MrGPAC said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

You guys are missing the big picture. If espn can't renew the media rights deal because the date is rolled back, they're forced to either renew at a higher rate or, absent a new media deal, the schools seeking to leave now only have to pay an exit fee since there's no media revenue to pay back.

---

The ACC owns the media rights through 2036 whether or not they have a contract with ESPN...

---

And it would require a vote from the membership to give those up. Maybe FSU could get the votes to let them leave, but given how the vote to add Cal/Furd/SMU went I am dubious.

MrGPAC said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

You guys are missing the big picture. If espn can't renew the media rights deal because the date is rolled back, they're forced to either renew at a higher rate or, absent a new media deal, the schools seeking to leave now only have to pay an exit fee since there's no media revenue to pay back.

---

The ACC owns the media rights through 2036 whether or not they have a contract with ESPN...

---

I think accprisoner's point is, it doesn't matter. If ESPN wants to renegotiate from 2027 to 2036 a new media deal, then schools like FSU, Clemson, NC, NC State, Miami, perhaps Virginia - they don't have to agree to a new deal and would most definitely vote against renewal. So the ACC goes looking for a new media partner to broadcast their games.

And who would that be? Who would the ACC then partner with to "exercise" their grant of rights? The only player I see is ESPN and its unlikely that ESPN would go substantively higher in a new media rights deal. So, If they don't find a new media partner, or the ESPN deal gets voted down by 5 schools, you have a GoR that isn't worth the paper it was printed on. In other words, the teams in the ACC have given the ACC Admin ownership of their media rights. But if there is no new deal with ESPN and no new partner or a substantially higher dollar value - then there is the "out" for FSU.

I see two avenues for the schools listed above: sue, based on FSU's current argument that they had no say-so in the ESPN renewal; the buyout is outrageous; restraint of trade, etc. Or they simply wait until 2027, join together with the other schools and say no, no matter what.

ESPN doesn't need a "new deal" because they have an existing deal that they like. It's also one of the reasons there's no money for FSU to join the SEC. ESPN doesn't want to pay for it and doesn't have any reason to do it.

WalterSobchak said:

---

ESPN doesn't need a "new deal" because they have an existing deal that they like. It's also one of the reasons there's no money for FSU to join the SEC. ESPN doesn't want to pay for it and doesn't have any reason to do it.

---

Exactly. FSU thinks ESPN is going to walk from a deal they like (even encouraging Cal, Stanford and SMU to join) so they can pay FSU substantially more in the SEC? Why? Because Florida's governor has done such a great job cultivating a close relationship with Disney?

And even if ESPN did walk according to the terms of the contract that was the basis for all the schools signing the extension of the GORs, the ACC would still own the GORs.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure they need 10 schools for a majority, not 5.

I think what you wrote is one of the main points of FSU's argument. They aren't going to get anything more from ESPN. So they are tied to a deal until 2036 that gives them no increases. And if its between "losing" FSU to Fox or paying them more in the SEC. They're going to pay more.

The argument of "well they signed it so they are locked in" wouldn't do well in court. If anything, no change in revenue squares perfectly with FSU's argument.

Does anyone honestly think that the ACC is going to be able to keep schools from leaving after 2027 or 2029? Notwithstanding any legal basis that the ACC or FSU have. The current media deal and GoR favors those schools that are not good in football year in and year out. It guarantees a revenue stream. Nothing more. And it doesn't matter whether FSU gets more money in the SEC or B1G. What matters is that they think they will get more. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if they took less to join the SEC or B1G. They are simply done with the ACC.

philly1121 said:

---

I think what you wrote is one of the main points of FSU's argument. They aren't going to get anything more from ESPN. So they are tied to a deal until 2036 that gives them no increases. And if its between "losing" FSU to Fox or paying them more in the SEC. They're going to pay more.

The argument of "well they signed it so they are locked in" wouldn't do well in court. If anything, no change in revenue squares perfectly with FSU's argument.

