Conference Realignment

LeadingEdge said:
I'll be ESPN is a big factor, if not the instigator, in the reported settlement talks. ESPN has until February to decide whether to keep the deal running from 2027 to 2036. It's probably asking the ACC for assurance that FSU and Clemson will remain in the ACC before it exercises its continuation option. Thus, the ACC is negotiating with FSU and Clemson to get them to agree to stay in the conference.

If part of the deal is shortening the GOR to run only to, say, 2030, then ACC members could start testing SEC/B10 interest in a year or two. Texas and Oklahoma made their deals to move several years before the moves could take effect.
Click to expand...
Largely agree but don’t see how you negotiate with fsu and Clemson to stay. If the GOR is as solid as we think it is they are stuck.
Since the payout from espn is not particularly high I think they are very likely to continue the deal
 
budwom said:
Largely agree but don’t see how you negotiate with fsu and Clemson to stay. If the GOR is as solid as we think it is they are stuck.
Since the payout from espn is not particularly high I think they are very likely to continue the deal
Click to expand...

The question is whether ESPN thinks the GOR is so solid that there's no material chance that FSU and Clemson can escape.

I am an IP lawyer, and it appears to me that the ACC has the stronger hand. But I hear Clemson's legal theory concerns some ACC bigwigs, and FSU adopted Clemson's legal theory in the motion for partial summary judgment it recently filed in its Florida case.

As I understand it, Clemson argues that the ESPN contract does not require that Clemson itself be an ACC member for the contract to continue (see below), so Clemson's departure would not be necessary for the ACC to perform its contract with ESPN. The GOR grants only those rights necessary for the ACC to perform its ACC-ESPN contract. Thus, Clemson argues the GOR doesn't bind it to the ACC.

The problem for Clemson is the GOR also contains language about the assignment surviving Clemson leaving the ACC. Courts generally avoid contractual interpretations that make contract language superfluous.

When the ACC expanded to add SMU, Cal, and Stanford, it was rumored that the ACC-ESPN contract requires that the ACC maintain 15 members. It also was rumored that adding those three schools created a buffer, so that if three members (say, UNC, FSU, and Clemson) leave, the ACC would still have 15 members, so the contract would remain in force. If those rumors are true, this also means that the departure of those schools would not end the ACC-ESPN contract, so it remains in force, and thus their continued membership is not needed for the ACC to perform the ACC-ESPN contract, so the GOR does not bind them to the ACC.

The ACC-ESPN contract isn't public, so this may be off base.
 
I think you have it right. Along the lines of the Brendon Marks article. But of course the league will still want to retain the two malcontents
 
LeadingEdge said:
The question is whether ESPN thinks the GOR is so solid that there's no material chance that FSU and Clemson can escape.

I am an IP lawyer, and it appears to me that the ACC has the stronger hand. But I hear Clemson's legal theory concerns some ACC bigwigs, and FSU adopted Clemson's legal theory in the motion for partial summary judgment it recently filed in its Florida case.
Click to expand...
I remember that the ACC split the difference with Maryland when they left, even though the contract seemed quite clear.

I'm betting this never goes to trial. Therefore, there will be a settlement. Current rumors of discussions point the way -- more bucks for the big contributors to ACC value.
 
sagegrouse said:
I remember that the ACC split the difference with Maryland when they left, even though the contract seemed quite clear.

I'm betting this never goes to trial. Therefore, there will be a settlement. Current rumors of discussions point the way -- more bucks for the big contributors to ACC value.
Click to expand...
Which is why FSU's season thus far is so very funny.
 
sagegrouse said:
I remember that the ACC split the difference with Maryland when they left, even though the contract seemed quite clear.

I'm betting this never goes to trial. Therefore, there will be a settlement. Current rumors of discussions point the way -- more bucks for the big contributors to ACC value.
Click to expand...
ESPN has a very favorable contract with the ACC through 2036. So are they kicking in more money to help make this possible or are the dollars coming out of the pockets of the member schools? That will be interesting to watch...
 
SkyBrickey said:
ESPN has a very favorable contract with the ACC through 2036. So are they kicking in more money to help make this possible or are the dollars coming out of the pockets of the member schools? That will be interesting to watch...
Click to expand...

