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

[Angry Ibis]

Agreed. I have been one of their biggest critics. That being said, that’s no longer the case

Related to Mario or football or all sports?

 

[Empirical Cane]

They really need to shut down HRS upper deck seating for select Miami Games.

Just makes no sense.

Put huge UHealth covers and call it advertising to effectively, and legally, transfer funds to program.

 

[TheEye]

The proposal, which was formulated by Clemson and Florida State and discussed by the league's presidents during Tuesday's regularly scheduled meeting, includes additional money going to schools with better ratings success in football and basketball.

I'm all for it, so long as it benefits Miami. I could see Miami pulling more revenue than most of the ACC. If there's one thing we are good at, is staying at home and yelling at the TV.

 

[Hurracanes]

They really need to shut down HRS upper deck seating for select Miami Games.

Just makes no sense.

Put huge UHealth covers and call it advertising to effectively, and legally, transfer funds to program.

You would lose a lot of fans for various reasons. Affordability and many like the view.

 

[SCarolina Ibis]

SHOULD be a new agreement requiring 2/3 Rd member approval.

That's where I'm kinda lost.

What ACC teams are getting paid is the root of the problem. I get that the ACC isn't going to make what the SEC/B1G do. But if reaching 2030 requires renegotiating with ESPN anyway, why not also negotiate for a higher payout for the ACC?

Maybe I'm lost here, but it makes no sense to agree to opt in when the sales pitch is "we'll stop ******** you in 2030, if you agree to let us ***** you until 2030."

 

[Rickd]

That's where I'm kinda lost.

What ACC teams are getting paid is the root of the problem. I get that the ACC isn't going to make what the SEC/B1G do. But if reaching 2030 requires renegotiating with ESPN anyway, why not also negotiate for a higher payout for the ACC?

Maybe I'm lost here, but it makes no sense to agree to opt in when the sales pitch is "we'll stop ******** you in 2030, if you agree to let us ***** you until 2030."

How do you negotiate a higher payout for a **** conference? THAT is the core problem.

 

[CaneinBroward]

Not just brand and history ... BC and Syracuse are NOT in big time college football regions / markets. FSU is basically in SEC territory that is basically southern Georgia. The % of people who watch college football in the SEC region totally dwarfs the viewership % from other parts of the country ... especially the Boston / NYC and San Francisco bay areas. There is a reason that a Bama Spring Game draws 90,000 and Stanford can't draw 10,000 for a conference game. The only thing to do in Alabama outside of hanging out at the local gas station is go to a Bama "something".

That's where I'm kinda lost.

What ACC teams are getting paid is the root of the problem. I get that the ACC isn't going to make what the SEC/B1G do. But if reaching 2030 requires renegotiating with ESPN anyway, why not also negotiate for a higher payout for the ACC?

Maybe I'm lost here, but it makes no sense to agree to opt in when the sales pitch is "we'll stop ******** you in 2030, if you agree to let us ***** you until 2030."

There is no need to renegotiate with ESPN for dollars. It is ESPN's decision whether to opt-in or not at the current payout.

The ACC has already taken a portion of the TV revenue and will provide bonus payments based on performance. Now, the rumor is they are negotiating with FSU and Clemson to take another portion of the TV revenue and provide additional payment based on each school's TV metrics (more viewers, more payout). Frankly, I don't see the big deal if it gets Miami within reach of the B1G and SEC numbers due to hopefully continued success on the field and higher and higher TV ratings.

My guess is the strategy is to get membership stability at least until 2030 in order to appease ESPN so they will choose to opt-in. Kick the can down the road basically.

 

[CaneinBroward]

Some notes:

-During a regularly scheduled meeting of ACC presidents and chancellors on Tuesday, there were discussions about alternate revenue models, a person briefed on the meeting confirmed. Hours after that meeting, ESPN and Yahoo! Sports both reported that FSU and Clemson would be open to staying in the league if financial adjustments — more like concessions — are made. Gee, how kind of them.

Then there’s the second part to Clemson and FSU’s supposed pitch, reported by ESPN: potentially shortening the league’s grant of rights, possibly to 2030, which aligns with the expiration of the Big Ten and Big 12’s media contracts.