Does anyone honestly think that the ACC is going to be able to keep schools from leaving after 2027 or 2029? Notwithstanding any legal basis that the ACC or FSU have. The current media deal and GoR favors those schools that are not good in football year in and year out. It guarantees a revenue stream. Nothing more. And it doesn't matter whether FSU gets more money in the SEC or B1G. What matters is that they think they will get more. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if they took less to join the SEC or B1G. They are simply done with the ACC.

---

The argument that they signed a contract "wouldn't hold up in court"???? Huh? How could business be conducted if contracts are NOT enforceable in court? That is nuts.

People sign long term contracts all the time. A 20 year deal is not unusual in court. I deal with 99 year leases with levelized payments. They are very much enforceable in court.

Just because you don't like a deal after you sign it does not mean you can walk from it unless the contract says you can or the contract violates the law. $40 million per year per school is still a lot of money. It is more than twice what the PAC-10 was offered last year.

philly, ur opinion ignores contractual law in the united states of america & the high probability florida state is gonna be 3-9 in 2024

if shocky's hosts a pregame tailagate at buc-ee's, will u attend the roadie at pittsburgh?

philly thinks all those home loan defaults were just stupid people who didn't know to tell the bank their promissory note was unenforceable. The banks hate this one simple trick!

Calumnus, there are lease agreements and there are media rights deals. Do you think that realignment in college footall would allow for such a long term deal to stand if those teams that signed onto the deal are now looking for a way out of it because they think its a restraint of trade, among other things?

The ACC is suing for breaches of legal and financial obligations from FSU. FSU is suing the ACC for unilaterally extending the Tier 1 media rights to 2036 with zero dollar increases. They also signed the extension of the GoR in 2016. But their lawsuit claims they did so under the ACC's threat that ESPN would walk away from the deal. And finally, FSU is claiming that at the same time they extended the GoR, the ACC started installing financial penalties for teams that decided to leave the conference. Penalties so high, they would dissuade any team from leaving the conference. I think most people on this board agree that this could be between $400-500 million.

These things we all know. But even though the ACC created performance incentives for the best football teams in the conference, it still pales in comparison to what schools in the SEC and B1G are making. And I've said it once, I'll say it again, FSU feels that they are missing out on, at very least, competing for these additional dollars by being unable to market themselves to the SEC or B1G. I think this last point is probably where they win. And this last point is also the one area that is negotiable.

But I ask again, does anyone believe that the ACC will last beyond 2027 or 2029? As far as ESPN goes - I'm sure they would love college football contraction. They would love for the ACC to be imploded so they would only have to pay those teams that are worth more for football. They wouldn't have to pay $33 million to Wake, Pitt, Syracuse, Pitt, BC or GTech. If I'm ESPN, that's a no brainer.

You're mashing two things together. We're only talking about enforceability of the GOR. Leaving some other way is certainly possible, nobody is arguing about that. Hell the GOR has a clear path for FSU to leave today they just can't afford it. They already very publicly tried to "get creative" and failed miserably.

I haven't read FSU's complaint because I think this will be litigated in NC. That's hurdle #1. But you seem to be identifying duress and excessive liquidated damages as arguments to invalidate the contract. I don't think FSU is nearly as confident as you are or they would've simply breached and relied on winning in court or reaching a fast negotiated settlement. That's what OUT did. But FSU hasn't and the ACC has dug in. We'll see what FSU says in Carolina on Feb 16. As they say, getcha popcorn.

WalterSobchak said:

---

You're mashing two things together. We're only talking about enforceability of the GOR. Leaving some other way is certainly possible, nobody is arguing about that. Hell the GOR has a clear path for FSU to leave today they just can't afford it. They already very publicly tried to "get creative" and failed miserably.

