlier, it seems to me that summary judgement would be to apply law to a set of facts that are not in dispute. The meaning of the GOR contract language is pretty much by definition a dispute. The judge would have to find facts, not just apply laws to an agreed to set of facts. I don't have a lot of legal knowledge, but summary judgement would seem to be very premature.

Also of note. In the tampabay.com article he states that the -necessary to perform- argument has been FSU's argument throughout all of the progress of the lawsuit. That is not true. It was not included in the original lawsuit. It was not included in the amended lawsuit. Clemson was the first to bring up that argument about language in the GOR. Either the writer for tampabay.com is biased, or more likely he is just being lazy and parroting statements provided to him by FSU.

 

[Kwdan]

Let's hope the ACC can pull something off. Might need to try and raid the leftovers of the PAC / Big12. Then maybe you can convince ND to join, especially if Stanford is in the league

Good thoughts. ND makes too much money to join any conference. They have their own tv contract!
Yikes. With all that money they would be better. If they had kept o Leary they would have found greatness again.

 

[Kwdan]

Feels inevitable that sec and big ten will raid the acc. Some will get left out. Better hope big ten wants Atlanta and our academics.

Sadly I think because of all the money the big10 and sec will use the ACC as a source to raid transfers and give them more money.
Several tech players transfered to them for what seems like money and maybe more exposure
Coach key has seemed to retain some stars and has recruited some potential stars. He is selling “the 30 year decision “.

 

[bke1984]

I have little interest in playing football in the B1G. I’m fine with the ACC as it stands, and I think the money issue is way overblown. Even with the revenue gap we are better positioned than a bulk of the teams in the B1G and the SEC. If the ACC falls apart I want to land in a conference where we play teams that are more geographically aligned with us. Right now this is the SEC, what it would be in 10+ years is beyond my ability to predict.

 

[awbuzz]

...,what it would be in 10+ years is beyond my ability to predict.

That is future me and future you's problem to worry about in the future.

 

[orientalnc]

In the Tampabay.com article linked in the tweet he responded to, it says that the argument is that the GOR includes all of the rights “necessary for the Conference to perform” the obligations of the ESPN contract. FSU is saying that if FSU is no longer a member of the ACC, then the rights to their sports programs are not necessary for the ACC to perform the obligations of the ESPN contract. I believe part of the Clemson lawsuit basically said that the "whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term" only applies to games that were played while a former member was a member of the ACC. That the ACC would still own the copyrights of any games played before Clemson left the conference, but not after they leave.

Like I said earlier, it seems to me that summary judgement would be to apply law to a set of facts that are not in dispute. The meaning of the GOR contract language is pretty much by definition a dispute. The judge would have to find facts, not just apply laws to an agreed to set of facts. I don't have a lot of legal knowledge, but summary judgement would seem to be very premature.

Also of note. In the tampabay.com article he states that the -necessary to perform- argument has been FSU's argument throughout all of the progress of the lawsuit. That is not true. It was not included in the original lawsuit. It was not included in the amended lawsuit. Clemson was the first to bring up that argument about language in the GOR. Either the writer for tampabay.com is biased, or more likely he is just being lazy and parroting statements provided to him by FSU.

The problem FSU and Clemson have with this argument is the 1st paragraph of the GOR. It clearly states the schools give their media rights to the ACC without any exceptions until 2036 and do so even if they are no longer conference members.

Also, FSU is stating in the request for SJ that the facts are no longer in dispute and the only decision is about the law. Clearly, the ACC disagrees with any notion that they and FSU agree about the facts in this case.

I am hoping David McKenzie will break this down in the coming days. His analysis has been dead on every time.

Also, the NY Times ran a story recently that stated the February "look in" is about tweaking the agreement to allow the the conference to have better (or more) control over gametimes and other similar changes. The writer said nothing gives ESPN the right to abandon the agreement. Given its profitability, they wouldn't. Also, in the short run carriage rates are fixed. The cable companies signed contracts with Disney/ESPN to carry the ESPN programming at a certain price for a certain length of time.

 

[bobongo]

FSU wasn't winning anything in the playoff with Brock Glenn.

Did someone mention "speculative nonsense?" With their defense, no one knows what they would have won.

 

[RonJohn]

The problem FSU and Clemson have with this argument is the 1st paragraph of the GOR. It clearly states the schools give their media rights to the ACC without any exceptions until 2036 and do so even if they are no longer conference members.

I agree with your reading of the GOR. However, the Clemson (and now FSU) argument to me seems to be along the lines of "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". They are trying to parse the words to mean that the rights are granted to current games for current members and past games for members who left. My limited understanding of contract law is that any ambiguity in contracts is understood to be in the favor of the party who did not write the contract. Clemson and FSU may have some traction if they can show that there is ambiguity. However, the ACC can counter that with evidence of how FSU and Clemson interpreted the contract when they signed it. Which goes to your next point:

Also, FSU is stating in the request for SJ that the facts are no longer in dispute and the only decision is about the law. Clearly, the ACC disagrees with any notion that they and FSU agree about the facts in this case.