- Nine months into what would almost certainly be a years-long legal battle, the only thing FSU has earned in court is a healthy number of attorney billable hours. The same applies to Clemson’s six-month slog in court. There has been no indication that either school has a legal leg to stand on with its respective arguments — and even if they did, the ACC has made clear it will proverbially kick the can as far as possible, via time-consuming appeals and counter-suits.

-This new revenue proposal — which stemmed from court-mandated mediation in Florida — isn’t too dissimilar from what Clemson and Florida State proposed in the not-so-distant past. (Also, importantly, these discussions are so premature, so early on, that they’re more like … the concept of a plan.) Clearly, though, there wasn’t an appetite for such a structure at the time; the ACC instead settled on its current “success initiative” — which distributes new revenue, mostly from the expanded College Football Playoff, based on schools’ on-field and on-court success — as a way to close the growing revenue gap with the SEC and Big Ten. That initiative, in theory, should have benefited Clemson and Florida State more than anyone, as the league’s preeminent football powers. But when you start 0-3, as the Seminoles have, or when you get your clock cleaned by Georgia on national TV, as the Tigers did, that pool of “success” dollars suddenly isn’t so guaranteed.

-What reason does the ACC have to acquiesce to any of those schools’ demands, when they’re realistically powerless to change their situation for anywhere from three to 12 more years?

-FSU and Clemson have been, strictly speaking in professional terms, bad partners. They have complained, loudly, about perceived wrongs. They’ve taken “family” business and made it public, messily, with no apparent benefit in sight. They’ve tried to shirk a bill that historically, and presently, many other schools have paid, including Oklahoma, Texas, USC, and UCLA in the past three years. And now, perhaps the most ironic sin of all: falling short on the football field, the one thing driving all their behavior in the first place.

This is not a situation where the ACC needs to, or should, extend an olive branch to FSU and Clemson to convince them to stay, for stability’s sake or simply to end the public clash. Now, if you’re commissioner Jim Phillips, in-fighting ain’t a good look. It has, understandably, made the league something of a laughingstock, a constant PR nightmare from which there is no clear solution. And while that may eat at Phillips, you know who else it definitely eats at? ESPN… which, yes, is probably coming into that February 2025 “look-in” with some serious questions.

-The ACC holds every ounce of leverage, and Clemson and FSU saying they’ll stay in the league only under their terms is the ultimate walk-back, a desperation play. Which in turn means if the ACC goes along, it’s only offering those schools the dollar-lined off-ramp they’re desperately seeking.

Agree with just about all you said. The only place where I differ from you is the idea that the ACC holds every ounce of leverage. They will have all the leverage IF ESPN decides to opt-in prior to February 2025. If they don't opt in, what would the ACC's leverage be over FSU and Clemson at that point? There would be no TV deal after 2027 and members could leave to go wherever they want once the TV deal ends.

Yes, the ACC could look for a new TV deal, but what kind of deal could they get if 2 of their biggest brands are in court trying to get out? And even if they were able to negotiate a deal, how do they know enough of a majority of schools would vote for it?

It is the ultimate desperation deal and probably would not lead to long-term peace. It didn't work in the Big 12 and how they bent over backwards for Texas. It actually helped speed the break up of that conference. Although, I will say as long as extra payouts are determined by success on the field and in TV ratings, it has a better chance of working than simply saying "FSU and Clemson will get more of a payout". At least it is open to other schools to benefit. Selfishly, this is actually working out well for Miami at the moment.

My guess is the ACC is thinking let's get to 2030 and hopefully within the next 6 years the idea of separating the P4 into their own league catches fire.

 

[Rickd]

Agree with just about all you said. The only place where I differ from you is the idea that the ACC holds every ounce of leverage. They will have all the leverage IF ESPN decides to opt-in prior to February 2025. If they don't opt in, what would the ACC's leverage be over FSU and Clemson at that point? There would be no TV deal after 2027 and members could leave to go wherever they want once the TV deal ends.

Yes, the ACC could look for a new TV deal, but what kind of deal could they get if 2 of their biggest brands are in court trying to get out? And even if they were able to negotiate a deal, how do they know enough of a majority of schools would vote for it?

It is the ultimate desperation deal and probably would not lead to long-term peace. It didn't work in the Big 12 and how they bent over backwards for Texas. It actually helped speed the break up of that conference. Although, I will say as long as extra payouts are determined by success on the field and in TV ratings, it has a better chance of working than simply saying "FSU and Clemson will get more of a payout". At least it is open to other schools to benefit. Selfishly, this is actually working out well for Miami at the moment.