---

I think the argument presented by our "accprisoner" friend is that if FSU can argue that the extension from ESPN to 2036 can no longer happen (I guess because the ACC leadership extended ESPN's deadline without a membership vote), they will have a ticket out of the GOR because a bunch of other schools will vote with them to reduce the exit fees and allow them to leave the conference. Again, I'm not sure this comports with reality. I don't think a majority of current ACC schools would want to go along with FSU's plan, let alone a two-thirds majority (which is what seems to be the requirement for taking any action on the GOR).

sycasey said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

You're mashing two things together. We're only talking about enforceability of the GOR. Leaving some other way is certainly possible, nobody is arguing about that. Hell the GOR has a clear path for FSU to leave today they just can't afford it. They already very publicly tried to "get creative" and failed miserably.

---

I think the argument presented by our "accprisoner" friend is that if FSU can argue that the extension from ESPN to 2036 can no longer happen (I guess because the ACC leadership extended ESPN's deadline without a membership vote), they will have a ticket out of the GOR because a bunch of other schools will vote with them to reduce the exit fees and allow them to leave the conference. Again, I'm not sure this comports with reality. I don't think a majority of current ACC schools would want to go along with FSU's plan, let alone a two-thirds majority (which is what seems to be the requirement for taking any action on the GOR).

---

Except the membership all signed the GORs with the ACC based on the proposed contract extension with ESPN. The extension the ACC signed is the extension they reviewed before they signed the GORs.

Arguing the ACC "unilaterally extended" is a ridiculous argument. That is exactly how conference media rights work. Again, in 2023, the PAC-10 schools all refused to sign the GORs based on Kliavkoff only having an Apple streaming deal. Now, they <could> have signed anyway and said "Go find something better" but that would have been stupid. Once you sign the GORs, the conference owns your media rights whether the conference can get a "good" deal or not. That is how it works. That is why in practice, the schools all want to see the deal the conference has before they sign the GORs. And that is exactly what happened in the ACC.

Now, saying FSU can negotiate a buyout with the ACC, sure, but that is a completely different argument.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

You're mashing two things together. We're only talking about enforceability of the GOR. Leaving some other way is certainly possible, nobody is arguing about that. Hell the GOR has a clear path for FSU to leave today they just can't afford it. They already very publicly tried to "get creative" and failed miserably.

---

I think the argument presented by our "accprisoner" friend is that if FSU can argue that the extension from ESPN to 2036 can no longer happen (I guess because the ACC leadership extended ESPN's deadline without a membership vote), they will have a ticket out of the GOR because a bunch of other schools will vote with them to reduce the exit fees and allow them to leave the conference. Again, I'm not sure this comports with reality. I don't think a majority of current ACC schools would want to go along with FSU's plan, let alone a two-thirds majority (which is what seems to be the requirement for taking any action on the GOR).

---

Except the membership all signed the GORs with the ACC based on the proposed contract extension with ESPN. The extension the ACC signed is the extension they reviewed before they signed the GORs.

Arguing the ACC "unilaterally extended" is a ridiculous argument. That is exactly how conference media rights work. Again, in 2023, the PAC-10 schools all refused to sign the GORs based on Kliavkoff only having an Apple streaming deal. Now, they <could> have signed anyway and said "Go find something better" but that would have been stupid. Once you sign the GORs, the conference owns your media rights whether the conference can get a "good" deal or not. That is how it works. That is why in practice, the schools all want to see the deal the conference has before they sign the GORs. And that is exactly what happened in the ACC.

Now, saying FSU can negotiate a buyout with the ACC, sure, but that is a completely different argument.

---

or, FSU convinces a majority of the other members that this deal is so 'bad', they need to vote to disband the ACC.

philly1121 said:

---

Calumnus, there are lease agreements and there are media rights deals. Do you think that realignment in college footall would allow for such a long term deal to stand if those teams that signed onto the deal are now looking for a way out of it because they think its a restraint of trade, among other things?