I realize this is probably obvious from my post above, but if FSU and Clemson escape the ACC, then the ACC contract isn't such a good economic proposition to ESPN during 2027-36. It would have lost its two biggest viewership attractors.

I maintain that the current ESPN contract, even with FSU and Clemson, is a fair marketplace value. It isn't some huge windfall for ESPN or a bad deal for the ACC. ACC schools are, on average, much smaller (and less football-passionate) than SEC schools, which are much smaller on average than B10 schools. The average ACC game won't attract as many viewers no matter how well the teams are playing. If the ACC could go to market right now for a new deal, I'll bet it would do no better and might get hit with a lot of streaming to boot.
 
LeadingEdge said:
I realize this is probably obvious from my post above, but if FSU and Clemson escape the ACC, then the ACC contract isn't such a good economic proposition to ESPN during 2027-36. It would have lost its two biggest viewership attractors.

I maintain that the current ESPN contract, even with FSU and Clemson, is a fair marketplace value. It isn't some huge windfall for ESPN or a bad deal for the ACC. ACC schools are, on average, much smaller (and less football-passionate) than SEC schools, which are much smaller on average than B10 schools. The average ACC game won't attract as many viewers no matter how well the teams are playing. If the ACC could go to market right now for a new deal, I'll bet it would do no better and might get hit with a lot of streaming to boot.
Click to expand...
Good perspective. I still imagine there's a bit of a 3-way negotiation happening. FSU/Clemson. Other ACC member schools. ESPN. And maybe UNC, UVA are either joining FSU/Clemson or are more neutral observers.

So it's in the ACC member schools and ESPN's best interest to keep FSU and Clemson in the league and party to the media contract. So it seems like if the member schools are pushing more money to FSU/Clemson to keep them happy, then ESPN should be doing the same... That at least would be my position if I'm Jim Phillips.
 
LeadingEdge said:
The question is whether ESPN thinks the GOR is so solid that there's no material chance that FSU and Clemson can escape.

I am an IP lawyer, and it appears to me that the ACC has the stronger hand. But I hear Clemson's legal theory concerns some ACC bigwigs, and FSU adopted Clemson's legal theory in the motion for partial summary judgment it recently filed in its Florida case.

As I understand it, Clemson argues that the ESPN contract does not require that Clemson itself be an ACC member for the contract to continue (see below), so Clemson's departure would not be necessary for the ACC to perform its contract with ESPN. The GOR grants only those rights necessary for the ACC to perform its ACC-ESPN contract. Thus, Clemson argues the GOR doesn't bind it to the ACC.

The problem for Clemson is the GOR also contains language about the assignment surviving Clemson leaving the ACC. Courts generally avoid contractual interpretations that make contract language superfluous.

When the ACC expanded to add SMU, Cal, and Stanford, it was rumored that the ACC-ESPN contract requires that the ACC maintain 15 members. It also was rumored that adding those three schools created a buffer, so that if three members (say, UNC, FSU, and Clemson) leave, the ACC would still have 15 members, so the contract would remain in force. If those rumors are true, this also means that the departure of those schools would not end the ACC-ESPN contract, so it remains in force, and thus their continued membership is not needed for the ACC to perform the ACC-ESPN contract, so the GOR does not bind them to the ACC.

The ACC-ESPN contract isn't public, so this may be off base.
Click to expand...
I have to imagine that the ACC war-gamed this when it expanded to add Cal, Stanford, and SMU. Philips had to have looked at the contract and thought that by adding 3 schools, the GoR in effect allows 3 schools to leave. So it must be that the “assignment surviving [Clemson] leaving the ACC” has to have more teeth to it. Otherwise they never would have considered those 3 new member schools last year (or there would have been some leaking by lower-value ACC schools about this clause to the press). I find it hard to believe this loophole is that open. Jim is incompetent, but not that incompetent
 
budwom said:
FSU will get NO more money if they continue to stink.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately they still did really good numbers in the losses from what I heard. Read somewhere it was still 1.4mm+ for Memphis. Idk how much was causal fans turning in due to the craziness of an 0-3 FSU, but their numbers are still solid. It’s crazy
 
