forums

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

MPCane17 said:
@TheOriginalCane you hearing anything about this BOT meeting on Friday at FSU? One of their insiders who’s been talking about realignment similar to you says the GOR and exit fee has been worked out and they will leave
Click to expand...
Lying Season 4 GIF by Curb Your Enthusiasm
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
ESPN only has to pay a 70% share to the ACC for Stanford-Cal
Click to expand...

My understanding is the way the deal is written, ESPN is paying full shares for Stanford, Cal and SMU. Stanford and Cal have to pay back 70% of their shares to the ACC the first year, then a little less every subsequent year for the first 9 years. Then in year 10, they pay back nothing. SMU gets nothing their first 9 years, then receives their full share in year 10. But ESPN is still paying full pro-rata for each school's Tier 1 rights under the terms of the existing agreement and can only renegotiate if the ACC drops below 15 schools.
 
dycane said:
This is the type of stuff I would expect to see in a response brief before the 11th Cir. You are in a league of your own. Lucid, brilliant analysis.
Click to expand...

Be forewarned, if you use ChatGPT to respond to nonsensical legalese also written by ChatGPT, it could break the internet.
 
Liebenator said:
I find it interesting that SMU offered 7 years free to Big12 & PAC10 and they passed. I know they bumped it up to 9, but am worried we just invited a fox into the henhouse.
Click to expand...

The four Big XII schools in Texas — Baylor, Tech, Houston and especially TCU — didn't want SMU encroaching on their turf (and certainly would concur with your "fox into the henhouse" comment).

As far as the Pac, U-Dub and Oregon — regardless of any public posturing — weren't interested in signing a new media rights deal with a wounded and devalued conference from the moment USC and UCLA left for the Big Ten. And FOX was always gonna make sure there was "enough" B1G money once it was time for the Ducks and Huskies to either go or stay
 
Advertisement
PhenomCane said:
My understanding is the way the deal is written, ESPN is paying full shares for Stanford, Cal and SMU. Stanford and Cal have to pay back 70% of their shares to the ACC the first year, then a little less every subsequent year for the first 9 years. Then in year 10, they pay back nothing. SMU gets nothing their first 9 years, then receives their full share in year 10. But ESPN is still paying full pro-rata for each school's Tier 1 rights under the terms of the existing agreement and can only renegotiate if the ACC drops below 15 schools.
Click to expand...

Full share minus what the schools receive for their Tier 3 (ACC Network) rights.

So after the "payback" to the ACC pot, Stanford and Cal will receive around 25% of the media rights payout the existing 14 all-sports members get (roughly $8.5M annually)
 
MPCane17 said:
Appreciate the insight. Sounds like we will be stuck in the acc solo for a few years until we can move? Did I get that right? Still BIG bound at some point?

Gotta think recruiting will be tough without any announcement on our part for a while
Click to expand...

OK, I'll break down the other aspects that I think will start to unfold. And then we can challenge the Four Horsemen of the NOPE-ocalypse (@NorthernVirginiaCane , @Handsome Squidbum , @dycane , and @camber_2374 ) to articulate what THEY think will happen next, since all they ever do is tell us how nobody is goin' nowhere until the mid-2030s.

First, I'd point out that if/when F$U and another school leave, it takes our "votes to kill the ACC" from 8 to 7, but with two fewer "kill" votes. So we go from needing 5 other votes (besides UM, Clemson, and F$U) to needing 6 other votes (besides UM).

So let's think about next steps.

If "Clemson-F$U" heads to ESPN because of the rights flip, it could open up an interesting argument AGAINST the GOR, which I alluded to earlier. That is, if ESPN treats Clemson-F$U rights like poker chips, instead of "but but but we really need all the ACC teams to make a 20 year commitment so that our contract will hold value", then it strengthens the argument that the PENALTY component of the GOR is just a duplicative "exit penalty", since ESPN could ******* care less who is in the below-market ACC as long as they have more worthless inventory to fill timeslots.

And let's think about WHAT would happen if ESPN facilitates 2 (or more) ACC teams to the SEC...

Then, when the Big 10 invites some ACC teams (and make no mistake, the Big 10 has not abandoned the dream of expanding into the southeast), you begin to get into the fun stuff.

1. Who sues? For what? And on what grounds? People have been overly focused on the GOR terms, in the sense that the ACC does not have to give us our share of the annual rights money. BUT WHAT ANNUAL RIGHTS MONEY? The ACC can't actually enforce anything against us, not at the outset. We are ALLOWED to leave the conference, under the terms of the ACC Constitution and Bylaws. And the ACC does not "own" our rights any longer, having sold them to ESPN. So what is the move?