The ACC is suing for breaches of legal and financial obligations from FSU. FSU is suing the ACC for unilaterally extending the Tier 1 media rights to 2036 with zero dollar increases. They also signed the extension of the GoR in 2016. But their lawsuit claims they did so under the ACC's threat that ESPN would walk away from the deal. And finally, FSU is claiming that at the same time they extended the GoR, the ACC started installing financial penalties for teams that decided to leave the conference. Penalties so high, they would dissuade any team from leaving the conference. I think most people on this board agree that this could be between $400-500 million.

These things we all know. But even though the ACC created performance incentives for the best football teams in the conference, it still pales in comparison to what schools in the SEC and B1G are making. And I've said it once, I'll say it again, FSU feels that they are missing out on, at very least, competing for these additional dollars by being unable to market themselves to the SEC or B1G. I think this last point is probably where they win. And this last point is also the one area that is negotiable.

But I ask again, does anyone believe that the ACC will last beyond 2027 or 2029? As far as ESPN goes - I'm sure they would love college football contraction. They would love for the ACC to be imploded so they would only have to pay those teams that are worth more for football. They wouldn't have to pay $33 million to Wake, Pitt, Syracuse, Pitt, BC or GTech. If I'm ESPN, that's a no brainer.

---

The extension to 2036 includes yearly increases in the media rights if it is accepted. At the end of the contract in 2038 the media rights are at the $52 million dollar level. The average over the course is 40 million. But, for example, the 2016 contract was a lot less than 40 million. It is a reasonable contract.

Oski87 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Calumnus, there are lease agreements and there are media rights deals. Do you think that realignment in college footall would allow for such a long term deal to stand if those teams that signed onto the deal are now looking for a way out of it because they think its a restraint of trade, among other things?

The ACC is suing for breaches of legal and financial obligations from FSU. FSU is suing the ACC for unilaterally extending the Tier 1 media rights to 2036 with zero dollar increases. They also signed the extension of the GoR in 2016. But their lawsuit claims they did so under the ACC's threat that ESPN would walk away from the deal. And finally, FSU is claiming that at the same time they extended the GoR, the ACC started installing financial penalties for teams that decided to leave the conference. Penalties so high, they would dissuade any team from leaving the conference. I think most people on this board agree that this could be between $400-500 million.

These things we all know. But even though the ACC created performance incentives for the best football teams in the conference, it still pales in comparison to what schools in the SEC and B1G are making. And I've said it once, I'll say it again, FSU feels that they are missing out on, at very least, competing for these additional dollars by being unable to market themselves to the SEC or B1G. I think this last point is probably where they win. And this last point is also the one area that is negotiable.

But I ask again, does anyone believe that the ACC will last beyond 2027 or 2029? As far as ESPN goes - I'm sure they would love college football contraction. They would love for the ACC to be imploded so they would only have to pay those teams that are worth more for football. They wouldn't have to pay $33 million to Wake, Pitt, Syracuse, Pitt, BC or GTech. If I'm ESPN, that's a no brainer.

---

The extension to 2036 includes yearly increases in the media rights if it is accepted. At the end of the contract in 2038 the media rights are at the $52 million dollar level. The average over the course is 40 million. But, for example, the 2016 contract was a lot less than 40 million. It is a reasonable contract.

---

It is a MUCH better contract than the the Big-12 got and FAR better than the PAC-10 was offered, not to mention any of the G5. Basically 3rd of 10. Just not as much as the B1G and SEC,

Now granted, USC, UCLA, Texas and Oklahoma all did not like the level they were paid in the PAC-12 and Big-12 and wanted to join the B1G or SEC. So what did they do? They left when the GORs expired or paid to leave early!

FSU did not have to sign the GORs extension in 2016, but they did. If they want to leave they need to negotiate with the ACC.

