forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread: Stories, Tales, Lies, and Exaggerations

Advertisement
Ispyin said:
He’s not right on composition clause but you guys keep keeping.
Click to expand...
Your ping pong match with him on it is something to watch.... like a scene from Beerfest... but without the beer or humor..

1719884241012.png
 
Advertisement
Rickd said:
OK ... so the ACC "officially welcomed" SMU, Stanford, and Cal to the ACC conference today, commenting that SMU officially became a member today, with Cal and Stanford becoming official members on August 2nd. There have been comments regarding ESPN enacting the COMPOSITION CLAUSE at some point ... and according to comments regarding wording in the agreement it takes a 2 program change in any direction ... add two or lose two ... to trigger the option to review the media agreement.

SO ... if FSU and Clemson announce their departure sometime in July (as projected by many) .... then ESPN can enact the composition clause and SOME comments have been that there is a very wide degree of latitude that they can use in "re-evaluating" the media agreement and their willingness to a). continue period or b). continue with a revised media proposal / payout.

IF there is a revised media agreement PROPOSED by ESPN a). it has to be approved by the member .... 2/3rds vote and b). the current GOR disappears and is replaced by a new GOR that also has to be approved.

At that point .... once a new media agreement is PROPOSED ... there is NO media agreement in place and there is NO GOR in place so that AT THAT MOMENT any school that wants to leave in addition to the two that announced ... would be free to do so by simply paying an ACC conference exit fee. The composition clause is also triggered simply by the addition of SMU, Cal, Stanford, even if FSU and Clemson don't announce their departure in July.

Going to be interesting to see what happens. FSU & Clemson announcing their departure in July could very well be just what the doctor ordered for everyone that wants out ... comp clause triggered, new media proposal PUT FORTH, and prior to approval, we bail to the B10 for a 75% share. Adios mfer!
Click to expand...
IzemcZRcwzXJ6 (1).gif


Fun Fact: Wore this as Halloween Costume once because I lost a bet
 
Advertisement
Advertisement


This would help Miami get to the B1G. Problem is it would potentially jeopardize the FSU rivalry. Who would be the team to join the B1G with Miami if it isn’t Notre Dame? GT?
 
Last edited:
5NC4 said:


This would help Miami get to the B1G. Problem is it would potentially jeopardize the FSU rivalry. Who would be the team to join the B1G with Miami if it isn’t Notre Dame? GT?
Click to expand...

If FSU went to SEC, there is a definite possibility that actually enables us to have FSU AND UF as permanent rivals going forward cause they both would lose their current Permanent non conference rivals (with each other as they become in conference rivalry ), freeing one up..
 
calinative umstudent said:
If FSU went to SEC, there is a definite possibility that actually enables us to have FSU AND UF as permanent rivals going forward cause they both would lose their current Permanent non conference rivals (with each other as they become in conference rivalry ), freeing one up..
Click to expand...
I just believe they may discontinue the rivalry just like UF did due to difficulty of their schedule.
 
Advertisement
calinative umstudent said:
If FSU went to SEC, there is a definite possibility that actually enables us to have FSU AND UF as permanent rivals going forward cause they both would lose their current Permanent non conference rivals (with each other as they become in conference rivalry ), freeing one up..
Click to expand...
Check out the big brain on Brad.
 
Ispyin said:
He’s not right on composition clause but you guys keep keeping.
Click to expand...
You keep commenting that "that's not right" but so far you have failed to respond to the question "does anybody have the details on HOW the composition clause is worded and works"??? I make that post as A DISCUSSION TOPIC .... so far you have made "0" contribution to any discussion of the composition clause. There are a few individuals who are fairly close to the situation on the media side that have stated that the composition clause and the potential it could be enacted is a very strong factor in a potential settlement ... and if a settlement isn't reached ... it could be enacted and lead to a rather contentious couple of months (similar to the Pac 12).
 
Rickd said:
You keep commenting that "that's not right" but so far you have failed to respond to the question "does anybody have the details on HOW the composition clause is worded and works"??? I make that post as A DISCUSSION TOPIC .... so far you have made "0" contribution to any discussion of the composition clause. There are a few individuals who are fairly close to the situation on the media side that have stated that the composition clause and the potential it could be enacted is a very strong factor in a potential settlement ... and if a settlement isn't reached ... it could be enacted and lead to a rather contentious couple of months (similar to the Pac 12).
Click to expand...


Here's the reality. Nobody actually knows WHAT the Composition Clause entails. There has been a lot of guessing, but nobody has cited what the clause actually says. That doesn't mean you are 100% wrong or 100% right, you are telling us what some people have reported.

However, the clause comes from the notoriously secret ESPN contract. And, as I've noted, there are two equally (if not more) important bits of language on whether you have to be a member of the conference to be contractually bound, and when ESPN's option exercise date is.

Also, there are OTHER sections of the contract that allow ESPN to adjust upward/downward based on teams coming and going.

Finally, as reported elsewhere, ESPN is paying the ACC so little that the contract is actually a bargain and makes ESPN money. Now, one could argue that without F$U/Clemson, the contract is inherently worth LESS money, and I'd agree, but the differential is whether the loss of those two teams can be covered by the OTHER clauses (which allow ESPN to pay less money) or if it would cause ESPN to get rid of an ENTIRE raft of cheap programming on which they make money.

I'll leave you with this. On my most recent Xfinity bill, I saw a credit for "RSN". I soon realized that I was getting a credit for the Bally regional sports networks that are no longer available on my "sports package". The credit was for more than 50% of what I am billed monthly for the sports package. If ESPN cancels the ACC, then they also cancel the ACCN, and they lose another form of revenue beyond the Saturday broadcast games.

I don't think ESPN will invoke the Competition Clause over losing 2 teams.

Four? Possibly.

Six? Probably.

Eight? Shut the whole **** thing down.

We will know soon enough, whether it is better for ESPN to move the entirety of the ACC contract money for 15 teams to, say, the SEC for the best 2-8 ACC teams.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top