ACC Grant-of-Rights

[Son of Jarhead]

David Glen reporting on his radio show on "99 The Fan" that the ACC will announce, probably later today, that its schools will sign a Grant-of-Rights to the league.

[ChillinDuke]

David Glen reporting on his radio show on "99 The Fan" that the ACC will announce, probably later today, that its schools will sign a Grant-of-Rights to the league.

I think this is big, no? And big in a pretty darn good way, no?

A-Tex, help please.

- Chillin

[mgtr]

Does anyone have their secret decoder ring to let the rest of us know what this means?

[ChillinDuke]

Does anyone have their secret decoder ring to let the rest of us know what this means?

Don't forget to drink your Ovaltine.

[got to use that reference and it's not even the holiday season]

Trying to jog my memory, but I'm pretty sure a grant of rights is what the Big 12 did. And long story short is it makes the cost of leaving the conference prohibitively expensive for any one school.

If true, then this would seem to be a huge development as far as protection of the ACC conference goes.

- Chillin

[superdave]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/acc/2012/12/07/analysis-college-realignment-expansion-acc-presidents-commitment-statement/1752757/

[Duvall]

Does anyone have their secret decoder ring to let the rest of us know what this means?

It would mean that any school seeking to leave the ACC during the period of the grant of rights would forfeit its television revenue to the ACC for the duration of the grant. The ACC schools will grant their media rights to the conference, who then sells them to the television networks and then returns the proceeds to the schools.

Mostly, it would mean that it's going to become a lot harder for a school to leave the ACC, and the 15 member and near-member schools are okay with that.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

Thank goodness, I wouldn't want Va Tech to leave.

In all seriousness, I think the sanctity of the league is well past gone.

[Son of Jarhead]

http://www.accsports.com/blogs/jim-young/2013042215276/acc-to-announce-grant-of-media-rights-agreement.php

[crimsonandblue]

Thank goodness, I wouldn't want Va Tech to leave.

In all seriousness, I think the sanctity of the league is well past gone.

Sanctity, certainly. This is more aimed at sanity.

[A-Tex Devil]

This is a great thing for the ACC, and for college sports, as I think it could pretty much end the current realignment shuffle for the next half dozen years at least (probably more), other than cherry-picking the "mid major of the moment."

If this is for all sports, I'm surprised ND agreed to it, but all signs point to them being all in (except for football), so there we go.

I'll let the articles talk in more detail about the "Grant of Rights" concept as they come out. But the main thing is that it isn't damages for leaving, like the exit fee is. It's a proactive agreement by the schools to assign property to the conference for a certain amount of years. So any ACC school will be free to leave (assuming the $50MM exit fee goes away), but their new conference can't make any TV money off of said school's home games because the ACC will still own the rights. As I mentioned in another thread, it's a poison pill for pillaging conferences.

[BD80]

What about Notre Dame? I think it makes it less likely that ND becomes a full member.

[Duvall]

What about Notre Dame? I think it makes it less likely that ND becomes a full member.

That was already resolved. Notre Dame isn't going to become a full member of the ACC (or any other league) until and unless the football playoff is changed to favor conference champions over at-large selections, and that can't happen for another 12 years.

Of course, if the ACC has a grant-of-rights, who cares what Notre Dame does?

[Duvall]

It's official. Signed, effective immediately. (http://www.theacc.com/genrel/042213aaa.html)

The ACC isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

[ns7]

Right now I'd say this will protect the ACC until 2027, but there are still some remaining questions
* When does this go into effect? Basically, could FSU or another school bolt before this took effect?
* Is the vote unanimous and what is the legality of enforcing this against a school that voted no? Again this references FSU, who voted no on the $50M exit fee

Once these questions are answered we'll know how strong this development is.

[Duvall]

Right now I'd say this will protect the ACC until 2027, but there are still some remaining questions
* When does this go into effect? Basically, could FSU or another school bolt before this took effect?
* Is the vote unanimous and what is the legality of enforcing this against a school that voted no? Again this references FSU, who voted no on the $50M exit fee

Once these questions are answered we'll know how strong this development is.

