sycasey said:

---

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.

---

Though, for the ACC as a whole, it appears to have been shrewd. Certainly from the perspective of the PAC-12 or even the Big-12 or any G5. If we had that contract in 2016 with ESPN managing the Pac-12 Network, it would be the PAC-12 today expanded to 16 teams as the clear #3 conference. With USC in the FSU role complaining that they don't make enough. I do think USC is smart enough to know they can't get out of a contract though and would not be wasting time and money in court.

I said 3 years. Edited for this: And to be clear, I didn't say it was going to dissolve, I said it was going to be 2-5 schools that were likely wanting to leave. FSU, Clemson, UNC, NC State, and Miami.

Then don't say we're the "least invested" in this conference. That statement is absurd.

And this: Not sure if its eight but it would likely be the 5 schools mentioned above and then Virginia and VTech.

philly1121 said:

---

I said 3 years. Edited for this: And to be clear, I didn't say it was going to dissolve, I said it was going to be 2-5 schools that were likely wanting to leave. FSU, Clemson, UNC, NC State, and Miami.

Then don't say we're the "least invested" in this conference. That statement is absurd.

And this: Not sure if its eight but it would likely be the 5 schools mentioned above and then Virginia and VTech.

---

Where would they possibly go? Big 12?

philly1121 said:

---

I said 3 years.

Then don't say we're the "least invested" in this conference. That statement is absurd.

---

There needs to be at least 8 votes to dissolve.

The schools that have no history in the conference, no rivalries, have the most travel and make the least money are by definition the least "invested" in the ACC. (Schools like FSU, UNC, Clemson are "invested" in the ACC, but are willing to give up that investment because they think they can do better, just like the schools that threw away their investment in the PAC-12).

If the B1G had offered us $10 million a year we would have jumped. If 2 or 3 years from now the B1G says "We want you as part of our West Coast pod" or if when their GORs expire USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon decide leaving was a mistake and want to rebuild the Pac, or there is a proposal to realign college football on a regional basis, who suddenly is a potential vote to dissolve the ACC?

It isn't Wake, BC, Pitt, GT, Louisville, UVa, VT, NCState, Duke, Syracuse… THEY are making $40 million a year from ESPN with no other foreseeable options and are most invested in the ACC.

Forget semantics. All I am saying is if Florida State really wants to get to 8 votes and a new realignment, they need the three new schools to have a better option (easiest to do) and they need ESPN/Disney. Instead they and their governor are pissing on us.

philly1121 said:

---

I said 3 years. Edited for this: And to be clear, I didn't say it was going to dissolve, I said it was going to be 2-5 schools that were likely wanting to leave. FSU, Clemson, UNC, NC State, and Miami.

Then don't say we're the "least invested" in this conference. That statement is absurd.

And this: Not sure if its eight but it would likely be the 5 schools mentioned above and then Virginia and VTech.

---

now you've gone from clueless re: contractual contracts to making up ****, nc state & miami have not expressed any active interest in leaving the acc

the value of florida state & clemson will be diminishing as they move towards 3-9 seasons in 2024, everything in college football is based upon now not history, got it?

and clemson will be blocked from the sec by south carolina just like florida state will find resistance from florida

and north carolina can't leave without north carolina state & nobody is gonna offer nc state

i dunno maybe u should focus less on spinning out about things that are realistically never gonna happen & maybe spend more time celebrating cal football & figuring out logistically u can make it to the road game at pittsburgh this fall

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

Though, for the ACC as a whole, it appears to have been shrewd. Certainly from the perspective of the PAC-12 or even the Big-12 or any G5. If we had that contract in 2016 with ESPN managing the Pac-12 Network, it would be the PAC-12 today expanded to 16 teams as the clear #3 conference. With USC in the FSU role complaining that they don't make enough. I do think USC is smart enough to know they can't get out of a contract though and would not be wasting time and money in court.

---

Larry Scott not getting the Pac-12 Network into a solid partnership with ESPN or Fox was by far the biggest blunder our commissioners ever made. I understand, he wanted to own the thing outright. But once it became clear it wasn't working he should have called in help. Instead he made it so those networks actively wanted to break up the league.

Talk about making up sh*t.

I'll put it here on your 3-9 prediction for FSU AND Clemson.

