Conference Realignment

[RonJohn]

... you could sign away the right to *challenge* it? Or else that seems like a license to make illegal contracts that everybody and their mom would be using...

You mean like binding arbitration agreements that are hidden in terms of service?

 

[cpf2001]

You mean like binding arbitration agreements that are hidden in terms of service?

That seems somewhat different in that it's still open to a dispute or challenge, while this is saying something more like "it's impossible for us to breach our side of the deal"?

 

[Techster]

I don't see anything "ugly" or petty in that filing. The first FSU filing, on the other hand, was full of fluff that made it sound like a toddler whining. That one read like something put together to incite their fans, instead of like something you put together to convince a court. This filing seems to be just stating facts and asking for the court to take some actions based on those facts. I am not a lawyer, and have not ready both pleadings all the way through. That is just my layman assessment.

The ENTIRE thing between the ACC and FSU is ugly. That last tweet by Pete Thamel is the ACC basically asking the court to strip FSU of any power (voting on rules that affect the league members, assessing penalties/fines, input on league strategy, allocation of league expenses, etc) they might have as a member of the ACC until the dust is settled. ACC will "allow" FSU to play under the ACC banner, but for all intents and purposes, FSU would just become a (well paid) foot soldier while the rest of the conference members will make decisions that will affect the entire league...whether FSU likes the decisions or not.

I don't know your business background, but if someone part of the management team is asked to show up to work everyday and sit at their desk and not do anything until the rest of the team figures out what to do with you because everyone (including yourself) knows you're a goner...you've been neutered. I don't know what you want to call it, but one of the words would definitely be "ugly"...and you can also throw "petty" in there as well.

 

[Techster]

Ooh, are we at the point where FSU loses their vote and the rest of the conference can cut off their share and split it among the rest of us?

FSU wouldn't lose their share (Courts treat compensation as sacred until it's proven your actions had a detrimental affect to an agreement), but the ACC is basically asking the court to strip FSU of any league voting rights, any of their rights to review business decisions, any strategic planning, etc.

 

[RonJohn]

The ENTIRE thing between the ACC and FSU is ugly. That last tweet by Pete Thamel is the ACC basically asking the court to strip FSU of any power (voting on rules that affect the league members, assessing penalties/fines, input on league strategy, allocation of league expenses, etc) they might have as a member of the ACC until the dust is settled. ACC will "allow" FSU to play under the ACC banner, but for all intents and purposes, FSU would just become a (well paid) foot soldier while the rest of the conferences will make decisions that will affect the entire league...whether FSU likes the decisions or not.

I don't know your business background, but if someone part of the management team is asked to show up to work everyday and sit at their desk and not do anything until the rest of the team figures out what to do with you because everyone (including yourself) knows you're a goner...you've been neutered. I don't know what you want to call it, but one of the words would definitely be "ugly"...and you can also throw "petty" in there as well.

I don't see the voting rights pleading the same as an executive that is going to be fired. I see it as the ACC saying that FSU is disrupting and harming the rest of the conference at the moment, and asking for their authority in the conference to be restricted until this case is decided. (or FSU stops the damaging activities, such as releasing confidential information)

I am not a lawyer, but my impression is that things look much worse in written pleadings than they actually are. I had a family member in a criminal case, misdemeanor driving offense that ended up being plead to a civil driving offense. His lawyer warned him that when he submitted his filings to the court to not get overly concerned. He said that some people freak out when they read that their lawyer is making "demands" of the prosecution, but it is just language that is used in court to get discovery. In this case, I don't think all of the filings are as "ugly" as you seem to believe. It is normal court language and normal legal writing. The FSU filing seemed "petty" to me because it wasn't very well constructed to guide someone through their points. It was written more like a political speech or a fan board. They put a lot of talking points in the filing, but they didn't tie everything together and make strong arguments that there was a cause of action, nor what the remedy should be if a cause of action were found. In my opinion, it was written in such a way as to make their fans hoot and hollar, but not to get a court to side with them.

 

[RonJohn]

That seems somewhat different in that it's still open to a dispute or challenge, while this is saying something more like "it's impossible for us to breach our side of the deal"?

That would be where FSU could actually make strong arguments to a court that they should be allowed to get out of the ACC without a withdrawal penalty and with their media rights. As much as other fan bases would like to screw over FSU, if the ACC actually makes them a non-member in standing it would bolster their case to get out.