Per the announcement, the grant is unanimous and effective immediately.

"The Atlantic Coast Conference Council of Presidents announced today that each of the current and future 15-member institutions has signed a grant of media rights, effective immediately."

[ns7]

Per the announcement, the grant is unanimous and effective immediately.

"The Atlantic Coast Conference Council of Presidents announced today that each of the current and future 15-member institutions has signed a grant of media rights, effective immediately."

Thanks, the SI report I read didn't contain this information.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the B1G or SEC follow suit. They don't really need to, but why not just in case?

[ForkFondler]

What about Notre Dame? I think it makes it less likely that ND becomes a full member.

The extension of the NBC contract killed off any chance of ND being a "normal" full member any time soon. But it still might be possible to coax ND up to a seven game FB schedule where they can compete for a divisional championship, while still having their own TV contract, some semblance of being independent, and still retaining the majority of their traditional opponents. Adding Navy as a second associate FB member would be the easiest way to make that happen.

[Duvall]

Thanks, the SI report I read didn't contain this information.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the B1G or SEC follow suit. They don't really need to, but why not just in case?

The B1G already has a grant of rights. The SEC doesn't have one (or an exit fee!), but then, they don't need one.

[Jderf]

So does this effectively halt conference expansion? Who is still left to be poached at this point? And who would be looking to poach them?

[ns7]

The B1G already has a grant of rights. The SEC doesn't have one (or an exit fee!), but then, they don't need one.

B1G pools its Tier-3 rights into the Big Ten Network, but I was under the impression that they do not have a GoR. Hence Delaney's worry that the ACC could eventually poach PSU by capturing Notre Dame, Syracuse, BC, Pittsburgh, Louisville, all of which are better natural rivals.

The SEC could theoretically lose Mizzou to the B1G, though I doubt any SEC fans would care. The only issue would be finding a replacement (with the ACC going off the table) so that the conference could schedule football.

[Highlander]

Per the announcement, the grant is unanimous and effective immediately.

"The Atlantic Coast Conference Council of Presidents announced today that each of the current and future 15-member institutions has signed a grant of media rights, effective immediately."

Wouldn't current institutions include Maryland? If so, why on earth would they agree to this?

[Duvall]

Wouldn't current institutions include Maryland? If so, why on earth would they agree to this?

They didn't, and aren't. The fifteen signatory schools as listed in the release are the fifteen members of the ACC as of next year.

[Scorp4me]

Getting to 4 conferences of 16 teams was never going to work without splitting up the Big 12. With their grant of rights that wasn't going to happen, unless it came at the point of a lawsuit. As I see it if expansion is going to happen it's still going to happen, but at least if it has to go through a grant of rights law suits it'll wreck the Big 12 security along with the ACC's.

Actually I just read the accsports.com article and found this quote that's basically what I was saying =)

"Plus, remember that, if GOMR agreements are found to be legally unfounded, then the ACC wouldn’t be the only league affected."

And one line further a tweet between Jim Young and Ivan Corriher saying EXACTLY what I was trying to say. Next time I'll read before posting lol.

[ns7]

B1G pools its Tier-3 rights into the Big Ten Network, but I was under the impression that they do not have a GoR. Hence Delaney's worry that the ACC could eventually poach PSU by capturing Notre Dame, Syracuse, BC, Pittsburgh, Louisville, all of which are better natural rivals.


Well, after some searching I found anecdotal evidence stating that everyone but the SEC has a GoR but I can't find any concrete evidence other than this article:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130422/acc-grant-of-rights-conference-realignment/

However, the new topic to discuss will probably be the legal strength of a Grant of Rights agreement. This article by a random internet poster does cast some doubt on how the courts would handle a dispute.
http://www.westcoastspread.com/Myth_of_Grant_of_Rights.html

His argument is that 1) a Grant of Rights agreement doesn't have a liquidated damages clause and 2) media rights deals are not renegotiated down after a school leaves, thus there are no damages if a school does leave.