As far as your other delusional anecdotes -

Clemson blocked by South Carolina. Got it.

NC can't leave without NC State. Jury still out on this. And they might if UNC asks for it.

Perhaps your efforts are best reserved for the golf course or wherever the hell you've been inviting me to. lol

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

I said 3 years.

Then don't say we're the "least invested" in this conference. That statement is absurd.

---

There needs to be at least 8 votes to dissolve.

The schools that have no history in the conference, no rivalries, have the most travel and make the least money are by definition the least "invested" in the ACC. (Schools like FSU, UNC, Clemson are "invested" in the ACC, but are willing to give up that investment because they think they can do better, just like the schools that threw away their investment in the PAC-12).

If the B1G had offered us $10 million a year we would have jumped. If 2 or 3 years from now the B1G says "We want you as part of our West Coast pod" or if when their GORs expire USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon decide leaving was a mistake and want to rebuild the Pac, or there is a proposal to realign college football on a regional basis, who suddenly is a potential vote to dissolve the ACC?

It isn't Wake, BC, Pitt, GT, Louisville, UVa, VT, NCState, Duke, Syracuse… THEY are making $40 million a year from ESPN with no other foreseeable options and are most invested in the ACC.

Forget semantics. All I am saying is if Florida State really wants to get to 8 votes and a new realignment, they need the three new schools to have a better option (easiest to do) and they need ESPN/Disney. Instead they and their governor are pissing on us.

---

Our acceptance into the ACC was, if I may say, a Hail Mary. A 50 yard toss into the endzone to avoid relegation. Your description is PURE semantics. In short - we had nowhere else to go. We are on this horse for as long as it will carry us. How could we not be fully invested in this partnership? Call it whatever you want but we are all in on the ACC. That is as invested as it gets.

"If the B1G..." This. That. Whatever. This is endless with you. There is no going back calumnus. That possible invite you describe to join the B1G in a "west coast pod". That's a pipe dream. That's not going to happen. And as realignment continues, why in the world would Oregon, UCLA, UW or USC want to equally or even proportionally share revenue with us? They've been down that road. Wake, BC, Pitt, GT, VT, Syracuse and yes, US. We are included with those schools. We have nowhere else to go.

And, again, I am not predicting the ACC will dissolve. If it takes 8 votes to dissolve, I'll take your word for it. But I really don't think that's FSU's endgame. Its to find a negotiated way out. And I have no love for Desantis. But his "war" with Disney is purely political. Cheap culture war talking points.

philly1121 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

I said 3 years.

Then don't say we're the "least invested" in this conference. That statement is absurd.

---

There needs to be at least 8 votes to dissolve.

The schools that have no history in the conference, no rivalries, have the most travel and make the least money are by definition the least "invested" in the ACC. (Schools like FSU, UNC, Clemson are "invested" in the ACC, but are willing to give up that investment because they think they can do better, just like the schools that threw away their investment in the PAC-12).

If the B1G had offered us $10 million a year we would have jumped. If 2 or 3 years from now the B1G says "We want you as part of our West Coast pod" or if when their GORs expire USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon decide leaving was a mistake and want to rebuild the Pac, or there is a proposal to realign college football on a regional basis, who suddenly is a potential vote to dissolve the ACC?

It isn't Wake, BC, Pitt, GT, Louisville, UVa, VT, NCState, Duke, Syracuse… THEY are making $40 million a year from ESPN with no other foreseeable options and are most invested in the ACC.

Forget semantics. All I am saying is if Florida State really wants to get to 8 votes and a new realignment, they need the three new schools to have a better option (easiest to do) and they need ESPN/Disney. Instead they and their governor are pissing on us.

---

Our acceptance into the ACC was, if I may say, a Hail Mary. A 50 yard toss into the endzone to avoid relegation. Your description is PURE semantics. In short - we had nowhere else to go. We are on this horse for as long as it will carry us. How could we not be fully invested in this partnership? Call it whatever you want but we are all in on the ACC. That is as invested as it gets.

"If the B1G..." This. That. Whatever. This is endless with you. There is no going back calumnus. That possible invite you describe to join the B1G in a "west coast pod". That's a pipe dream. That's not going to happen. And as realignment continues, why in the world would Oregon, UCLA, UW or USC want to equally or even proportionally share revenue with us? They've been down that road. Wake, BC, Pitt, GT, VT, Syracuse and yes, US. We are included with those schools. We have nowhere else to go.