What the ACC is asking for isn't to keep FSU's money (on paper). They would give FSU their media money (on paper), but want FSU to be assessed damages that they have to pay to the ACC. Probably wouldn't be equal to the media revenue, but just for giggles, assume it was: The ACC would owe $40 million to FSU, then FSU would owe $40 million back to the ACC. Money wouldn't even have to exchange hands. There is a big difference in those two. In one case, the ACC isn't following their contractual and fiduciary obligations to a member school. In the other case, the ACC is treating all of the school equally, but recovering damages from one of them.

 

[Techster]

I don't see the voting rights pleading the same as an executive that is going to be fired. I see it as the ACC saying that FSU is disrupting and harming the rest of the conference at the moment, and asking for their authority in the conference to be restricted until this case is decided. (or FSU stops the damaging activities, such as releasing confidential information)

I am not a lawyer, but my impression is that things look much worse in written pleadings than they actually are. I had a family member in a criminal case, misdemeanor driving offense that ended up being plead to a civil driving offense. His lawyer warned him that when he submitted his filings to the court to not get overly concerned. He said that some people freak out when they read that their lawyer is making "demands" of the prosecution, but it is just language that is used in court to get discovery. In this case, I don't think all of the filings are as "ugly" as you seem to believe. It is normal court language and normal legal writing. The FSU filing seemed "petty" to me because it wasn't very well constructed to guide someone through their points. It was written more like a political speech or a fan board. They put a lot of talking points in the filing, but they didn't tie everything together and make strong arguments that there was a cause of action, nor what the remedy should be if a cause of action were found. In my opinion, it was written in such a way as to make their fans hoot and hollar, but not to get a court to side with them.

Right...one party (FSU) accusing another party (ACC) of basically mismanagement and dereliction of fiduciary duty. One party (ACC) then asks the court to basically neuter one of its own members (FSU).

Whether it's just meat for their fanbase (BTW, FSU is about to spend a LOT of money for lawyers to throw out that meat to the FSU fans) while the ACC is going to spend a LOT of money trying to intercept that meat. All the while, other conference leadership, teams from other conferences, and fans around the country are laughing at all the dirty laundry being thrown in the front yard.

You can argue that FSU has no case, and I agree with you there, and it's all for show...but it's still damaging to the ACC and its members nonetheless. Did anyone even know about the ACC's and ESPN's contract option in 2025 until FSU brought it up? You don't think that's beneficial to other conferences from a strategic standpoint?

Sorry, when the ACC is basically openly asking the court to neuter one of its members, that's pretty ugly...and this is just the opening salvo. As I said, gloves are coming off.

Yup, nothing ugly about any of this at all...

 

[RonJohn]

Right...one party (FSU) accusing another party (ACC) of basically mismanagement and dereliction of fiduciary duty. One party (ACC) then asks the court to basically neuter one of its own members (FSU).

Whether it's just meat for their fanbase (BTW, FSU is about to spend a LOT of money for lawyers to throw out that meat to the FSU fans) while the ACC is going to spend a LOT of money trying to intercept that meat. All the while, other conference leadership, teams from other conferences, and fans around the country are laughing at all the dirty laundry being thrown in the front yard.

You can argue that FSU has no case, and I agree with you there, and it's all for show...but it's still damaging to the ACC and its members nonetheless. Did anyone even know about the ACC's and ESPN's contract option in 2025 until FSU brought it up? You don't think that's beneficial to other conferences from a strategic standpoint?

Sorry, when the ACC is basically openly asking the court to neuter one of its members, that's pretty ugly...and this is just the opening salvo. As I said, gloves are coming off.

Yup, nothing ugly about any of this at all...