I'll let the lawyers chime in now.

[CDu]

They didn't, and aren't. The fifteen signatory schools as listed in the release are the fifteen members of the ACC as of next year.

Right, but isn't Maryland still a member of the ACC next year?

Duke
UNC
NC State
Wake
UVa
VT
Miami
FSU
BC
GT
Clemson
Maryland
Notre Dame (basketball only)
Syracuse
Pitt

Or did you mean "as of the following year" (i.e., 2014-2015 year)? In which case, Maryland would be out and Louisville in.

[A-Tex Devil]

Well, after some searching I found anecdotal evidence stating that everyone but the SEC has a GoR but I can't find any concrete evidence other than this article:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130422/acc-grant-of-rights-conference-realignment/

However, the new topic to discuss will probably be the legal strength of a Grant of Rights agreement. This article by a random internet poster does cast some doubt on how the courts would handle a dispute.
http://www.westcoastspread.com/Myth_of_Grant_of_Rights.html

His argument is that 1) a Grant of Rights agreement doesn't have a liquidated damages clause and 2) media rights deals are not renegotiated down after a school leaves, thus there are no damages if a school does leave.

I'll let the lawyers chime in now.

I don't buy the second article because the author is completely missing the beauty of the grant of rights. It's not an argument of contract, it's an argument of property. The ACC schools have contractually granted all of their rights to the ACC. If Florida St. wants to head to the SEC, they are welcome to do it. The ACC still owns the television rights. Now let's say the SEC takes in Florida St., then tries to air a home game in Tallahassee. Well, the ACC will sue to enjoin the SEC airing that game, a lawsuit I think it would win, since the SEC does not own Florida St.'s television media rights. Even if a judge didn't want to enforce specific performance through enjoinder, the ACC could still recover monetarily.

Unlike the exit fees, the GOR puts the pillaging conferences on blast. Steal our teams and air our games, and we'll sue you. It's a huge deterrent, and any conference looking to steal a school that has agreed to a GOR will require that school to figure a way out before it spends any time doing any real courting. This is some pretty unsophisticated analysis though (by him and by me). I imagine there are still holes in the Grant of Rights scheme, maybe undetermined as of yet. But I'm not buying what Huntzler is selling in that article.

[Duvall]

Right, but isn't Maryland still a member of the ACC next year?

Duke
UNC
NC State
Wake
UVa
VT
Miami
FSU
BC
GT
Clemson
Maryland
Notre Dame (basketball only)
Syracuse
Pitt

Or did you mean "as of the following year" (i.e., 2014-2015 year)? In which case, Maryland would be out and Louisville in.

As of July 2014. Look, I'll post the release in its entirety:


April 22, 2013

Greensboro, N.C. - The Atlantic Coast Conference Council of Presidents announced today that each of the current and future 15-member institutions has signed a grant of media rights, effective immediately.

"This announcement further highlights the continued solidarity and commitment by our member institutions," said ACC Commissioner John Swofford. "The Council of Presidents has shown tremendous leadership in insuring the ACC is extremely well positioned with unlimited potential."

"The ACC has long been a leader in intercollegiate athletics, both academically and athletically," said the collective ACC Council of Presidents. "Collectively, we all agree the grant of rights further positions the ACC and its current and future member schools as one of the nation's premier conferences."

The ACC's current and future 15-member institutions include:
Boston College
Clemson University
Duke University
Florida State University
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Louisville
University of Miami
University of North Carolina
North Carolina State University
University of Notre Dame
University of Pittsburgh
Syracuse University
University of Virginia
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Wake Forest University

[CDu]

As of July 2014. Look, I'll post the release in its entirety for those who haven't bothered to click the link:

Right, so not as of next year (which begins July 1, 2013). As of the following year (which begins July 1, 2014).

[ChillinDuke]

Right, so not as of next year (which begins July 1, 2013). As of the following year (which begins July 1, 2014).

Are we really nitpicking this? The entire article was posted clearly listing the schools that signed.