And, again, I am not predicting the ACC will dissolve. If it takes 8 votes to dissolve, I'll take your word for it. But I really don't think that's FSU's endgame. Its to find a negotiated way out. And I have no love for Desantis. But his "war" with Disney is purely political. Cheap culture war talking points.

---

Well then we are agreed. As I've been saying all along. FSU's lawsuit will fail. The ACC is not breaking up. The ESPN contract will continue. And if FSU wants out they need to negotiate. They need ACC votes to accept the deal they negotiate. They need support from their desired new conference's media partner to pay for the deal they negotiate. Right now they are just pissing away everyone's money on dumb lawsuits.

philly1121 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

I said 3 years.

Then don't say we're the "least invested" in this conference. That statement is absurd.

---

There needs to be at least 8 votes to dissolve.

The schools that have no history in the conference, no rivalries, have the most travel and make the least money are by definition the least "invested" in the ACC. (Schools like FSU, UNC, Clemson are "invested" in the ACC, but are willing to give up that investment because they think they can do better, just like the schools that threw away their investment in the PAC-12).

If the B1G had offered us $10 million a year we would have jumped. If 2 or 3 years from now the B1G says "We want you as part of our West Coast pod" or if when their GORs expire USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon decide leaving was a mistake and want to rebuild the Pac, or there is a proposal to realign college football on a regional basis, who suddenly is a potential vote to dissolve the ACC?

It isn't Wake, BC, Pitt, GT, Louisville, UVa, VT, NCState, Duke, Syracuse… THEY are making $40 million a year from ESPN with no other foreseeable options and are most invested in the ACC.

Forget semantics. All I am saying is if Florida State really wants to get to 8 votes and a new realignment, they need the three new schools to have a better option (easiest to do) and they need ESPN/Disney. Instead they and their governor are pissing on us.

---

Our acceptance into the ACC was, if I may say, a Hail Mary. A 50 yard toss into the endzone to avoid relegation. Your description is PURE semantics. In short - we had nowhere else to go. We are on this horse for as long as it will carry us. How could we not be fully invested in this partnership? Call it whatever you want but we are all in on the ACC. That is as invested as it gets.

"If the B1G..." This. That. Whatever. This is endless with you. There is no going back calumnus. That possible invite you describe to join the B1G in a "west coast pod". That's a pipe dream. That's not going to happen. And as realignment continues, why in the world would Oregon, UCLA, UW or USC want to equally or even proportionally share revenue with us? They've been down that road. Wake, BC, Pitt, GT, VT, Syracuse and yes, US. We are included with those schools. We have nowhere else to go.

And, again, I am not predicting the ACC will dissolve. If it takes 8 votes to dissolve, I'll take your word for it. But I really don't think that's FSU's endgame. Its to find a negotiated way out. And I have no love for Desantis. But his "war" with Disney is purely political. Cheap culture war talking points.

---

That's awesome that we finally completed a Hail Mary. Usually, teams complete Hail Marys against us.

philly1121 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

I said 3 years.

Then don't say we're the "least invested" in this conference. That statement is absurd.

---

There needs to be at least 8 votes to dissolve.

The schools that have no history in the conference, no rivalries, have the most travel and make the least money are by definition the least "invested" in the ACC. (Schools like FSU, UNC, Clemson are "invested" in the ACC, but are willing to give up that investment because they think they can do better, just like the schools that threw away their investment in the PAC-12).

If the B1G had offered us $10 million a year we would have jumped. If 2 or 3 years from now the B1G says "We want you as part of our West Coast pod" or if when their GORs expire USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon decide leaving was a mistake and want to rebuild the Pac, or there is a proposal to realign college football on a regional basis, who suddenly is a potential vote to dissolve the ACC?

It isn't Wake, BC, Pitt, GT, Louisville, UVa, VT, NCState, Duke, Syracuse… THEY are making $40 million a year from ESPN with no other foreseeable options and are most invested in the ACC.

Forget semantics. All I am saying is if Florida State really wants to get to 8 votes and a new realignment, they need the three new schools to have a better option (easiest to do) and they need ESPN/Disney. Instead they and their governor are pissing on us.