I am hoping David McKenzie will break this down in the coming days. His analysis has been dead on every time.

With respect to the current/former member argument, the ACC could bring in former FSU trustees to discuss what FSU thought in 2016. They can demand discovery of what FSU trustees were saying internally about the GOR in 2016. The facts are definitely in dispute, and summary judgement is extremely premature in my humble, non-legal opinion. If summary judgement is granted, I don't see how it stands up on appeal. If it does stand up on appeal, I think the ACC would probably appeal to federal court.

I think the ACC should agree to the FSU request to have a retroactive exit from the ACC in August of 2023. They should agree and request summary judgement for that single item. Then they should demand repayment of 2023 and 2024 payments to FSU, and no longer allow FSU to be involved in ACC business. They should demand the exit fee as of August 2023 be payable immediately. They should state the ACC's belief that the GOR still is in force, even though FSU from their own request has left the conference. That is playing hardball, and we would see how serious FSU is about all of this. If the ACC made such an agreement, then this would actually be an item in which no facts are in dispute and the judge could grant summary judgement.

I too am eager to see McKinzie's response to this filing. He stated that he is on vacation in Colorado, but will give his insights soon.

 

[iceeater1969]

I agree with your reading of the GOR. However, the Clemson (and now FSU) argument to me seems to be along the lines of "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". They are trying to parse the words to mean that the rights are granted to current games for current members and past games for members who left. My limited understanding of contract law is that any ambiguity in contracts is understood to be in the favor of the party who did not write the contract. Clemson and FSU may have some traction if they can show that there is ambiguity. However, the ACC can counter that with evidence of how FSU and Clemson interpreted the contract when they signed it. Which goes to your next point:


With respect to the current/former member argument, the ACC could bring in former FSU trustees to discuss what FSU thought in 2016. They can demand discovery of what FSU trustees were saying internally about the GOR in 2016. The facts are definitely in dispute, and summary judgement is extremely premature in my humble, non-legal opinion. If summary judgement is granted, I don't see how it stands up on appeal. If it does stand up on appeal, I think the ACC would probably appeal to federal court.

I think the ACC should agree to the FSU request to have a retroactive exit from the ACC in August of 2023. They should agree and request summary judgement for that single item. Then they should demand repayment of 2023 and 2024 payments to FSU, and no longer allow FSU to be involved in ACC business. They should demand the exit fee as of August 2023 be payable immediately. They should state the ACC's belief that the GOR still is in force, even though FSU from their own request has left the conference. That is playing hardball, and we would see how serious FSU is about all of this. If the ACC made such an agreement, then this would actually be an item in which no facts are in dispute and the judge could grant summary judgement.

I too am eager to see McKinzie's response to this filing. He stated that he is on vacation in Colorado, but will give his insights soon.

So often on simple 50 million dollar contract disputes , i heard this" vacation, sick, other schedule excuse during interogatory ( both party assemble lawyers with their experts at one time with some in same place as interrogatory) used to extend legal road map.

On your point of ACC should let fsu exit and then with hold future money. Whose money? Do we know if espn has to pay same money pre and post exit for group A - FSU, Miami, UNC or group B - BC, WF, Syaracuse?

By letting them FSU Exit could espn pay same but demand exit of group B .

Just a thought.

 

[orientalnc]

So often on simple 50 million dollar contract disputes , i heard this" vacation, sick, other schedule excuse during interogatory ( both party assemble lawyers with their experts at one time with some in same place as interrogatory) used to extend legal road map.

On your point of ACC should let fsu exit and then with hold future money. Whose money? Do we know if espn has to pay same money pre and post exit for group A - FSU, Miami, UNC or group B - BC, WF, Syaracuse?

By letting them FSU Exit could espn pay same but demand exit of group B .

Just a thought.

In spite of everything, I believe the ACC wants FSU as a member.

 

[RonJohn]

On your point of ACC should let fsu exit and then with hold future money. Whose money? Do we know if espn has to pay same money pre and post exit for group A - FSU, Miami, UNC or group B - BC, WF, Syaracuse?

By letting them FSU Exit could espn pay same but demand exit of group B .

Just a thought.

The ACC's argument is that according to the GOR, they would still own the copyright to any FSU sports content. ESPN would still broadcast FSU games. The ACC would still receive the media revenue for those games. However, if FSU leaves, then the ACC is under no legal obligation to pay FSU any money.