- Chillin

[CDu]

Are we really nitpicking this? The entire article was posted clearly listing the schools that signed.

- Chillin

Just clarifying a point of confusion for those of us that didn't read the article.

[Class of '94]

B1G pools its Tier-3 rights into the Big Ten Network, but I was under the impression that they do not have a GoR. Hence Delaney's worry that the ACC could eventually poach PSU by capturing Notre Dame, Syracuse, BC, Pittsburgh, Louisville, all of which are better natural rivals.

The SEC could theoretically lose Mizzou to the B1G, though I doubt any SEC fans would care. The only issue would be finding a replacement (with the ACC going off the table) so that the conference could schedule football.

The B1G and the PAC 12 both have GOR agreements in place along with the BIG 12. I beleive the BIG 12 might have been the first conference to do this; and then the PAC 12 and B1G followed. The ACC is now the latest power conference to do this. There are several links that support this; you can check out twitter links to the David Glenn Show, ACC sports, cbs and espon to find support that the BIG already had a GOR agreement in place).

That said, I too did not think the BIG had a GOR prior to reading those links because of their (Delaney and BIG coaches and administrators) "supposed" fear of losing Penn St. Moreover, I read another article here in the DEtroit metro area that quoted Delaney as saying that if the Pac 12 had not decided to break their sports partnership agreement with the B1G, the B1G would supposedly not have expanded with the additionas of MD and Rutgers (which is it Delaney and the B1G). Now, it looks like the B1G was just blowing smoke and wanted to mask the fact that they wanted to expand by getting MD and Rutgers for money reasons.

Go ACC!! I'm really excited and happy about this latest development. I think this puts a real damper on the B1G (or any other power conference) trying to poach more schools from the ACC and their plans to further expand down the east coast into the south. At this point, if they want to expand further onto the east coast to exapnd their BTN profits, I think they'll have to seriously consider schools like UConn, UCF and USF. And if the B1G specifically wants teams in the VA and NC markets for the BTN,they now have to look at schools like VCU and ECU at this point; or UNC-Charlotte and UNC-Greensboro. ;)

[gocanes0506]

As much as I would like to see ECU get a big time invitation, I think this means the end of conference realignment for a while.

WV wants ECU in the Big 12 to add some eastern teams. I dont see it anytime soon.

[sagegrouse]

As much as I would like to see ECU get a big time invitation, I think this means the end of conference realignment for a while.

WV wants ECU in the Big 12 to add some eastern teams. I dont see it anytime soon.

Well, it certainly looks that the top five conferences have protected themselves -- four with Grant of Media Rights and one with overwhelming economics in its favor. Thus, if there are further changes, these five conferences will be "sinks," absorbing other teams, rather than "sources," yielding teams to other conferences.

So where do we stand?

Big Ten with 14.
ACC with 14, plus Notre Dame as a partial member.
SEC with 14.
Big 12 with 10.
PAC-12 with 12 (Hooray -- a conference that can count!)

The AAC (can't we sue?) will have 11, plus Navy for football.

I suppose the Big 12 would like to add two teams (hooray!) or more(inevitable). I dunno who the candidates would be -- possibly poaching from the AAC or the Mountain West. Houston, Memphis or SMU make geographic sense. In the Mt. West, I suppose Colorado State, Boise State or New Mexico are possibilities. And surely someone should be able to make a case for my Rice Owls and the hard-drinking Tulane Green Wave.

Not exactly plate tectonics from here on out -- that's for sure.

sagegrouse

[-jk]

I asked this about the Big 12, and still don't get it.

Obviously IANAL. Isn't the "grant of rights" just another contract, this one between the school and its conference for broadcast rights over a period of time?

If a team leaves the ACC (taking their rights, of course), presumably they're in breach of that contract, and can be sued for damages, and perhaps the ACC could even sue the receiving conference for damages.

Here's where I get confused. How are the damages measured and awarded?

If UVA goes to the bigger whatever, does espn automatically renegotiate the ACC package? If they don't renegotiate or if the acc were to add, say (god forbid) uconn, are there any damages to collect? (Isn't this the MD argument?)