---

Our acceptance into the ACC was, if I may say, a Hail Mary. A 50 yard toss into the endzone to avoid relegation. Your description is PURE semantics. In short - we had nowhere else to go. We are on this horse for as long as it will carry us. How could we not be fully invested in this partnership? Call it whatever you want but we are all in on the ACC. That is as invested as it gets.

"If the B1G..." This. That. Whatever. This is endless with you. There is no going back calumnus. That possible invite you describe to join the B1G in a "west coast pod". That's a pipe dream. That's not going to happen. And as realignment continues, why in the world would Oregon, UCLA, UW or USC want to equally or even proportionally share revenue with us? They've been down that road. Wake, BC, Pitt, GT, VT, Syracuse and yes, US. We are included with those schools. We have nowhere else to go.

And, again, I am not predicting the ACC will dissolve. If it takes 8 votes to dissolve, I'll take your word for it. But I really don't think that's FSU's endgame. Its to find a negotiated way out. And I have no love for Desantis. But his "war" with Disney is purely political. Cheap culture war talking points.

---

That is effectively no different than forcing the conference to dissolve. If FSU gets an affordable price for exiting the ACC 12 years before the end of the GOR, then any school that can get into the Big Ten or SEC will also jump ship.

The correct price for FSU to buy back their media rights is whatever the Big Ten or SEC would pay for them. If the SEC offers a place to FSU, and the SEC pays its members $65 million a year in TV revenue, then FSU should have to pay the ACC $65 million for each year remaining on the ACC's GOR.

sd, would also mention that the going rate for new members to p3 conferences based upon the cal, stanford, smu, oregon & washington deals is 20% to 50% discounted media rights revenues for multiple years

that means if florida state (which imo won't be attractive after a couple of 3-9 seasons) or any school leaving if the sec or big 10 offered (which is a huge question mark) would get around the same amount of revenues at $35,000,000 than if they stayed in the acc

and philly's belief that somehow florida state donors are gonna pay a court reduced $150,000,000-$200,000,000 exist fee is pure fantasy land...oregon (phil knight) & washington (microsoft founders) are covering those schools tens of millions dollars reduced revenues, that's not gonna happen in tallahassee

the lawyers on both sides are gonna be buying getaway vacation homes in ibiza on the fsu vs acc litigation, there is a near zero chance that the acc will offer a negotiated exit as some have suggested

college football in 2024 (is all about the OPPENHEIMER roadtrip to tallahassee#

Shocky1 said:

---

sd, would also mention that the going rate for new members to p3 conferences based upon the cal, stanford, smu, oregon & washington deals is 20% to 50% discounted media rights revenues for multiple years

that means if florida state (which imo won't be attractive after a couple of 3-9 seasons) or any school leaving if the sec or big 10 offered (which is a huge question mark) would get around the same amount of revenues at $35,000,000 than if they stayed in the acc

and philly's belief that somehow florida state donors are gonna pay a court reduced $150,000,000-$200,000,000 exist fee is pure fantasy land...oregon (phil knight) & washington (microsoft founders) are covering those schools tens of millions dollars reduced revenues, that's not gonna happen in tallahassee

the lawyers on both sides are gonna be buying getaway vacation homes in ibiza on the fsu vs acc litigation, there is a near zero chance that the acc will offer a negotiated exit as some have suggested

college football in 2024 (is all about the OPPENHEIMER roadtrip to tallahassee#

---

.

If I had confidence FSU understood the concept of contracts I'd be for the ACC allowing FSU to leave for payments of $50 million a year over the next 12 years.

Not quite. I think FSU has a case. It may fail. It may not. I don't really think the point is to get out of the ACC with no penalty. Surely there will be. The exit fee, plus a negotiated $200-250 million penalty - I think FSU accepts and leaves.

There is so much dirty dealing with these conferences. I'm sure all of this will be included in FSU's case. Such as how then ACC Chair Jack Swofford sold the 3rd tier media rights to ESPN and then they sub-licensed to Raycom at the urging of Swofford. His son, of course, sits on their board.

But this ACC media deal has been bad since, arguably, 2014. If memory serves, that is why Maryland left that year because they had to cut athletic programs and were in debt.