2. Again, AT THE OUTSET, what is ESPN's move? We are 12 months (at least) from the fateful day when broadcast trucks for BOTH Fox/CBS/NBC and ESPN/ABC show up in Miami Gardens to broadcast a Miami home game. Quite simply, the ACC should be terrified of dipping below 15 teams, lest ESPN be within its contractual rights to reopen the contract and pay the ACC actually LESS THAN $35M per school (which is legit in a non-Clemson-F$U world). And ESPN...what...files for declaratory judgment that it can show up to televise our games, which we know that Fox/CBS/NBC will not agree to without compensation. And, then, you'd think that ESPN might have to "continue to pay" the ACC the "old guarantee" if it wants to have a credible argument that televising Miami and any other exiting ACC schools is sooooooo important to its old contract. Because if ESPN activates its right to pay the ACC actually LESS money in the future, then it undermines the (bogus) argument that ESPN really really REALLLLLY wanted the same 15 teams for all 20 years.

3. It is hard to argue that ESPN owns 15 separate media properties. The GOR bundled all 15, and ESPN bought a CONFERENCE worth of inventory. They did not set a separate price for each school, yet we inherently know that "Stanford-Cal" instead of "Clemson-F$U" is LESS VALUABLE. It just is, even without a la carte pricing. And what gets lost on the Four Horsemen of the NOPEocalypse is WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE BREACHES. Nobody has disputed that someone CAN assert that they have the right to broadcast Miami home games. What IS at dispute...is what that looks like...I have never said that schools can't leave...and I have never said that the ACC can't withhold annual revenue shares...BUT WHAT I HAVE SAID IS THAT THE ACC HAS NOTHING TO SHARE IF ESPN DOESN'T GIVE THEM THE MONEY. What is ESPN's enforcement tool? To NOT pay the ACC for Miami while insisting that they can broadcast Miami? That's not gonna fly. It's up to the ACC to NOT pay Miami, but it's also incumbent upon ESPN to ACTUALLY PAY the ACC. Interesting conundrum.

4. Here's another thought. The "we're stuck in the ACC" crowd are soooo fond of telling us how "IRREVOCABLE" and "ironclad" the GOR is. But is it? ESPN signed a contract with the ACC knowing FULL WELL that schools could leave at any time. EVEN WITH the paper tiger of the GOR trying to scare everyone straight, it has ALWAYS been the right of schools to leave the ACC. So why should ESPN "continue" to own the rights of anyone who VALIDLY leaves the ACC? They bought a bundle of inventory from a conference of 15 teams knowing that any of those 15 schools could leave. So ESPN, regardless of its purchase of "these" 15 schools, cannot possibly intervene in conference business to tell schools that they cannot leave the conference. Sure, maybe they can insist "but we are bringing a TV truck to your stadium next year", but that has NOTHING to do with the money, per se, it has to do with performance of services. And if ESPN wants to bluff the world that it will pay a half-billion every year to televise some unwilling old-ACC teams (along with some willing still-ACC teams), I would like to see them write that check. Because it will also be a PR disaster IF IF IF they insisted on broadcasting unwilling schools.

5. Here's the reality. If ESPN willingly flips a few ACC schools' rights to the ESPN side of the ledger, I strongly suspect that they will be willing to negotiate to flip a few ACC schools' rights to the Big 10. For a price. And the price will NOT be "35 million per year times 12 years". It will be something. But it won't be that. And maybe Fox/CBS/NBC will advance that money against the "future earnings" of some ACC schools, and in exchange, we agree to take a "partial share" for a while. But it can certainly happen. Anyone who thinks that Disney and Fox aren't willing to buy/sell some of its properties to the other hasn't been paying attention over the last couple of years.

So here's the conclusion. We need to find "enough things" that will make Disney/ESPN/ABC happy, Fox/CBS/NBC happy, the Big 10 happy, the ACC happy ENOUGH, and the various schools that change conferences happy. When that happens, everything will snap into place. Until that time, I hope we retain ALL of our leverage, including the nuclear option (killing the ACC), the "challenge the GOR and/or extension" option, and the "2026/2027 we out" option. I believe that the Big 10 and SEC want to "manage" expansion, and I highly doubt the SEC takes more than 2 more teams and the Big 10 takes more than 4 more teams. I would also look for a few more players to be involved soon, don't rule out USF and a few others. And the Big 12 is not out of the woods yet.

I still believe the Big 10 really really really wants to expand into the southeast.

I still believe that Fox/CBS/NBC want to snatch as many teams as possible prior to making a bid for the CFP broadcast package.

