A very fair point… and another thing; I’d be pretty surprised if something like this wasn’t VERY thoroughly vetted with ESPN in the context of adding programs. ACC would not do ANYTHING to jeopardize an option, so with only 24 months until such a major decision, why does it come out now and not during the talks on SMU, Cal and Stanford?
I participated in contracts for BellSouth throughout my career. Not once did I see, or hear about, a look-in that did not require mutual agreement for changes. 5-year and 10-year look-ins are not ware because economic and "real world" changes happen. An example might be FSU deciding that intercollegiate sports did not represent the values FSU sees as critical. So they disband their teams. At the next look-in the ACC might ask ESPN to increase the value now that the POIA school in Tallahassee was no longer a member.
I believe it's been stated previously that the docs are, and remain on file, at the league office. Bc a party, say FuSU, declines to read them thoroughly, does not provide a defense.
The question becomes short-term versus long-term planning. I threw out a scenario where The SEC could preemptively lock B1G out of the Southeast in one of the other threads. It all depends on where The SEC/ESPN machine sees the future.
As much as people like to see ESPN and the SEC as the same thing, they have different interests. Is the SEC going to invite UVA, UNC, Miami, Duke, and GT, then possibly FSU, Clemson, NC State, and Wake Forrest at a full rate? Is ESPN going to pay a full rate for nine additional teams? ESPN has already told the SEC that they will not pay additional for nine conference games. If the ACC implodes, then UNC and UVA would get offers for full rates to both SEC and Big10. If both of those schools go to the SEC, then Miami, GT, and possibly Duke would get full rate offers from the Big10. Are those schools going to turn down a full offer from the Big10 for a reduced offer from the SEC? The other schools might get Big10 offers and might get SEC offers, but would likely have to negotiate more.
The term “option” leads me to believe this is structured like a lease agreement. It has a fixed term for agreed rates and at the expiration of the primary term, the “lessee” (ESPN in this case) has the option to renew to lease for an additional term. If the ACC was knocking it out of the park, the option would be very valuable to ESPN. If ESPN isn’t profiting the option has little value and they don’t exercise it.
I think that The ACC could claim that the value of the GOR per year is actually higher than that because, without FSU in the league, there is a diminished value, which could lead to other issues. I could see The ACC claiming that value is much greater because of the indirect and consequential damages to the conference.
I agree they're separate, but in what I was saying, they could be acting in concert. No, I don't think Duke, WF, or a lot of other schools would be attractive in our current CFB format. However, once it all blows up, there may be a situation where the SEC decides to take the 2 anchor schools from each southern state and build a fence. Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana only have 1 anchor school, so if onlu UF and FSU in Florida and only OU in Oklahoma, then there's 24 teams. But, that doesn't happen if the whole thing doesn't blow up.
The ACC owns FSU media rights full stop. It doesn't matter what the actual value is, the ACC can decide not to sell the media rights to FSU for any price. If I owned a 65 Mustang in mint condition and you wanted it, it wouldn't matter what the actual value is. What would matter is if you and I could come to an agreement for me to sell it to you. I am under no obligation to sell it to you for market price. If it had sentimental value to me, I might not sell it to you for $10 million.
To keep the Big10 out of the Southeast, it would take more. They would need Miami in Florida in addition to UF and FSU. USF has a 49k enrollment and is an AAU member. The SEC might need to take them to keep them out of the Big10.
This is nice in theory, but the purpose of the GOR is to protect the members, en toto. I could easily see a judge assigning a "value" to the GOR and dictating that would be what would be fair and adequate compensation to the other members for damages incurred.
UCF and USF are inconsequential in Florida big-boy football right now. Miami could be but is not a state school, only drawing from the very South Florida. I could see the SEC not caring about Miami, USF, or UCF. If they get UF and FSU, they've locked down most of the big-boy football. There are no other big state schools in the SEC footprint (outside of Florida) that would give the B1G a way in.
So it is no longer keeping the Big10 out of the Southeast? It is only keeping the Big10 from getting a "big state" school? What is the definition of "big state" school? USF has a larger enrollment than FSU, but I guess they are a "small" state school. Miami has a big football name, but I guess they don't matter because they are a private school?
Miami got a top 5 recruiting class this year, right?
USF and UCF are not on the same level in Florida or nationally as FSU, UF, or Miami. So, your claim about USF (or UCF) as being a target for B1G isn't relevant, in my opinion. I think Miami probably is, but in Florida, Miami is definitely a distant 3rd in terms of impact within the state. I'd suggest that UCF has a bigger impact than Miami. B1G might go after Miami, but I don't think The SEC would necessarily look at that as an infringement on the SEC footprint. That's merely an opinion, but I think it is supportable.
Forensic has a point of law that a judge could use. One can't require specific performance in a labor contract, (for lots of legal reasons, but plainly spoken, just bc you can't make a man do it); but the judge could assign a damages value to fsu and their unwillingness to perform. The Gordian Knot here is the athletic performance of the athletes is what most enhances the value of the media portion of the contract. Figuring out that value is where the ACC will say it is the value dictated by the contract. fsu arguing it should be less impeaches their prior arguments that they are worth more individually.