Lastly, some have argued that Florida State's media value pales in comparison to B1G and SEC. They actually rank behind only Michigan and Ohio State in the B1G and behind Florida, Alabama, Georgia, A&M and LSU in the SEC. Value? Yeah, they have it. As much as the top 3 in each of these conferences? No. But they would get substantially more in either. And that's what they're after.

philly, under ur scenario, who on planet earth that loves seminole football is gonna pay a quarter of a billion dollars so fsu can switch conferences?

philly1121 said:

---

Not quite. I think FSU has a case. It may fail. It may not. I don't really think the point is to get out of the ACC with no penalty. Surely there will be. The exit fee, plus a negotiated $200-250 million penalty - I think FSU accepts and leaves.

There is so much dirty dealing with these conferences. I'm sure all of this will be included in FSU's case. Such as how then ACC Chair Jack Swofford sold the 3rd tier media rights to ESPN and then they sub-licensed to Raycom at the urging of Swofford. His son, of course, sits on their board.

But this ACC media deal has been bad since, arguably, 2014. If memory serves, that is why Maryland left that year because they had to cut athletic programs and were in debt.

Lastly, some have argued that Florida State's media value pales in comparison to B1G and SEC. They actually rank behind only Michigan and Ohio State in the B1G and behind Florida, Alabama, Georgia, A&M and LSU in the SEC. Value? Yeah, they have it. As much as the top 3 in each of these conferences? No. But they would get substantially more in either. And that's what they're after.

---

You're still just throwing out arguments that don't address the fact that FSU signed a contract to give up their media rights through 2036. What incentive does anyone have to let them out of it?

Quote:

---

That is effectively no different than forcing the conference to dissolve. If FSU gets an affordable price for exiting the ACC 12 years before the end of the GOR, then any school that can get into the Big Ten or SEC will also jump ship.

The correct price for FSU to buy back their media rights is whatever the Big Ten or SEC would pay for them. If the SEC offers a place to FSU, and the SEC pays its members $65 million a year in TV revenue, then FSU should have to pay the ACC $65 million for each year remaining on the ACC's GOR.

---

No, not necessarily. If, say, FSU gets out in two years - other teams may join them or may wait a year because they don't have the money or an equity partnership. But let's say, 2030. By that time, the B1G will have negotiated a new deal. It figures to be more. With all the cord cutting, the ACC Network will be, by that time, irrelevant. Remaining teams will be stuck earning $30 million less than the Illini, Rutgers and Marylands of the B1G. And that may be fine for Wake, BC, Syracuse, us, Stanford and SMU. But that would likely be unacceptable to Miami, Clemson, Virginia, UNC and Nc State. And if you'll permit an uncomfortable truth - this is why we, Stanford and SMU were brought in. To bring us in for the eventual withdrawl of one or more teams.

Time will tell.

Shocky1 said:

---

philly, under ur scenario, who on planet earth that loves seminole football is gonna pay a quarter of a billion dollars so fsu can switch conferences?

---

A private equity firm. Or a combination of that and alumni/donor support.

philly1121 said:

---

Not quite. I think FSU has a case. It may fail. It may not. I don't really think the point is to get out of the ACC with no penalty. Surely there will be. The exit fee, plus a negotiated $200-250 million penalty - I think FSU accepts and leaves.

There is so much dirty dealing with these conferences. I'm sure all of this will be included in FSU's case. Such as how then ACC Chair Jack Swofford sold the 3rd tier media rights to ESPN and then they sub-licensed to Raycom at the urging of Swofford. His son, of course, sits on their board.

But this ACC media deal has been bad since, arguably, 2014. If memory serves, that is why Maryland left that year because they had to cut athletic programs and were in debt.

Lastly, some have argued that Florida State's media value pales in comparison to B1G and SEC. They actually rank behind only Michigan and Ohio State in the B1G and behind Florida, Alabama, Georgia, A&M and LSU in the SEC. Value? Yeah, they have it. As much as the top 3 in each of these conferences? No. But they would get substantially more in either. And that's what they're after.

---

"But this ACC media deal has been bad since, arguably, 2014. If memory serves, that is why Maryland left that year because they had to cut athletic programs and were in debt."