I don't see it as a request to "neuter" FSU. They are asking for FSU to be barred from participating in management of the conference while they have a direct conflict of interest in court with the management of the conference. It is an entirely reasonable request. They don't want FSU administration and legal teams on one side of the court and FSU administration and legal teams as part of the team on the other side of the court. FSU wants to sue the ACC, then make it FSU against the rest of the ACC instead of FSU against the ACC (with FSU sabotaging inside the ACC)

I think a larger question than whether this is standard legal procedure or a drunken brawl is: What is FSU trying to accomplish? They want to join another conference? IF they get what they want and are able to leave the ACC with their media rights, who will take them? Will the SEC or Big10 invite a school who has demonstrated that as soon as they don't get what they want they spout confidential information and throw a tantrum like a toddler? Will a broadcaster sign a contract with them as an independent, like ND, if they know that as soon as FSU isn't happy about something and wants to negotiate again they will trash the broadcaster and release confidential information? As much as their fans like to see them sticking the middle finger to the ACC, I can't see a positive outcome for FSU no matter what happens in the court case.

 

[Techster]

I don't see it as a request to "neuter" FSU. They are asking for FSU to be barred from participating in management of the conference while they have a direct conflict of interest in court with the management of the conference. It is an entirely reasonable request. They don't want FSU administration and legal teams on one side of the court and FSU administration and legal teams as part of the team on the other side of the court. FSU wants to sue the ACC, then make it FSU against the rest of the ACC instead of FSU against the ACC (with FSU sabotaging inside the ACC)

I think a larger question than whether this is standard legal procedure or a drunken brawl is: What is FSU trying to accomplish? They want to join another conference? IF they get what they want and are able to leave the ACC with their media rights, who will take them? Will the SEC or Big10 invite a school who has demonstrated that as soon as they don't get what they want they spout confidential information and throw a tantrum like a toddler? Will a broadcaster sign a contract with them as an independent, like ND, if the know that as soon as FSU isn't happy about something and wants to negotiate again they will trash the broadcaster and release confidential information? As much as their fans like to see them sticking the middle finger to the ACC, I can't see a positive outcome for FSU no matter what happens in the court case.

It seems to me you're trying to muddy up the waters of what is standard practice and what crosses over to being unseemly. Everything else you're trying to enter into the conversation is irrelevant because what we're talking about here is the perception and the outcome. The outcome, regardless of whether FSU gets their way, will end up "ugly" for everyone involved.

Your second paragraph is completely irrelevant to this discussions and it's basically extraneous to this discussion of whether what the ACC (and FSU) is doing to each other is "ugly".

Conference members suing their respective conference is not standard practice. Conferences asking courts to neuter (barring a member from participating in management is tantamount to being neutered...regardless of whether you want to view it that way or not) is not standard practice. When those situations occur in front of the whole sports world to ridicule and judge, it's the opposite of pretty. What's the opposite of pretty?

Anyhow, this debate on the semantics of "ugly" has gone beyond its shelf life for me. You don't have to agree with me, nor do I want you to, however the reaction on social media is basically a big LOL at FSU and the ACC.

 

[RonJohn]

Anyhow, this debate on the semantics of "ugly" has gone beyond its shelf life for me. You don't have to agree with me, nor do I want you to, however the reaction on social media is basically a big LOL at FSU and the ACC.

I think being worried about what people say on social media is one of the biggest problems in the country today. Wasn't it Qua Searcy that the mutt fans made fun of for a twitter photo and him being "too scrawny" to play college football? And wasn't that the summer before he scored the winning touchdown against the mutts? Maybe it wasn't. But people seem to be far more concerned with optics on social media than real life. That is a problem.

 

[Techster]

I think being worried about what people say on social media is one of the biggest problems in the country today. Wasn't it Qua Searcy that the mutt fans made fun of for a twitter photo and him being "too scrawny" to play college football? And wasn't that the summer before he scored the winning touchdown against the mutts? Maybe it wasn't. But people seem to be far more concerned with optics on social media than real life. That is a problem.

Being oblivious of popular sentiment is also detrimental. How did telling the public "Let them eat cake" work out for Marie Antoinette? There are many stories of companies ignoring social media only for their marketing campaigns to blow up. Ask Digiorno pizza about their marketing campaign centered around the Ray Rice incident.

Ignoring the public and public sentiment is also a problem.

Used wisely, social media is powerful tool for businesses and brands.

 

[orientalnc]

How did telling the public "Let them eat cake" work out for Marie Antoinette?

Do you believe she lost her head because of a misunderstanding about choices at the local boulangerie?

 

[Techster]

Do you believe she lost her head because of a misunderstanding about choices at the local boulangerie?

