sagegrouse
Member
GOR is truly serious. I think it would require a unanimous vote to cancel or alter.
Conference Realignment
- Thread starter DavidBenAkiva
- Start date
LeadingEdge
Member
The GOR is silent on the issue.
The answer would have to come from the ACC constitution and bylaws. I am not aware of how they would resolve this.
FosterCoachK82
Member
How big are these conferences going to get? Is there a maximum? If there are only 2-4 conferences does that even make sense? A 20-team conference? At what point do conferences stop? Or end? Maybe just ESPN/Nike teams playing.
JasonEvans
Host, The Duke Basketball Roundup
I don't think there is any desire on the part of the Big Ten or SEC to kill the ACC or B12. I am far from certain there are any ACC or B12 teams who really move the needle for the Big Ten or SEC and the only thing the tier 1 conferences gain by killing the tier 2 leagues is bad PR.
I think this is one of the reasons we keep on hearing that FSU (and Clemson) don't have a logical home should they successfully get out of the ACC. Should FSU get out, they would be the proverbial dog that caught the car... no idea what to do next. I would think that the 12-team playoff makes staying in the ACC far more attractive than annually striving to be the 3rd or 4th best team in the SEC or Big Ten.
I think this is one of the reasons we keep on hearing that FSU (and Clemson) don't have a logical home should they successfully get out of the ACC. Should FSU get out, they would be the proverbial dog that caught the car... no idea what to do next. I would think that the 12-team playoff makes staying in the ACC far more attractive than annually striving to be the 3rd or 4th best team in the SEC or Big Ten.
The “ logical” home for Clemson and FSU would be the SEC, if you’re talking about compatibility and geography. If “logical” means a new market, it’s the BIG. If either or both conferences want to control college football playoff, why wouldn’t they want to absorb the best of ACC? I don’t see much logic in realignment except to increase football revenue and consolidate control.
JasonEvans
Host, The Duke Basketball Roundup
But adding FSU and/or Clemson doesn't help you control the football playoff. There just isn't a reasonable scenario for any conference to get more than maybe 4 teams in the the 12-team playoff. It is highly likely that a FSU or a Clemson would just replace some other current SEC or Big Ten team in the playoff, not create a situation where one of those conferences was getting an extra team in. There are just too many losses that happen via conference games for a league to get that many teams into the playoff.
I continue to think that neither league really wants FSU or Clemson. If they did, I suspect the buyout negotiations on the ACC GOR would have already progressed to a resolution.
If the 2 major conferences want to set the rules for NIL and decide on direct payments and any other governance issues, such as who gets in the playoffs, it absolutely behooves them to control the football powers. For the BIG, adding the two ACC football powers, plus several others, both balances out the schedule and consolidates power. Having variable payouts creates unfair advantages within the conference but it also allows adding virtually any program, including Duke. Clem, FSU, UNC, UVA + any number of Miami, GT, VT, Pitt, NCSU or Duke, makes a very nice division along with MD. Perhaps even ND in some capacity. With that outcome, you might see a lot of ACC members change their tune. Perhaps even Duke. RoseBowl might even sign on
.As far as breaking the GOR, I have no expertise but another poster is arguing that, if it were breakable, it would already be broken.
Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
Member
And I'd be undefeated in pie bets!
Based on expansion votes in the ‘90s and after, it appears that a 75% majority is needed for decisions like this.
You don’t want it unanimous, since one lonely hold-out would hold up things, and a simple majority could leave too many schools out to dry.
wilko
Member
I'm just not sure about this.
I mean would the SEC or B1G really just come out and say "we plan to add FSU/Clem/other in 3 to 5 years" with a functioning ACC?
I'm not attorney, but it seems to me if they went public with such statements they could potentially be vulnerable to some sort of tampering/collusion suit.
As much as I'd love to believe that FSU put a turd in the punchbowl, looking like belligerent, mouthy malcontents to other potential conference suitors. I'm not sure what else other conferences would say publicly.
I have not been following the realignment shenanigans as closely as many on the board, but I wonder if the grass would actually be greener for F$U and Clemson. I struggle to see a reason for the SEC to add either, as they already have a presence in those markets. If B1G is the only potential landing spot, why would the B1G offer either a full share?
Yes, the ESPN deal was tremendously short-sighted, but they still liked it enough to approve it then.
Yes, the ESPN deal was tremendously short-sighted, but they still liked it enough to approve it then.
you're doing well to not follow it too closely, as little is new and there is a lot of misinformed blather in this thread. And your reasoning is sound.
The GOR agreement itself purports to require unanimity to amend or modify it (which would include amending it by terminating it), stating in Paragraph 8: “This Agreement may not be modified or amended other than by an agreement in writing signed by duly authorized representatives of the Conference and each of the Member Institutions that are then members of the Conference.” It's no surprise that you would try to require unanimity on this since terminating the GOR would immediately put the league in breach of its contract with ESPN.