Maryland had financial issues and left for a better paid conference. Their situation is identical to UCLA's. The PAC-12s deal was worse. They both left when they had no contractual obligation to their previous conference. Florida State could have pursued a similar option at that same time. However "bad" the ACC's contract was in 2014, in 2016 Florida State signed away their GORs until 2036.

Moreover, go back and read what the expectations were for Florida State's future earnings from the ACC under the contract extension in 2016. Florida State's earnings from the ACC in 2024 will exceed that. The ACC and ESPN has more than lived up to their end of the contract.

All of your other stuff is trying to explain why Florida State wants out of a contract they signed. We get it. They want out. They think they could make more elsewhere. Lots of people sign contracts, the market changes, and they don't want to live up to the terms of the contract they signed. That is why we have contracts in the first place. They are enforceable in court.

Quote:

---

You're still just throwing out arguments that don't address the fact that FSU signed a contract to give up their media rights through 2036. What incentive does anyone have to let them out of it?

---

I can see how we're coming in at two distinct angles or points of view. My angle would be: on what basis would the GoR be worth anything more than the paper its written on by 2036? ESPN has no incentive - ZERO - to increase any payout to the ACC. So, my question would be, you've got one team suing. By 2027 you'll probably have 7 teams suing to get out.

Yes, they signed a contract. I get it. But let me ask your opinion - would you think FSU has a case - not a winning case, but, a case against the ACC for fiduciary mismanagement and restraint of trade? If FSU can argue that the current media rights deal puts them at a financial disadvantage with their peers, and that the GoR effectively stops them from seeking alternative media deals because of financial penalties, do you think they have a case?

Also, this is happened yesterday but - I just saw on ABC News that FSU has amended their complaint against the ACC by specifically naming John Swofford and his son Chad. The knives are out! I had seen the allegations about Raycom and Jack Swofford but I didn't know the details of the sale of the Tier II and Tier III rights. Here is the link:

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/fsu-names-acc-boss-john-swofford-amended-complaint/story?id=106798076

philly1121 said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

philly, under ur scenario, who on planet earth that loves seminole football is gonna pay a quarter of a billion dollars so fsu can switch conferences?

---

A private equity firm. Or a combination of that and alumni/donor support.

---

philly1121 said:

---

Quote:

---

You're still just throwing out arguments that don't address the fact that FSU signed a contract to give up their media rights through 2036. What incentive does anyone have to let them out of it?

---

I can see how we're coming in at two distinct angles or points of view. My angle would be: on what basis would the GoR be worth anything more than the paper its written on by 2036?

---

In what way is any contract worth more than the paper it's written on?

I'm very skeptical of your "7 teams suing to get out." By my count, only three can be highly confident that they would get more money on the open market: FSU, Clemson, and UNC. For everyone else it's pretty iffy. Maybe if they start to have a great run of football success, but that would also probably come at the expense of one of the above. Given that, the ACC deal at 3rd best out of all the conferences doesn't look too bad. So again I am back to wondering why the rest of the ACC has any incentive to let FSU out of their agreement.

EDIT: Let me answer this too:

Quote:

---

Yes, they signed a contract. I get it. But let me ask your opinion - would you think FSU has a case - not a winning case, but, a case against the ACC for fiduciary mismanagement and restraint of trade? If FSU can argue that the current media rights deal puts them at a financial disadvantage with their peers, and that the GoR effectively stops them from seeking alternative media deals because of financial penalties, do you think they have a case?

---

I'm no lawyer, but again I don't see that they have a case here. Just getting less money than you "think" you should get isn't basis for breaking a contract. All indications are that every school including FSU knew what they were doing when they signed the extension; they all wanted to keep the league together so they wouldn't get poached like Maryland was. FSU changed its mind later? Too bad.

philly1121 said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

philly, under ur scenario, who on planet earth that loves seminole football is gonna pay a quarter of a billion dollars so fsu can switch conferences?

---

A private equity firm. Or a combination of that and alumni/donor support.

---

Good luck with that. Cal could use the $20 million or so that would be our share.

I think the courts are far more likely to affirm a high buyout cost as per the contract. It will set the bar high. Texas and Oklahoma's one-year buyout at $100 million each is precedent for "reasonable." So 12 years….