Is there a good IP lawyer reading?

-jk

[ns7]

I asked this about the Big 12, and still don't get it.

Obviously IANAL. Isn't the "grant of rights" just another contract, this one between the school and its conference for broadcast rights over a period of time?

If a team leaves the ACC (taking their rights, of course), presumably they're in breach of that contract, and can be sued for damages, and perhaps the ACC could even sue the receiving conference for damages.

Here's where I get confused. How are the damages measured and awarded?


I posted a link above that stated that courts may choose to award damages based on lost revenue, which would be very low compared to the ~$20M per school per year number. The problem is that a $200-300M number is so high it is a pretty effective deterrent, and it's likely no conference is willing to challenge that yet. We may see more movement in a few years when we get closer to the end of the contract, since the effective number drops every year. For example, the $50M did not deter Maryland, so a GoR of 3-4 years may not deter a school in the future.



If UVA goes to the bigger whatever, does espn automatically renegotiate the ACC package? If they don't renegotiate or if the acc were to add, say (god forbid) uconn, are there any damages to collect? (Isn't this the MD argument?)


Generally, the packages are not negotiated down when a school leaves, but are renegotiated up when a school is added. This was the crux of the argument in the article I posted earlier.

I am not a lawyer either, so this is just my understanding. I think there is an issue around whether it's viewed as an agreement or a transferring of property.

[A-Tex Devil]

I asked this about the Big 12, and still don't get it.

Obviously IANAL. Isn't the "grant of rights" just another contract, this one between the school and its conference for broadcast rights over a period of time?

If a team leaves the ACC (taking their rights, of course), presumably they're in breach of that contract, and can be sued for damages, and perhaps the ACC could even sue the receiving conference for damages.

Here's where I get confused. How are the damages measured and awarded?

If UVA goes to the bigger whatever, does espn automatically renegotiate the ACC package? If they don't renegotiate or if the acc were to add, say (god forbid) uconn, are there any damages to collect? (Isn't this the MD argument?)

Is there a good IP lawyer reading?

-jk

The GOR is an exclusive assignment of media rights to the ACC. I've never seen the contract, so it may be an "exclusive license" in reality, but the way they talk it seems to be an out and out assignment of these property rights in exchange for a portion of the revenue. In your example, if UVA has assigned its TV rights to the ACC, then leaves for the Big Ten and allows the Big Ten to air games from Charlottesville, then, yes, UVA has likely breached its assignment agreement with the ACC (assuming the ACC has good lawyers drafting the GOR), so that's a contract dispute. Additionally, the Big Ten and UVA are infringing on the property rights of the ACC, so that's an infringement dispute.

Put in hypothetical physical terms (which admittedly aren't always analogous to intangible assets), imagine that UVA just sold its stadium outright to the ACC for a 1/15th percentage of the ACC's TV profits over the next X amount of years. If UVA or a new conference starts using that stadium without the ACC's permission, that's trespassing (which is somewhat equivalent to infringement). I don't know if a new conference wants to go down that road and challenge that right now. But ns7 is right -- as the GOR winds down, some might.

I wonder if the GOR has certain revenue guaranties to the schools beyond what is in the current TV contract? That's one way out -- if the ACC, in order to continue to hold the rights, must meet certain financial obligations to the member schools with respect to monetizing those rights. I have no idea if the Big XII or the ACC or any conference has such a requirement. But that is possibly a back door out of a GOR -- a school saying that they understood the consideration to be X, and they've actually received much less than that. But these are sophisticated parties (I think), so unless something like that is in the 4 corners of the contract, I don't know if that flies.

[sporthenry]

I do think the Grant of Rights might not hold up in court or at the very least, the pay out won't be that different than current exit fees but as others have said, that puts the B12 as the most likely to be gobbled up now and not the ACC so this is a great move.