FSU doesn't even have fellow FL "citizen" Miami joining them in their complaint. It's a huge problem with all of their core arguments: How can all of these terrible acts by the conference leadership only victimize them?

I finally skimmed the FSU complaint. It's pretty bad. Lots of "table pounding" in there. Looks like Greenberg kicked it down to a summer intern and said "have fun kid." It's got a count literally titled "Unenforceable For Several Other Reasons" LOL. aka "I know there's no actual cause of action for this stuff but the client insists I throw it in anyways." It's littered with citations to media articles masquerading as factual evidence. All in all it's really just embarrassing.

There's a bunch of vague duress (huge loser) table pounding interspersed but their actual claims are:

Unreasonable Restraint of Trade (loser)
Unenforceable Penalties (aka liquidated damages)
Material Breach (loser)
Breach of Fiduciary Duties (loser)
Frustration of Purpose (loser)
Several Other Reasons (aka pound the table some more = loser)
Violates Public Policy (massive loser)

So they're hanging their hat on liquidated damages but that's a relatively complicated and nuanced analysis. It's not simply "this number is too big to be reasonable." Big numbers are fine if the other elements are present. Honestly it's all they've got so it's what I would do too gun to my head so to speak. IMO this is simply an attempt to force the ACC to the table to negotiate a reduced buyout. Litigation is a dynamic process where the parties test their leverage and attempt to arrive at an acceptable settlement value. More often than not that happens. Sometimes it doesn't. The wins and losses along the way help determine leverage and drive settlement value.

There is nothing reasonable about the ACC contract when the B1G and SEC are set to make upwards of $70 mil per team. So you're saying FSU should be happy that they're set to make $52 million by the end of the GoR? Really? Surprising that they would want out of the contract. lol

Happy? What does that have to do with anything?

philly, the only thing unreasonable is ur ignoring my invitation to the buc-ee's pregame tailgate before the pittsburgh game

being "happy" is not a material contractual factor, got it?

philly1121 said:

---

There is nothing reasonable about the ACC contract when the B1G and SEC are set to make upwards of $70 mil per team. So you're saying FSU should be happy that they're set to make $52 million by the end of the GoR? Really? Surprising that they would want out of the contract. lol

---

Not surprising they want out of the contract, what is surprising is you think that is all it takes for them to get out of it.

If no one ever wanted out of an agreement there wouldn't be a need for contracts in the first place.

philly1121 said:

---

There is nothing reasonable about the ACC contract when the B1G and SEC are set to make upwards of $70 mil per team.

---

It would be unreasonable if the ACC had the same football TV value as the BiG and SEC, but everyone knows that those values are not even close.

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

You're mashing two things together. We're only talking about enforceability of the GOR. Leaving some other way is certainly possible, nobody is arguing about that. Hell the GOR has a clear path for FSU to leave today they just can't afford it. They already very publicly tried to "get creative" and failed miserably.

---

I think the argument presented by our "accprisoner" friend is that if FSU can argue that the extension from ESPN to 2036 can no longer happen (I guess because the ACC leadership extended ESPN's deadline without a membership vote), they will have a ticket out of the GOR because a bunch of other schools will vote with them to reduce the exit fees and allow them to leave the conference. Again, I'm not sure this comports with reality. I don't think a majority of current ACC schools would want to go along with FSU's plan, let alone a two-thirds majority (which is what seems to be the requirement for taking any action on the GOR).

---

Except the membership all signed the GORs with the ACC based on the proposed contract extension with ESPN. The extension the ACC signed is the extension they reviewed before they signed the GORs.

Arguing the ACC "unilaterally extended" is a ridiculous argument. That is exactly how conference media rights work. Again, in 2023, the PAC-10 schools all refused to sign the GORs based on Kliavkoff only having an Apple streaming deal. Now, they <could> have signed anyway and said "Go find something better" but that would have been stupid. Once you sign the GORs, the conference owns your media rights whether the conference can get a "good" deal or not. That is how it works. That is why in practice, the schools all want to see the deal the conference has before they sign the GORs. And that is exactly what happened in the ACC.