She lost her head because she didn't get Twitter and Facebook fans on her side...and she missed the baby she was tossing cake to. No one wants a bad QB on their team....

 

[Jacket05]

It seems to me you're trying to muddy up the waters of what is standard practice and what crosses over to being unseemly. Everything else you're trying to enter into the conversation is irrelevant because what we're talking about here is the perception and the outcome. The outcome, regardless of whether FSU gets their way, will end up "ugly" for everyone involved.

Your second paragraph is completely irrelevant to this discussions and it's basically extraneous to this discussion of whether what the ACC (and FSU) is doing to each other is "ugly".

Conference members suing their respective conference is not standard practice. Conferences asking courts to neuter (barring a member from participating in management is tantamount to being neutered...regardless of whether you want to view it that way or not) is not standard practice. When those situations occur in front of the whole sports world to ridicule and judge, it's the opposite of pretty. What's the opposite of pretty?

Anyhow, this debate on the semantics of "ugly" has gone beyond its shelf life for me. You don't have to agree with me, nor do I want you to, however the reaction on social media is basically a big LOL at FSU and the ACC.

IIRC Didn't the PAC12 just do basically the same thing by removing voting rights to the members leaving the conference? Their reasoning is basically the same as FSU as they are trying to separate from the conference and therefore should not have voting rights. I would argue that the ACC has more reasons against FSU in that there is an active court case so FSU actually has reason to sabotage the ACC through their vote.

 

[Techster]

IIRC Didn't the PAC12 just do basically the same thing by removing voting rights to the members leaving the conference? Their reasoning is basically the same as FSU as they are trying to separate from the conference and therefore should not have voting rights. I would argue that the ACC has more reasons against FSU in that there is an active court case so FSU actually has reason to sabotage the ACC through their vote.

Oregon State and Washington State had the courts intervene to bar the rest of the PAC 12 members, who all already officially left, from making any decisions for the PAC 12 that would impact the leagues funds. FSU is still officially a member of the ACC, and they have not put in paperwork to leave yet. It's a superficially similar situation, but in the PAC 12 case, the exiting members who already joined other conferences (at least on paper) wanted to still have their say in the PAC12 administrative side.

Court denies review of Pac-12 appeal, handing league control to Oregon State, Washington State

Washington Supreme Court declined to review Pac-12’s appeal of lower court ruling that gives control of league to Oregon State and Washington State.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Techwood Relict]

I'd be interested in any of our resident lawyer's take on this. Seems fairly BS-y, I don't think *if* the contract was invalid (say, because of whatever deception FSU alleges around term or ESPN exit or some other thing a court holds invalid) that you could sign away the right to *challenge* it? Or else that seems like a license to make illegal contracts that everybody and their mom would be using...

All parties involved in a contract can bargain away those rights in good faith. fsu has likely done so (caveat, I haven't read the whole thing), by agreeing to the GOR. If so, contract law will likely not be kind to them.
Think about the injunction that I believe was granted in the PAC2 case, preventing the leaving schools from calling their own number.

 

[Techwood Relict]

choices at the local boulangerie?

15 yards for snobbery. Boulangerie?!?, wth, that's not even a French word.....

 

[Jacket05]

Oregon State and Washington State had the courts intervene to bar the rest of the PAC 12 members, who all already officially left, from making any decisions for the PAC 12 that would impact the leagues funds. FSU is still officially a member of the ACC, and they have not put in paperwork to leave yet. It's a superficially similar situation, but in the PAC 12 case, the exiting members who already joined other conferences (at least on paper) wanted to still have their say in the PAC12 administrative side.

Court denies review of Pac-12 appeal, handing league control to Oregon State, Washington State

Washington Supreme Court declined to review Pac-12’s appeal of lower court ruling that gives control of league to Oregon State and Washington State.

www.usatoday.com

But they currently are still members of the PAC12 until August. Like those schools, FSU has given the ACC a notice of intent to leave the conference. The only difference is FSU doesn't have a destination or timeline like the other PAC12 schools.

 

[orientalnc]

Well, it certainly seems French when you're in Paris. Well, maybe not in Paris, Texas.

 

[Techwood Relict]

View attachment 15549
Well, it certainly seems French when you're in Paris. Well, maybe not in Paris, Texas.

Ohhh, my bad, it's French for bodega, like in TX.