The few questions I have about the GOR is that as I remember, it is only tier 1 and 2 rights. So would a team like Texas be allowed to leave and just broadcast its games on the LHN and keep that money? And additionally, is it all games with the team or just home games? For example, would a Texas at Duke game be under that GOR? I thought I remember it just being the home games but I could be wrong.

[A-Tex Devil]

I do think the Grant of Rights might not hold up in court or at the very least, the pay out won't be that different than current exit fees but as others have said, that puts the B12 as the most likely to be gobbled up now and not the ACC so this is a great move.

The few questions I have about the GOR is that as I remember, it is only tier 1 and 2 rights. So would a team like Texas be allowed to leave and just broadcast its games on the LHN and keep that money? And additionally, is it all games with the team or just home games? For example, would a Texas at Duke game be under that GOR? I thought I remember it just being the home games but I could be wrong.

- Big XII is just a GOR for Tier 1 and Tier 2 (which are admittedly ambiguous terms). But its essentially the rights that ESPN and Fox bought under their contracts with the Big XII. Everything else is left to the schools. Most Big XII schools have found an outlet, at least locally, for their tier 3 games that aren't picked up by ESPN and Fox.

- The ACC sold all TV media rights to ESPN. The ACC GOR, like the Pac 10, is for *all* TV media rights.

- It is just home games, you are right. Texas at Duke = ACC TV game. ACC has a contract with ESPN, so that game will be on with ESPN or one of the stations like Raycom that ESPN farms out its overflow to.

[sagegrouse]

I do think the Grant of Rights might not hold up in court or at the very least, the pay out won't be that different than current exit fees but as others have said, that puts the B12 as the most likely to be gobbled up now and not the ACC so this is a great move.

The few questions I have about the GOR is that as I remember, it is only tier 1 and 2 rights. So would a team like Texas be allowed to leave and just broadcast its games on the LHN and keep that money? And additionally, is it all games with the team or just home games? For example, would a Texas at Duke game be under that GOR? I thought I remember it just being the home games but I could be wrong.

I will leave the judgments to the legal eagles on the Board, but your statement seems odd: "I do think the Grant of Rights might not hold up in court...."

Lessee.... Fourteen (or maybe 15) universities represented by their chief executives, all having counsel, which are in a voluntary contractual association called "the ACC," have agreed to surrender to the ACC all of their media rights, in return for getting a full share of those rights from the ACC. The reason for the agreement is to bind the members more closely, both legally and economically, and hold it together, which would give greater certainty and other benefits to all members of the ACC.

If you agree that the member schools were represented by those with authority to take the action and they did so voluntarily in return for a share of revenue, what, pray tell, would lead a judge to decide these were not legal contracts? And why would a judge seek to interpose his or her view in preference to the plain written words of agreement that were signed by the member schools and the ACC? (And if the words were not plain, why the heck did we hire and pay these lawyers?) And why would a judge claim special expertise in such detailed and arcane matters as athletic conferences and media contracts, of which the private parties are truly experts, so that the agreements were judged to be non-binding?

Just asking...

sagegrouse
'Maryland, FWIW, did not vote, and Louisville was an observer. Pitt and Syracuse, as members, also voted. I seem to recall that Notre Dame voted as well (its terms were undoubtedly different), so the number may well be 15'

[sporthenry]

I will leave the judgments to the legal eagles on the Board, but your statement seems odd: "I do think the Grant of Rights might not hold up in court...."

Lessee.... Fourteen (or maybe 15) universities represented by their chief executives, all having counsel, which are in a voluntary contractual association called "the ACC," have agreed to surrender to the ACC all of their media rights, in return for getting a full share of those rights from the ACC. The reason for the agreement is to bind the members more closely, both legally and economically, and hold it together, which would give greater certainty and other benefits to all members of the ACC.

If you agree that the member schools were represented by those with authority to take the action and they did so voluntarily in return for a share of revenue, what, pray tell, would lead a judge to decide these were not legal contracts? And why would a judge seek to interpose his or her view in preference to the plain written words of agreement that were signed by the member schools and the ACC? (And if the words were not plain, why the heck did we hire and pay these lawyers?) And why would a judge claim special expertise in such detailed and arcane matters as athletic conferences and media contracts, of which the private parties are truly experts, so that the agreements were judged to be non-binding?