Now, saying FSU can negotiate a buyout with the ACC, sure, but that is a completely different argument.

---

or, FSU convinces a majority of the other members that this deal is so 'bad', they need to vote to disband the ACC.

---

I'm sure their argument will be highly convincing.

"The rest of this conference sucks and is dragging us down! You guys will vote for what we want now, right?"

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

You're mashing two things together. We're only talking about enforceability of the GOR. Leaving some other way is certainly possible, nobody is arguing about that. Hell the GOR has a clear path for FSU to leave today they just can't afford it. They already very publicly tried to "get creative" and failed miserably.

---

I think the argument presented by our "accprisoner" friend is that if FSU can argue that the extension from ESPN to 2036 can no longer happen (I guess because the ACC leadership extended ESPN's deadline without a membership vote), they will have a ticket out of the GOR because a bunch of other schools will vote with them to reduce the exit fees and allow them to leave the conference. Again, I'm not sure this comports with reality. I don't think a majority of current ACC schools would want to go along with FSU's plan, let alone a two-thirds majority (which is what seems to be the requirement for taking any action on the GOR).

---

Except the membership all signed the GORs with the ACC based on the proposed contract extension with ESPN. The extension the ACC signed is the extension they reviewed before they signed the GORs.

Arguing the ACC "unilaterally extended" is a ridiculous argument. That is exactly how conference media rights work. Again, in 2023, the PAC-10 schools all refused to sign the GORs based on Kliavkoff only having an Apple streaming deal. Now, they <could> have signed anyway and said "Go find something better" but that would have been stupid. Once you sign the GORs, the conference owns your media rights whether the conference can get a "good" deal or not. That is how it works. That is why in practice, the schools all want to see the deal the conference has before they sign the GORs. And that is exactly what happened in the ACC.

Now, saying FSU can negotiate a buyout with the ACC, sure, but that is a completely different argument.

---

or, FSU convinces a majority of the other members that this deal is so 'bad', they need to vote to disband the ACC.

---

I'm sure their argument will be highly convincing.

"The rest of this conference sucks and is dragging us down! You guys will vote for what we want now, right?"

---

"All I need is 7 of you losers to vote with me to dissolve the conference so I can get rich in the SEC and leave you losers behind to have to negotiate an even worse contract."

What is funny is the three schools who are getting next to nothing out of the current contract and have the least invested in the conference (Cal, Stanford and SMU) are the ones they are insulting and alienating, and the company that controls the contract they want cancelled and the contract for the conference they want to join, is the company their governor is attacking.

Me and the homies landing in Tallahassee on September 21st pic.twitter.com/ibvrry4DFj

— Don Grizzell, Ph.D. (@golDonbear) January 24, 2024

**** the seminoles (3-9 in 2024 & nowhere to go except rehab)#

I have no idea what you mean. Inside joke? Movie line? actual invite? Describe.

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

There is nothing reasonable about the ACC contract when the B1G and SEC are set to make upwards of $70 mil per team. So you're saying FSU should be happy that they're set to make $52 million by the end of the GoR? Really? Surprising that they would want out of the contract. lol

---

Not surprising they want out of the contract, what is surprising is you think that is all it takes for them to get out of it.

If no one ever wanted out of an agreement there wouldn't be a need for contracts in the first place.

---

No, I'm describing the day we live in.

And I ask one more time - do you think the conference will be around by 2027 or 2029/30 if the status quo in the ACC remains?

BearSD said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

There is nothing reasonable about the ACC contract when the B1G and SEC are set to make upwards of $70 mil per team.

---

It would be unreasonable if the ACC had the same football TV value as the BiG and SEC, but everyone knows that those values are not even close.