My guess is the ACC is thinking let's get to 2030 and hopefully within the next 6 years the idea of separating the P4 into their own league catches fire.

The ACC is terrified of the prospect of the Florida judge ruling positive on FSU's request for a declaratory judgment ... that is pushing them to settle.

 

[Gi0logy]

Selfishly, this is actually working out well for Miami at the moment.

This is the only thing I care about. My non lawyer brain sees this as nothing but positive for us but someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

1. I'm fully of the belief that the ACC is dead. It's not a matter of if but when. Ideally it happens sooner rather than later but it'll happen regardless.
2. If there is a settlement, it won't be just for FSU and Clemson, it'll be for the entire conference and considering the trajectory of our program right now, we stand to arguably benefit the most in that case?
3. If there is no settlement, whatever. Status quo, we're all on the same boat but eventually the conference dies anyways.

Like there is no way this ends up being anything but good for Miami right?

 

[Tony4Canes]

 

[Ispyin]

The ACC is terrified of the prospect of the Florida judge ruling positive on FSU's request for a declaratory judgment ... that is pushing them to settle.

Alternate theory. They aren’t the ones pushing, and I don’t think they have the 2/3 vote yet…

 

[Hold My Beer]

There is a reason that a Bama Spring Game draws 90,000 and Stanford can't draw 10,000 for a conference game. The only thing to do in Alabama outside of hanging out at the local gas station is go to a Bama "something".

Always sounds like an excuse tbh

Either it's important enough to attend or it's not

 

[Hold My Beer]

FSU is basically in SEC territory that is basically southern Georgia

FYI: Us folks from North Florida don't claim South Alabama or South Georgia and they don't claim us

 

[Hold My Beer]

Got my MBA from BC - lived in Boston for 4 years. The only people in New England interested in BC football are actual students and alums. Period. There are something like 60 colleges and universities within a 100 mile radius of Boston. It’s a college region and everybody supports their own school.

Plus, the whole "pro sports" >>> "college sports" dynamic in the Northeast

 

[Rickd]

Plus, the whole "pro sports" >>> "college sports" dynamic in the Northeast

Exactly. The full time Boston area residents are heavy into the Celtics, Bruins, Patriots and Red Sox. THAT'S where the history and tradition are part of the local 's upbringing.

 

[bobbydigius]

Always sounds like an excuse tbh

Either it's important enough to attend or it's not

Agreed, if the Canes are playing a big game and there are ten things you’d rather be doing at that time, you aren’t really a fan then, are you? Lived in Chicago and LA for two decades with a **** ton to do, but when the Canes were on, I watched.

 

[CaneinBroward]

This is the only thing I care about. My non lawyer brain sees this as nothing but positive for us but someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

1. I'm fully of the belief that the ACC is dead. It's not a matter of if but when. Ideally it happens sooner rather than later but it'll happen regardless.
2. If there is a settlement, it won't be just for FSU and Clemson, it'll be for the entire conference and considering the trajectory of our program right now, we stand to arguably benefit the most in that case?
3. If there is no settlement, whatever. Status quo, we're all on the same boat but eventually the conference dies anyways.

Like there is no way this ends up being anything but good for Miami right?

3 years ago I would have said you were crazy if you told me USC and UCLA would be in the Big 10 and it would cause a domino effect ending with a 100+ year old conference disintegrating for all intents and purposes.

I'm still foolishly hoping the powers that be will eventually do what is best for the sport as a whole and what makes it special. Whatever happens, I just hope Miami is in the best position possible.

 

[Empirical Cane]

You would lose a lot of fans for various reasons. Affordability and many like the view.

Make lower bowl pricing more affordable for the peasants.

Real fans what to be closer to the action baby!!!!!

Hear me out....

 

[filmcane]

I must love abuse because I'm about to say the quiet part out loud...

I am OK with the Canes staying in the ACC as long as they get comparable money to the Big 2 and the Nolies and Tigahs stay put. Love to say, "Also, if ND joins..." but I know that's just fool's gold.

I am anticipating some sustainable success for the next few years, so again, as long as we make good money, still have a few solid teams in the ACC and always have a path to the playoffs, I'm OK with us remaining in the ACC.

...(Covers head, runs and hides)...