RoseBowl1942 said:
I have to imagine that the ACC war-gamed this when it expanded to add Cal, Stanford, and SMU. Philips had to have looked at the contract and thought that by adding 3 schools, the GoR in effect allows 3 schools to leave. So it must be that the “assignment surviving [Clemson] leaving the ACC” has to have more teeth to it. Otherwise they never would have considered those 3 new member schools last year (or there would have been some leaking by lower-value ACC schools about this clause to the press). I find it hard to believe this loophole is that open. Jim is incompetent, but not that incompetent
Click to expand...
i mean....the B12 schools were incompetent enough to declare they were leaving the conference before changing the rules to ensure money would be redistributed to them....costing them tens of millions each....

Not that there is such a miss here, but top execs/lawyers sometimes have major misses.
 
RoseBowl1942 said:
I have to imagine that the ACC war-gamed this when it expanded to add Cal, Stanford, and SMU. Philips had to have looked at the contract and thought that by adding 3 schools, the GoR in effect allows 3 schools to leave. So it must be that the “assignment surviving [Clemson] leaving the ACC” has to have more teeth to it. Otherwise they never would have considered those 3 new member schools last year (or there would have been some leaking by lower-value ACC schools about this clause to the press). I find it hard to believe this loophole is that open. Jim is incompetent, but not that incompetent
Click to expand...
And it is also true that the new schools allow more money for the old ones plus incentive payments for performance tbd. It’s a fair amount of money since SMU gets nothing for years and the other two get 1/3 shares Trying to find ways to mollify the complainers
 
SkyBrickey said:
ESPN has a very favorable contract with the ACC through 2036. So are they kicking in more money to help make this possible or are the dollars coming out of the pockets of the member schools? That will be interesting to watch...
Click to expand...
ESPN kicked in more money with the 3 new teams but almost all goes to the legacy schools for higher payouts plus tbd incentives
 
RoseBowl1942 said:
I have to imagine that the ACC war-gamed this when it expanded to add Cal, Stanford, and SMU. Philips had to have looked at the contract and thought that by adding 3 schools, the GoR in effect allows 3 schools to leave. So it must be that the “assignment surviving [Clemson] leaving the ACC” has to have more teeth to it. Otherwise they never would have considered those 3 new member schools last year (or there would have been some leaking by lower-value ACC schools about this clause to the press). I find it hard to believe this loophole is that open. Jim is incompetent, but not that incompetent
Click to expand...
Fair point. Perhaps it was war-gamed, and the ACC felt its GOR position remained solid. But it's also possible that the ACC felt the "even if you leave the ACC, we keep your rights" language in the GOR had the issue buttoned up, and it didn't think of the clever argument Clemson later made. Note that FSU's attorneys didn't think of Clemson's exact argument when FSU sued, which was before Clemson sued.

There's also a risk-reward calculation the ACC's counsel may have presented: a risk of weakening the GOR strength but, on the other hand, securing the currently best available schools in case FSU, Clemson, and UNC bust loose and getting an additional pot of money because of the new members coming in at a deep payout discount.

I hope the ACC stays intact, but if it does not and FSU, Clemson, and UNC leave, none of the remaining schools might get an SEC/B10 invite. The remaining schools are still a pretty good conference compared to what would likely be the remaining alternatives. I'd rather have SMU, Stanford, and Cal now rather than later adding, say, ECU, Memphis, and Tulane (although I like Tulane institutionally).
 
I'm still of the opinion that 1) the GOR is pretty solid, and 2) FSU and CLemson should not assume the B1G or SEC are dying to have them. Plenty of reasons for the SEC to not want them (presence of Univ of Florida and Univ of SC for beginners). What with their current constitution, they have a ton of strong teams especially with the addition of Oklahoma and Texas...and I continue to believe that the B1G is a REALLY bad fit for both of them, they have excellent new blood in USC, UCLA, UDub and Oregon...and neither are AAU members, though FSU tried and failed (ha).
 
This prob has been asked before... But lets say there is an re-alignment... I wonder if we would still play UNC twice a year in basketball. Can you imagine a year that there would not be a Carolina game in Cameron? Ooooof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top