---

I agree. But I'm not talking about the whole ACC. I'm talking about 2-3 teams. I've never said each member school of the ACC should get B1G or SEC money. What I am talking about, as I always have, is that FSU and Clemson don't feel like they are earning $33 mil + perf incentives. They feel like they are losing close to $20 million because of the current deal.

philly1121 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

There is nothing reasonable about the ACC contract when the B1G and SEC are set to make upwards of $70 mil per team.

---

It would be unreasonable if the ACC had the same football TV value as the BiG and SEC, but everyone knows that those values are not even close.

---

I agree. But I'm not talking about the whole ACC. I'm talking about 2-3 teams. I've never said each member school of the ACC should get B1G or SEC money. What I am talking about, as I always have, is that FSU and Clemson don't feel like they are earning $33 mil + perf incentives. They feel like they are losing close to $20 million because of the current deal.

---

Everybody knows this. Nobody is disputing it. Maybe the ACC should add claims against FSU and Clemson that they haven't lifted everyone's boat the way OSU, UM, Bama, and UGA etc. have. You think Indiana, Vandy et al are worth $70M+ per year? LOL

The sole issue is that FSU entered into a binding agreement to bundle rights when it suited them, and now wants a free escape when they no longer think that's true.

Quote:

---

"All I need is 7 of you losers to vote with me to dissolve the conference so I can get rich in the SEC and leave you losers behind to have to negotiate an even worse contract."

What is funny is the three schools who are getting next to nothing out of the current contract and have the least invested in the conference (Cal, Stanford and SMU) are the ones they are insulting and alienating, and the company that controls the contract they want cancelled and the contract for the conference they want to join, is the company their governor is attacking.

---

Hmm. Let's examine this statement for a moment. The first sentence. Spot on. That's exactly the way FSU feels. More on that in a sec.

"least invested in the conference" Now that is a statement. Let's go back in time a little bit. SC/ southern branch decide to leave. We beg and plead for the Regents to stop the deal for UCLA. They refuse. We ask for money in exchange for their departure. Jury is still out on that. Then we sit on the sidelines (I have seen nothing to conclude otherwise), hoping that the Pac somehow stays alive. Nope. Everyone leaves except the 4 rejects.

Having no hope at all - the ACC throws us a lifeline so that THEY can also stay alive for which our loyalty now comes in the form of a fraction of the normal payout. And you think we are least invested in this conference?

That had we not been allowed to join we would most certainly have been relegated. The bottom would have dropped out financially in our Athletic Dept. We would have to slash and burn other athletic teams. Ticket sales for football would have cratered (as everyone wrote they're not gonna pay to see the likes of Fresno State). And our tv presence would have virtually disappeared. Least invested. Hmm.

As far as the first sentence - there is a reason that the ACC brought us in. They knew we were desperate. They knew that any vote to dissolve would be met with us voting to keep the conference alive. So we wait. We wait for this lawsuit by FSU to sort things out. Least invested indeed.

WalterSobchak said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

There is nothing reasonable about the ACC contract when the B1G and SEC are set to make upwards of $70 mil per team.

---

It would be unreasonable if the ACC had the same football TV value as the BiG and SEC, but everyone knows that those values are not even close.

---

I agree. But I'm not talking about the whole ACC. I'm talking about 2-3 teams. I've never said each member school of the ACC should get B1G or SEC money. What I am talking about, as I always have, is that FSU and Clemson don't feel like they are earning $33 mil + perf incentives. They feel like they are losing close to $20 million because of the current deal.

---

Everybody knows this. Nobody is disputing it. Maybe the ACC should add claims against FSU and Clemson that they haven't lifted everyone's boat the way OSU, UM, Bama, and UGA etc. have. You think Indiana, Vandy et al are worth $70M+ per year? LOL

The sole issue is that FSU entered into a binding agreement to bundle rights when it suited them, and now wants a free escape when they no longer think that's true.