None of the provisions in the ACC's Constitution or Bylaws speak specifically to the issue of what kind of vote is required to terminate the GOR (for much the same reason -- since it would immediately breach the ESPN contract, there would be no incentive to spell out how to do that). The Constitution and/or Bylaws do spell out differing vote requirements for different things that come close to the GOR issue but don't directly hit it.
For example, as DU82 notes, you need a 3/4 vote to admit or expel members (Constitution, sections 1.4.3. and 1.4.4).
And, there is a 2/3 vote requirement for "entering into or amending any Material Media Rights Agreement" (Constitution, section 1.6.2). Obviously, the ESPN contract is a "Material Media Rights Agreement," so would require a 2/3 vote to change. But, the GOR itself probably doesn't meet the definition of "Material Media Rights Agreement."
The only other avenue to terminate the GOR would potentially be to dissolve the conference. No specific provision in the ACC Constitution states what sort of vote is required to dissolve the league, and the ones that get closest are arguably conflicting. Section 1.6.2 of the Constitution states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided herein or in the Bylaws, ... the affirmative vote of a majority ... shall be an act of the Board." But, that section also states that a 3/4 vote is required for "any amendment" of the Constitution or Bylaws.
My guess is that, if litigated, this would be interpreted to allow dissolution of the conference based on a pure majority vote (as dissolution really is different than "amendment," even though it's odd to allow the much bigger change to be carried out by a reduced vote). But, it's ambiguous. So, adding Stanford, Cal and SMU was fairly clearly aimed (at least in part) at protecting against the risk that the "group of 7" schools who were reportedly seriously considering doing this (Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC St., Virginia and Va. Tech) could flip an 8th school (like Georgia Tech) to vote for it.
And, of course, all of this ignores that even if you can dissolve the league to get out of the GOR, that would also breach the ESPN agreement. I suppose the consequence of that would likely just be exposure for a damages award and it wouldn't literally prevent the BIG, SEC or Big 12from adding the leavers; it's unlikely a court would order specific performance of the ESPN agreement, but it would be humorous if, for example, the leavers voted to dissolve the ACC, some of them joined the BIG and ESPN then sued Fox/NBC for an injunction against televising their games.
If the league no longer existed, how could it be sued for breach of contract?
Yup. The lack of economic incentive for either conference, especially the SEC, to add FSU and/or Clemson often gets completely glossed over in this latest round of realignment speculation. And I know from reliable sources that the BIG is absolutely NOT hell bent on driving to a 2 super conference outcome, and instead sees real value in having the ACC and Big 12 as viable if somewhat lesser partners in the 12-team playoff environment.
AustinDevil
Member
A fun little update on all of the cowboy-ish nonsense emanating from Big Twelveteen HQ:
All Hat, Possibly Some Cattle(?)
All Hat, Possibly Some Cattle(?)
There's a period of time during which the dissolved entity would be wrapping up its affairs that it could be sued
LeadingEdge
Member
Nugget - your explanation above of the GOR, dissolution, etc. was excellent and well crafted.
Not only could the dissolving entity be sued, but assets conveyed by the conference to members might be reachable as fraudulent conveyances or if corporate formalities were not followed in handling assets (e.g., cash in the bank).
JasonEvans
Host, The Duke Basketball Roundup
Oh, I don't for a moment think this is something that would happen in public but almost every step in expansion has happened quietly, behind the scenes, right up until it is announced. I mean, we didn't hear boo about the Big Ten grabbing USC and UCLA until it happened.
I am fairly sure that folks at FSU -- or at least folks who represent FSU but who can claim plausible deniability if deposed -- have spoken to folks connected to the SEC and Big Ten to see what interest there would be if FSU got free of the ACC. I am fairly sure that IF those conferences had indicated they were certain there was a spot for FSU, then negotiations to get out of the GOR would already be done. If FSU knew for certain that it was going to make $30+ extra mill/season then negotiating a $300+ mil buyout becomes a lot lot lot easier and there is really no reason to wait much longer.
blazindw
Duke Basketball Roundup Host; Moderator
Fans of some SEC/B1G teams aren't necessarily concerned about those conferences getting too big by adding some of the best of the ACC. They're concerned that their team would be removed from the conference and replaced by some of these teams. Vandy fans are definitely concerned that a FSU or Clemson would be a team that the SEC would bring in and then tell Vandy to hit the road. Northwestern might also have a similar worry in the B1G, or maybe a Rutgers. Conference realignment would probably only see these conferences get to no more than 18-20 teams before they start doing trades, for lack of a better term.