Just asking...

Well not a lawyer either, but it just smells that this would be some panacea when even exit fees seem rarely paid in their entirety and are often settled out of court. Now of course if they settle out of court that is used to save legal fees but presumably if one side had a slam dunk case, they would still proceed with the court process so I assume that there is some uncertainty with the exit fees. I'm not sure with all of the legal vocab but the WaPo just said this GOR signing weakens the ACC's case against UMD and getting the full exit fee, so I'd imagine there would be a way around the GOR with some type of exit fee of sorts.

And even the article linked earlier had Jim Young at ACC Sports Journal saying that this is good assuming the Grant of Rights holds up in courts. I was surprised that Clemson and FSU signed on but it seems in just about everyone's interest because now it makes it tough for the B10 or the SEC to poach a team and since the B12 always seemed more likely to break up, those teams can just see how the GOR suit goes within the B12 and then move. I'm not saying it isn't a contract, but just that the exiting college won't be blacked out on TV or without revenue. They would probably resolve it with the college paying for what injury it has done to the conference which is about where we seem now. Of course, this is a bit more stable than exit fees and perhaps more money would be required but the law never seems to be this cut and dry.

[A-Tex Devil]

Well not a lawyer either, but it just smells that this would be some panacea when even exit fees seem rarely paid in their entirety and are often settled out of court. Now of course if they settle out of court that is used to save legal fees but presumably if one side had a slam dunk case, they would still proceed with the court process so I assume that there is some uncertainty with the exit fees. I'm not sure with all of the legal vocab but the WaPo just said this GOR signing weakens the ACC's case against UMD and getting the full exit fee, so I'd imagine there would be a way around the GOR with some type of exit fee of sorts.

And even the article linked earlier had Jim Young at ACC Sports Journal saying that this is good assuming the Grant of Rights holds up in courts. I was surprised that Clemson and FSU signed on but it seems in just about everyone's interest because now it makes it tough for the B10 or the SEC to poach a team and since the B12 always seemed more likely to break up, those teams can just see how the GOR suit goes within the B12 and then move. I'm not saying it isn't a contract, but just that the exiting college won't be blacked out on TV or without revenue. They would probably resolve it with the college paying for what injury it has done to the conference which is about where we seem now. Of course, this is a bit more stable than exit fees and perhaps more money would be required but the law never seems to be this cut and dry.

This is true, but what it does is punt it for another 8-10 years. The payoff to get out of it now (whether by school or poaching conference) is prohibitive. As ns7 mentioned, it might not be prohibitive when there's only 2-3 years left in the grant of rights.

[Jarhead]

This is true, but what it does is punt it for another 8-10 years. The payoff to get out of it now (whether by school or poaching conference) is prohibitive. As ns7 mentioned, it might not be prohibitive when there's only 2-3 years left in the grant of rights.
My bet is that the powers that be in these conferences already have it figured out. When it gets a few years shy of the end of the grant a new grant will supercede the old one. Ta-da.

[throatybeard]

Here's my question. Why the hell didn't the Big East think this solution up approximately a decade ago?

[Duvall]

Here's my question. Why the hell didn't the Big East think this solution up approximately a decade ago?

It's not just a matter of thinking of it - you have to get every school to agree to it. You can't make a school sign, or impose a grant of rights by a league vote. Each school has to agree to surrender its media rights to the league in exchange for revenue. If a school wants to leave someday, it can just refuse to sign.

[Class of '94]

Here's my question. Why the hell didn't the Big East think this solution up approximately a decade ago?

Maybe they did; but couldn't get the prerequisite unanimous vote (from all schools) to get the deal done.

[ForkFondler]

My bet is that the powers that be in these conferences already have it figured out. When it gets a few years shy of the end of the grant a new grant will supercede the old one. Ta-da.

Presuming that the powers that be want that to happen, of course.