---

Bingo. Everyone knows how FSU feels. But why should they be let out of their contract now because their feelings have changed? That's not how business works.

WalterSobchak said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

There is nothing reasonable about the ACC contract when the B1G and SEC are set to make upwards of $70 mil per team.

---

It would be unreasonable if the ACC had the same football TV value as the BiG and SEC, but everyone knows that those values are not even close.

---

I agree. But I'm not talking about the whole ACC. I'm talking about 2-3 teams. I've never said each member school of the ACC should get B1G or SEC money. What I am talking about, as I always have, is that FSU and Clemson don't feel like they are earning $33 mil + perf incentives. They feel like they are losing close to $20 million because of the current deal.

---

Everybody knows this. Nobody is disputing it. Maybe the ACC should add claims against FSU and Clemson that they haven't lifted everyone's boat the way OSU, UM, Bama, and UGA etc. have. You think Indiana, Vandy et al are worth $70M+ per year? LOL

The sole issue is that FSU entered into a binding agreement to bundle rights when it suited them, and now wants a free escape when they no longer think that's true.

---

Yes. The SEC has the TV $$$ they have because Alabama, Georgia, LSU are worth a lot more than $65 million a year. Ohio State and Michigan are also worth far more than their share of Big Ten TV money.

FSU, at best, would be worth the *average* value in one of those conferences. They have failed to lift the TV value of the ACC because their TV value is about equal to that of Michigan State, not Michigan.

philly1121 said:

---

Quote:

---

"All I need is 7 of you losers to vote with me to dissolve the conference so I can get rich in the SEC and leave you losers behind to have to negotiate an even worse contract."

What is funny is the three schools who are getting next to nothing out of the current contract and have the least invested in the conference (Cal, Stanford and SMU) are the ones they are insulting and alienating, and the company that controls the contract they want cancelled and the contract for the conference they want to join, is the company their governor is attacking.

---

Hmm. Let's examine this statement for a moment. The first sentence. Spot on. That's exactly the way FSU feels. More on that in a sec.

"least invested in the conference" Now that is a statement. Let's go back in time a little bit. SC/ southern branch decide to leave. We beg and plead for the Regents to stop the deal for UCLA. They refuse. We ask for money in exchange for their departure. Jury is still out on that. Then we sit on the sidelines (I have seen nothing to conclude otherwise), hoping that the Pac somehow stays alive. Nope. Everyone leaves except the 4 rejects.

Having no hope at all - the ACC throws us a lifeline so that THEY can also stay alive for which our loyalty now comes in the form of a fraction of the normal payout. And you think we are least invested in this conference?

That had we not been allowed to join we would most certainly have been relegated. The bottom would have dropped out financially in our Athletic Dept. We would have to slash and burn other athletic teams. Ticket sales for football would have cratered (as everyone wrote they're not gonna pay to see the likes of Fresno State). And our tv presence would have virtually disappeared. Least invested. Hmm.

As far as the first sentence - there is a reason that the ACC brought us in. They knew we were desperate. They knew that any vote to dissolve would be met with us voting to keep the conference alive. So we wait. We wait for this lawsuit by FSU to sort things out. Least invested indeed.

---

I am not the one arguing that the ACC is going to dissolve in 2 years. You are. Of course we are overjoyed to be in the ACC and we now have a vote. Who are the 8 schools who would vote with FSU to dissolve?

if we're no longer honoring contract extensions that turned out to be bad decisions, can we start with Wilcox and Knowlton? Or is the difference that it was blatantly obvious that Wilcox and Knowlton extensions were awful decisions at the time?

boredom said:

---

if we're no longer honoring contract extensions that turned out to be bad decisions, can we start with Wilcox and Knowlton? Or is the difference that it was blatantly obvious that Wilcox and Knowlton extensions were awful decisions at the time?

---

Honestly, a lot of people thought at the time that the ACC might be making a mistake to lock themselves in for so long. Too bad, they all signed it.