Conference Realignment

[roadkill]

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.

MSN

www.msn.com

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

Why should you have to "try" or "demonstrate...good faith" when you have a contract? Just shove it down their throats.

 

[g0lftime]

Why should you have to "try" or "demonstrate...good faith" when you have a contract? Just shove it down their throats.

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.

 

[AugustaSwarm]

Why should you have to "try" or "demonstrate...good faith" when you have a contract? Just shove it down their throats.

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.

 

[WreckinGT]

Sources: ACC exploring new revenue structure to resolve Florida State, Clemson lawsuits

The conference’s presidents recently examined a proposal that would distribute revenue differently to conference members in a move to provide stability and preserve its current membership.

sports.yahoo.com

According to other sources, the GOR would have to be shortened to 2030 to get FSU and Clemson to buy into this.

 

[orientalnc]

According to other sources, the GOR would have to be shortened to 2030 to get FSU and Clemson to buy into this.

That's not going to happen. It might be 2030 before the various court cases are resolved.

 

[bobongo]

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.

Mediation is an elective, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think the ACC will go to mediation, nor should they.

 

[RonJohn]

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.

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]

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.

It may also be cheaper than legal fees

 

[roadkill]

According to other sources, the GOR would have to be shortened to 2030 to get FSU and Clemson to buy into this.

I'm confused. Buy into what? Their own proposal? I thought the latest proposed deal came from FSU and Clemson, and the conference presidents are discussing it. What am I missing?

 

[Towaliga]

PAC 12 looking at Memphis and Tulane as possible additions.

MSN

If the PAC12 takes Memphis, that’s 1 less conference FSU would be interested in going to.

 

[LT 1967]

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.

MSN

 

[RonJohn]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

Agree.

 

[WreckinGT]

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.

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]

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?

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.

Loading…

www.nytimes.com

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.