 

[LT 1967]

I agree with your reading of the GOR. However, the Clemson (and now FSU) argument to me seems to be along the lines of "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". They are trying to parse the words to mean that the rights are granted to current games for current members and past games for members who left. My limited understanding of contract law is that any ambiguity in contracts is understood to be in the favor of the party who did not write the contract. Clemson and FSU may have some traction if they can show that there is ambiguity. However, the ACC can counter that with evidence of how FSU and Clemson interpreted the contract when they signed it. Which goes to your next point:


With respect to the current/former member argument, the ACC could bring in former FSU trustees to discuss what FSU thought in 2016. They can demand discovery of what FSU trustees were saying internally about the GOR in 2016. The facts are definitely in dispute, and summary judgement is extremely premature in my humble, non-legal opinion. If summary judgement is granted, I don't see how it stands up on appeal. If it does stand up on appeal, I think the ACC would probably appeal to federal court.

I think the ACC should agree to the FSU request to have a retroactive exit from the ACC in August of 2023. They should agree and request summary judgement for that single item. Then they should demand repayment of 2023 and 2024 payments to FSU, and no longer allow FSU to be involved in ACC business. They should demand the exit fee as of August 2023 be payable immediately. They should state the ACC's belief that the GOR still is in force, even though FSU from their own request has left the conference. That is playing hardball, and we would see how serious FSU is about all of this. If the ACC made such an agreement, then this would actually be an item in which no facts are in dispute and the judge could grant summary judgement.

I too am eager to see McKinzie's response to this filing. He stated that he is on vacation in Colorado, but will give his insights soon.

I like the aggressive legal approach you suggest in your comments. I have linked another article from the Palm Beach post which shows some additional comments from the filing for summary judgement. See paragraphs 4-5-6-7. FSU is trying to tie the ESPN contract into their argument. Basically, saying that the ESPN contract reveals that the ACC does not have to have FSU games in order to meet the ACC's obligation to ESPN. I find that to be pretty ridiculous. As relates to the contract, I am sure ESPN sees the ACC as a single entity that includes all the teams in the current ACC. If FSU and/or Clemson leave, it is a different conference and has a different value to ESPN.

'Millions needlessly spent': FSU asks judge to decide on some issues in case vs. ACC

Florida State University says millions of dollars are "needlessly being consumed" as the school seeks a decision in its lawsuit against the ACC.

www.palmbeachpost.com

 

[RonJohn]

In spite of everything, I believe the ACC wants FSU as a member.

I think that is true. FSU however is trying to tip-toe a fine line. They want to be released from the ACC as of August 2023, but ONLY if the court finds in their favor for the exit fee and GOR. They are saying that they haven't left the ACC yet, but if the court finds in their favor they want to retroactively leave the ACC. They do not want to actually take steps first, and then find out what the court will rule as penalties/repercussions for those steps are.

If FSU wants summary judgement, then the ACC should give it to them on that point alone. Say to FSU, OK you are now released from the ACC but you are not released from the exit fee nor GOR. I think FSU would probably try to retract that item if the ACC pushed to have it accepted by the court. Force FSU to drop the suit or conduct the suit as a former member. Stop trying to play nice with FSU. Tell them they are either in or out. If they fold, then the ACC is stronger. If they leave and face substancial repercussions from leaving, then the remaining ACC is stronger. Currently, FSU looks like a 10 year old throwing a tantrum in a restaurant and the ACC looks like a weak parent who can't keep them under control.

 

[iceeater1969]

So after fsu exit and espn - ON ITS OWN reduces payment to ACC, we can sue ESPN!
We must hold the line.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

So after fsu exit and espn - ON ITS OWN reduces payment to ACC, we can sue ESPN!
We must hold the line.

The only line the ACC will see is about 8 teams walking out the door as soon as the door is cracked. Whether thru expiration, negotiation, or litigation.

 

[iceeater1969]

Do we need espn to give acc money closer to SEC money?

Does saying that mean FSU should be allowed to Leave?

Our defense really miss starting DE IVEY at ole miss and starting DE KENNARD at U South Carolina. Both to SEC. Watching game day as Saban talks up how good KENNARD WEARING GAMECOCK.

At Gt we are getting better at all things football, but would love to negotiate a 10 % increase from ESPN for cutting espn contrat end from 2036 to close to 28-30.


Yes continue to hold line.

But behind curtains ACC reps spend time exploring a negotiated solution so espn can tell FSU to sit down. YES

 

[stinger78]

This is silly. FSU was ranked #4 when Travis was injured. There was no way they were left out with him healthy.

Herbie suggested they wouldn’t be one of the 4 best teams even with Travis. No joke. That is pure disrespect for the ACC.

 

[iceeater1969]

We are about to get left out in the cold. We might have to start a nerd conference for schools with higher academic requirements (Vandy, Duke, Wake, etc.).

Today at 5 on Espn +

Merrimack verses Bucknell.



Over course Bucknell beat VMI while William and Mary bussed thier Axx.

Hey - we are already on ESPN+

Almost to page 530