Conference Realignment

UgaBlows

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,840
forensicbuzz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Miami may have been irrelevant for 30+ years but they have a lot to offer- most importantly they are at the epicenter of fb recruiting in Florida, (they recruit way better than UCF) and have a national following with very good national TV ratings. Miami vs. most BIG schools would draw some damned good ratings. They are also AAU. The BIG would kill to get them and plant a flag down there. Every BIG alum out there who still lives in the frozen wasteland they call home would try to take that road trip. The same case can be made for Atlanta/GT imo.
 
UgaBlows

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,840
CEB said:
As I understand, the extension option to 2036 is not the biggest issue. The issue is that the ACC extended the deadline for ESPN to make the DECISION on the extension until ‘25. FSU (or any school) could potentially make a claim that the extended deadline causes them damage because they would potentially have only 24 months to react if ESPN elected not to exercise the 2036 option.

An option is always exercised by one party, so the allegation that the ACC acted in bad faith by having a “unilateral” option is silly… unless the ACC hid the option entirely. FSU makes it sound like ACC actually did represent that the deal was guaranteed money thru ‘36 when they knew it was not. That would be a big deal…. And maybe it is, because no one was talking about a ‘27 expiration until this week.

If the ACC completely hid the ball on the whole extension option, I think we would be hearing from more schools than just FSU. And if the ACC unilaterally extended the timeframe for ESPN to decide on the option, it shouldn’t have been a surprise because supposedly it would’ve transpired in ‘21-‘22 (that’s the part I have not seen verified).

Like a lot of legal stuff, I think 99% of this is unsubstantiated allegation. There may be a half a page worth of interesting stuff in this option business though…
Click to expand...
Am I understanding this correctly? In 2025 could ESPN decide to drop the TV contract with the ACC?
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,620
UgaBlows said:
Am I understanding this correctly? In 2025 could ESPN decide to drop the TV contract with the ACC?
Click to expand...
What I have heard (not confirmed) is this “option” (also not really confirmed- just in FSU complaint) is for ‘28-’36. The deadline to exercise is ‘25.
Original term runs through ‘27 (according to FSU attorneys).
In short, we should know in ‘25 if the acc deal ends in ‘27 or in ‘36.
 
stech81

stech81

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,904
Location
Woodstock Georgia
CEB said:
What I have heard (not confirmed) is this “option” (also not really confirmed- just in FSU complaint) is for ‘28-’36. The deadline to exercise is ‘25.
Original term runs through ‘27 (according to FSU attorneys).
In short, we should know in ‘25 if the acc deal ends in ‘27 or in ‘36.
Click to expand...
I know I could be wrong, but maybe the ACC did something right and the contract does run to 2036 but in 2025 the ACC and Espn will come together and see if they will pay the ACC more or it stays the same. Which could be the reason the GOR runs till 2036.
 
RonJohn

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,000
forensicbuzz said:
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.
Click to expand...
What damages? The ACC owns the media rights, and FSU can't physically take them away. FSU want property rights back that they signed away. A judge would have to invalidate the transfer of media rights, or assign a price and force a sale that the ACC isn't willing to participate in. That is far different than a breach of contract and consequential damages. This would be more like a judge telling me that I am required to sell you my 65 mustang for less than market price. (hypothetical car)
 
Techwood Relict

Techwood Relict

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,426
RonJohn said:
What damages?
Click to expand...
If, (I really don't see this happening, but for the sake of hypothetical conversation) if fsu refused to participate in the contract, a judge could set a value to breaking the contract, ie the damages. I just simply can't envision a scenario where fsu wins an argument that allows them to break the contract.
I think they are just sh't stirring for the sake of it to see if something falls out.
 