Then I'll laugh when ESPN or Fox gives them the $30 million that UW and Oregon are getting (ie $15 million less than they will get in the ACC) and they go .500 in conference forever, never sniffing the CFP they would regularly make as ACC champ. I'm sure they will then try to get out of their contract with the private equity fund and/ot get their money back from the ACC.

philly1121 said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

philly, under ur scenario, who on planet earth that loves seminole football is gonna pay a quarter of a billion dollars so fsu can switch conferences?

---

A private equity firm. Or a combination of that and alumni/donor support.

---

ok, and how exactly would a private equity venture capital firm recoup their investment?

I don't know shocky. I'm not an equity firm guy. All I know is what I read. Equity firms are tied to teams in La Liga and other leagues. No idea how they recoup dollars invested. From what I read in Seminole forums and the school website, they are trying to get equity partnerships to subsidize payment out of the conference.

philly1121 said:

---

Quote:

---

You're still just throwing out arguments that don't address the fact that FSU signed a contract to give up their media rights through 2036. What incentive does anyone have to let them out of it?

---

I can see how we're coming in at two distinct angles or points of view. My angle would be: on what basis would the GoR be worth anything more than the paper its written on by 2036? ESPN has no incentive - ZERO - to increase any payout to the ACC. So, my question would be, you've got one team suing. By 2027 you'll probably have 7 teams suing to get out.

Yes, they signed a contract. I get it. But let me ask your opinion - would you think FSU has a case - not a winning case, but, a case against the ACC for fiduciary mismanagement and restraint of trade? If FSU can argue that the current media rights deal puts them at a financial disadvantage with their peers, and that the GoR effectively stops them from seeking alternative media deals because of financial penalties, do you think they have a case?

Also, this is happened yesterday but - I just saw on ABC News that FSU has amended their complaint against the ACC by specifically naming John Swofford and his son Chad. The knives are out! I had seen the allegations about Raycom and Jack Swofford but I didn't know the details of the sale of the Tier II and Tier III rights. Here is the link:

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/fsu-names-acc-boss-john-swofford-amended-complaint/story?id=106798076

---

If media rights payouts go down because people pull the plug, does that mean ESPN can now break the contract without paying the liquidated damages because it just isn't fair?

calumnus said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

sd, would also mention that the going rate for new members to p3 conferences based upon the cal, stanford, smu, oregon & washington deals is 20% to 50% discounted media rights revenues for multiple years

that means if florida state (which imo won't be attractive after a couple of 3-9 seasons) or any school leaving if the sec or big 10 offered (which is a huge question mark) would get around the same amount of revenues at $35,000,000 than if they stayed in the acc

and philly's belief that somehow florida state donors are gonna pay a court reduced $150,000,000-$200,000,000 exist fee is pure fantasy land...oregon (phil knight) & washington (microsoft founders) are covering those schools tens of millions dollars reduced revenues, that's not gonna happen in tallahassee

the lawyers on both sides are gonna be buying getaway vacation homes in ibiza on the fsu vs acc litigation, there is a near zero chance that the acc will offer a negotiated exit as some have suggested

college football in 2024 (is all about the OPPENHEIMER roadtrip to tallahassee#

---

.
If I had confidence FSU understood the concept of contracts I'd be for the ACC allowing FSU to leave for payments of $50 million a year over the next 12 years.

---

That's a good point. FSU can't be trusted to make installment payments on a settlement or an exit fee. They would just make the first payment and then file a lawsuit to try and get out of making the rest of the payments.. The only acceptable settlement would be one gigantic lump sum payment made before they leave.

I would imagine so. In 2027, ESPN could do that I suppose.

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

sd, would also mention that the going rate for new members to p3 conferences based upon the cal, stanford, smu, oregon & washington deals is 20% to 50% discounted media rights revenues for multiple years

that means if florida state (which imo won't be attractive after a couple of 3-9 seasons) or any school leaving if the sec or big 10 offered (which is a huge question mark) would get around the same amount of revenues at $35,000,000 than if they stayed in the acc

and philly's belief that somehow florida state donors are gonna pay a court reduced $150,000,000-$200,000,000 exist fee is pure fantasy land...oregon (phil knight) & washington (microsoft founders) are covering those schools tens of millions dollars reduced revenues, that's not gonna happen in tallahassee

the lawyers on both sides are gonna be buying getaway vacation homes in ibiza on the fsu vs acc litigation, there is a near zero chance that the acc will offer a negotiated exit as some have suggested

college football in 2024 (is all about the OPPENHEIMER roadtrip to tallahassee#

---

.
If I had confidence FSU understood the concept of contracts I'd be for the ACC allowing FSU to leave for payments of $50 million a year over the next 12 years.