I still believe that the GOR has been waaaaaay oversold in its power and enforceability.

So the next week will be interesting, the next few months will be interesting.
 
PhenomCane said:
My understanding is the way the deal is written, ESPN is paying full shares for Stanford, Cal and SMU. Stanford and Cal have to pay back 70% of their shares to the ACC the first year, then a little less every subsequent year for the first 9 years. Then in year 10, they pay back nothing. SMU gets nothing their first 9 years, then receives their full share in year 10. But ESPN is still paying full pro-rata for each school's Tier 1 rights under the terms of the existing agreement and can only renegotiate if the ACC drops below 15 schools.
Click to expand...


ESPN is NOT paying full-share on a pro rata basis. ESPN is paying 70% of the pro-rata price for each of those 3 schools.
 
At the end of the day it's looking like this

- Almost certainly making a move within a year: FSU and Clemson.
- Next up to make a move: UNC and Miami.

- ND will remain independent for a while and is in zero rush to leave or stay. If ACC falls apart they'll sign schedule agreement with Big10. Ultimately if they eventually choose to join a conference fully it will be the Big10. So even while ESPN and SEC would obviously want ND, there's literally 0% chance that happens.

- So, Desirability ranking for SEC: FSU > Clemson > UNC >> One of UVA/VTech , Miami > NCSt/GTech > Louisville
- Desirability rankings for BIG10: ND > FSU >> Clemson > Miami > UNC >> VTech > UVA, GTech, Stanford > NCSt

- It also seems obvious that the easiest/path of least resistance to exit from the ACC is to move to the SEC, ESPN controls both media rights.
- It also seems like it'll be an easier/cheaper to leave the ACC for the BIG10 AFTER a team has already left for the SEC. And the exit agreement will either have ESPN entering the BIG10 deal or us getting partial shares from BIG10 until 2030. Either way, it's an easy decision to leave.

So from there the only question is how will the top 6-8 teams split up and on what timeline. IF the first 2 teams to leave the ACC were to leave for the BIG10, that would likely result in the remainder of the ACC staying in the conference until closer to 2027. IF the first 2 teams to leave the ACC were to leave for the SEC, I'd think that the result is 2-4 would leave for the BIG10 within a year or even at the same time.
 
Advertisement
MPCane17 said:
Huh? What’s BS? Just saw the person who Genetics has posted about and claimed is credible on the FSU site mentioning to watch out for Friday’s meeting.
Click to expand...
Genetics has been throwing insane amounts of **** against the wall including using Warchant Gene as a credible source.

FSU may end up leaving but this guy has zero information and the old Friday BOT meeting routine gets old.
 
ssvir said:
Genetics has been throwing insane amounts of **** against the wall including using Warchant Gene as a credible source.

FSU may end up leaving but this guy has zero information and the old Friday BOT meeting routine gets old.
Click to expand...
Genetics comes across to me as a guy that has a mid-level source in the Big 10 who gives him enough info to try to extrapolate what’ll happen.
 
ssvir said:
Genetics has been throwing insane amounts of **** against the wall including using Warchant Gene as a credible source.

FSU may end up leaving but this guy has zero information and the old Friday BOT meeting routine gets old.
Click to expand...


What if it is held at 5 pm? And Jon Gruden is in attendance?
 
Advertisement
When you wonder what will happen when ESPN's two primary college football properties are the SEC and ACC...and who will get preference...


ESPN just ran a segment called "ACC Struggles in Week 1", citing the losses by BC, UVa, Clemson, and GaTech.

---UVa was picked to finish last in the ACC and lost to #12 Tennessee
---Clemson and GaTech lost ACC conference games (to Duke and Louisville, respectively)
---And, yes, BC lost to Northern Illinois by 3 in OT

Eight other wins, including the two wins over SEC teams LSU (ranked #5) and South Carolina.

By contrast...

SEC Losses
---FLorida loses to Utah
---South Carolina loses to UNC
---LSU loses to F$U
---No SEC vs. SEC games, and no wins over ranked teams (ACC had 1 win over a ranked team, and 2 if you count Duke over Clemson)
 
ESPN structuring a "transition" of Clemson / FSU to the SEC by some "GOR transfer" deal would be the magic bullet to open the door to whoever wants to leave for the B10. The precedent of a "rights transfer" would be established and the only detail is the negotiation between FOX & Co and ESPN on the value / consideration. It was even mentioned roughly 4-6 weeks ago that ESPN might be involved with FOX in handling some of the "realignment addition" broadcasts for the B10. Everything would be on the table.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top