RonJohn

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,000
Techwood Relict said:
If, (I really don't see this happening, but for the sake of hypothetical conversation) if fsu refused to participate in the contract, a judge could set a value to breaking the contract, ie the damages. I just simply can't envision a scenario where fsu wins an argument that allows them to break the contract.
I think they are just sh't stirring for the sake of it to see if something falls out.
Click to expand...
The only refusal to participate would be if FSU didn't allow ESPN on campus to broadcast games for the ACC. The big problem for FSU before that is that no broadcaster is going to sign a contract to carry FSU content if they know there is a contract (even in dispute) about the ownership of that content. If FSU were to try to broadcast their games themselves after leaving the conference, there would be even more severe civil liability, and even criminal liability. (A lot of that is thanks to the big mouse that owns ESPN)
 
Techwood Relict

Techwood Relict

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,426
RonJohn said:
The only refusal to participate would be if FSU didn't allow ESPN on campus to broadcast games for the ACC. The big problem for FSU before that is that no broadcaster is going to sign a contract to carry FSU content if they know there is a contract (even in dispute) about the ownership of that content. If FSU were to try to broadcast their games themselves after leaving the conference, there would be even more severe civil liability, and even criminal liability. (A lot of that is thanks to the big mouse that owns ESPN)
Click to expand...
The one I considered is if fsu sat their sports programs. Reference earlier posts, can't make the players play. I don't see that happening in the real world, but there wouldn't be any content to broadcast at that point for their spot in the schedule.

I think this will work out years from now in Fed Court with the GOR upheld.
 
UgaBlows

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,840
CEB said:
What I have heard (not confirmed) is this “option” (also not really confirmed- just in FSU complaint) is for ‘28-’36. The deadline to exercise is ‘25.
Original term runs through ‘27 (according to FSU attorneys).
In short, we should know in ‘25 if the acc deal ends in ‘27 or in ‘36.
Click to expand...
So ESPN could opt out of the ACC and use the extra money to add desirable ACC teams and more conf. games to the SEC? I could see them doing that to try and compete with FOX/BIG. No tv contract would nullify the ACC GOR I guess?
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,620
UgaBlows said:
So ESPN could opt out of the ACC and use the extra money to add desirable ACC teams and more conf. games to the SEC? I could see them doing that to try and compete with FOX/BIG. No tv contract would nullify the ACC GOR I guess?
Click to expand...
In theory, yes.
IF IF IF FSU’s complaint is correct that the original term of the deal ends in ‘27.
 
forensicbuzz

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
8,870
Location
North Shore, Chicago
UgaBlows said:
Miami may have been irrelevant for 30+ years but they have a lot to offer- most importantly they are at the epicenter of fb recruiting in Florida, (they recruit way better than UCF) and have a national following with very good national TV ratings. Miami vs. most BIG schools would draw some damned good ratings. They are also AAU. The BIG would kill to get them and plant a flag down there. Every BIG alum out there who still lives in the frozen wasteland they call home would try to take that road trip. The same case can be made for Atlanta/GT imo.
Click to expand...
I agree. In my original analysis I had Miami included. But, with Ok. St. That made 26 teams, which is a weird number. So I dropped Miami and Ok St. off for my scenario. You could add those two back and drop the VA teams to get to 24.

The fallout for the SEC of Miami going to the B1G, if UF and FSU were in the SEC, would be interesting. Because Miami is at the extreme of FL and the fanbase are not like typical SE schools, I wonder if it wouldn’t matter. I don’t know, and it’s merely a though exercise.
 
stinger78

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,393
GTNavyNuke

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
10,066
Location
Williamsburg Virginia
wvGT11 said:
Curious if this is now part of a protest , with everything going on.
Click to expand...

Sure feels like a protest. But what are they protesting? Being left out since they aren't the team that won all the games?

And by acting like entitled wankers, they are confirming that they really weren't worthy. And they are creating ill will from the bowl sponsors and ESPN by basically throwing the game.

I think the purpose of the lawsuit was to create "trade space" and FSU is assuming they can push their way through somehow in GOR negotiations to restructure. Why the rest of the ACC would agree to GOR restructure, I have no idea.
 
Top