---

That's a good point. FSU can't be trusted to make installment payments on a settlement or an exit fee. They would just make the first payment and then file a lawsuit to try and get out of making the rest of the payments.. The only acceptable settlement would be one gigantic lump sum payment made before they leave.

---

Shocky must not hve participated in Dry January. But you bring up a good point as to why we will likely not see any money from UCLA. They have their release already.

Interesting how everyone is now defending these media rights corporations when they were responsible, in part, for our conferences demise. But now that we're in bed with ESPN, its nice and cozy. lol

philly1121 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

.

---

---

But you bring up a good point as to why we will likely not see any money from UCLA. They have their release already.

---

I have said, ever since the Calimony concept was raised, that whatever money Cal gets will come from the regents and not from UCLA.

philly1121 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

sd, would also mention that the going rate for new members to p3 conferences based upon the cal, stanford, smu, oregon & washington deals is 20% to 50% discounted media rights revenues for multiple years

that means if florida state (which imo won't be attractive after a couple of 3-9 seasons) or any school leaving if the sec or big 10 offered (which is a huge question mark) would get around the same amount of revenues at $35,000,000 than if they stayed in the acc

and philly's belief that somehow florida state donors are gonna pay a court reduced $150,000,000-$200,000,000 exist fee is pure fantasy land...oregon (phil knight) & washington (microsoft founders) are covering those schools tens of millions dollars reduced revenues, that's not gonna happen in tallahassee

the lawyers on both sides are gonna be buying getaway vacation homes in ibiza on the fsu vs acc litigation, there is a near zero chance that the acc will offer a negotiated exit as some have suggested

college football in 2024 (is all about the OPPENHEIMER roadtrip to tallahassee#

---

.
If I had confidence FSU understood the concept of contracts I'd be for the ACC allowing FSU to leave for payments of $50 million a year over the next 12 years.

---

That's a good point. FSU can't be trusted to make installment payments on a settlement or an exit fee. They would just make the first payment and then file a lawsuit to try and get out of making the rest of the payments.. The only acceptable settlement would be one gigantic lump sum payment made before they leave.

---

Shocky must not hve participated in Dry January. But you bring up a good point as to why we will likely not see any money from UCLA. They have their release already.

Interesting how everyone is now defending these media rights corporations when they were responsible, in part, for our conferences demise. But now that we're in bed with ESPN, its nice and cozy. lol

---

Nobody is defending the media corporations. That is a red herring.

Florida State is trying to get out of the contract it signed with the ACC.

Then I think its a guarantee that we will see not one dime from the Regents.

Quote:

---

Nobody is defending the media corporations. That is a red herring.

Florida State is trying to get out of the contract it signed with the ACC.

---

It is in our interest that the status quo remains. That the ACC survive. As such, that is why many of you are hoping that FSU's lawsuit gets tossed and are subsequently siding with the ACC and their payor, ESPN.

philly1121 said:

---

Then I think its a guarantee that we will see not one dime from the Regents.

---

Agreed, with a caveat:

The Cal athletics department is running at a huge deficit that will only increase this year with the move to the ACC. Even if/when we start cutting sports there will be a subsidy "from the Regents." With UCLA going to the B1G their subsidy will decrease. People can then spin that however they want.

philly1121 said:

---

Quote:

---

Nobody is defending the media corporations. That is a red herring.

Florida State is trying to get out of the contract it signed with the ACC.

---

It is in our interest that the status quo remains. That the ACC survive. As such, that is why many of you are hoping that FSU's lawsuit gets tossed and are subsequently siding with the ACC and their payor, ESPN.

---

Yes, and it seems to consistently be in your interest that Cal get screwed. Interesting, that.

But honestly, in this case it doesn't really matter where I "side." The fact is that every school that has signed on to be in the ACC did so with the expectation that the rest of the members would be there through 2036, because that's what the contract says. Why are you arguing that people should just break their agreements because they feel bad about them?