According to this article : https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ip-request

Oklahoma and Texas will not be joining the SEC until 2025; when the Big 12 GoR expires.

Now are they doing this because they won't have any television rights that the SEC can use because they are granted to the Big 12 conference until then? If this is the case, then the ACC is good until 2036 as our GoR was modeled after the Big 12s and is at least as restrictive.

Unless the existing conference wishes to sell the leaving team(s) their rights back, there's no reason for a new conference to take them until the GoR is up. And in the ACC's case, I don't think we could, because we are on the hook to ESPN for the ACCN. It seems to me that a GoR is bullet proof. No wonder ESPN agreed to do the ACCN.

1- anything is negotiable

2- according to the guys that wrote the ACC contract...it's tighter than Dick's hatband.

(07-28-2021 07:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  1- anything is negotiable

2- according to the guys that wrote the ACC contract...it's tighter than Dick's hatband.

Damn Lance
I ain’t heard that in years. That’s old saying from the hills right there.

I hope you’re wrong but I’m afraid you’re right.

Would it be a problem if The GOR allowed teams to move. I wouldn’t see it as a problem but my school isn’t married to the conference like the original ACC members. I was a Big East guy through and through. If GOR gets opened up, I get some Big East teams back.

The only reason Texas and OU can even be looking is that the B12 GOR ends in 2025. Even with that, leaving the B12 is going to be hugely expensive for the departing schools. They are forfeiting all conference payouts for the last two years of the contract, $75-80 million each. If they were to begin play in the SEC before 2025, the television rights to their home games would be retained by the B12 and would I believe would be subject to additional exit fees.

A school leaving the ACC would likely lose all conference distributions from the ACC for 12-14 years and would not have the television rights to their own home games to carry with them to their new conference, in addition to paying exit fees to remaining conference members.

Ultimately, what makes a GOR so much more effective than exit fees alone is the loss of rights to your own home games.

It is written on paper, unless it is coated with Kevlar than it is not bullet proof.

I'd assume it's bulletproof unless we hear otherwise. I do think there may be questions however about whether you can retain somebody's TV rights, but then also not compensate them for them. I think the "withholding all revenue" part could be vulnerable. Everyone refers to GORs as common in like say the recording industry. So a record company could hold the rights to your next album, even if you go out and record it elsewhere, they still own the rights to it. However, I don't think they can release the album, AND not pay contracted royalties.

Nonetheless, until they're really challenged in a realignment scenario, I'd assume they are solid.

That said, there's no way Texas and OU are going to play in the Big 12 through 2025. They'll negotiate an out.

So ACC schools that are thinking about getting out...you're looking at about 10-11 years. Seems like a long time, and it is, but it only seems like yesterday we were doing this dance in 2011. I guarantee all of our coaches are currently recruiting kids that might not finish their eligibility much before that.

There aren't any obvious good short term options for anyone who's unhappy, so it's time for them to play for the long game.

-No more contract extentions
-No more GORs

Extending the contract and GORs for a few extra millions over and over again has just put us further behind.

10 years folks...schools that are not happy, you've got ten years to get our ducks in a row to get out.

(07-28-2021 09:17 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  I'd assume it's bulletproof unless we hear otherwise. I do think there may be questions however about whether you can retain somebody's TV rights, but then also not compensate them for them. I think the "withholding all revenue" part could be vulnerable. Everyone refers to GORs as common in like say the recording industry. So a record company could hold the rights to your next album, even if you go out and record it elsewhere, they still own the rights to it. However, I don't think they can release the album, AND not pay contracted royalties.

Nonetheless, until they're really challenged in a realignment scenario, I'd assume they are solid.

That said, there's no way Texas and OU are going to play in the Big 12 through 2025. They'll negotiate an out.

So ACC schools that are thinking about getting out...you're looking at about 10-11 years. Seems like a long time, and it is, but it only seems like yesterday we were doing this dance in 2011. I guarantee all of our coaches are currently recruiting kids that might not finish their eligibility much before that.

There aren't any obvious good short term options for anyone who's unhappy, so it's time for them to play for the long game.

-No more contract extentions
-No more GORs

Extending the contract and GORs for a few extra millions over and over again has just put us further behind.

10 years folks...schools that are not happy, you've got ten years to get our ducks in a row to get out.

I think I read somewhere that if a school jumped to another conference while still under a GoR, their games could still be broadcast, but (a) the media rights would be paid to the old conference, and (b) the school would not necessarily get that money since they would be under the "no payments for exiting schools" scenario (although that last one would be a point of contention, as you suggest). Best case scenario, if FSU went to the SEC while still under the ACC's GoR, those SEC-at-FSU games would end up on the ACC Network (or the ACC's T1 networks), the money would flow through the ACC, and FSU might get their usual ACC payment - IF they won in court.

Anyway, that's my understanding. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

(07-28-2021 07:21 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Would it be a problem if The GOR allowed teams to move. I wouldn’t see it as a problem but my school isn’t married to the conference like the original ACC members. I was a Big East guy through and through. If GOR gets opened up, I get some Big East teams back.

CJ,
Wouldn't it be great to have an 18 team ACC
.
Eight division games and only one crossover (got to have Vt v. UVa) for nine conference games.

Boston College
Syracuse
Rutgers
Penn State
Pitt
Maryland
Louisville
Notre Dame
Virginia Tech

UVa
Carolina
Duke
Wake Forest
NC State
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami

(07-28-2021 01:49 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 07:21 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Would it be a problem if The GOR allowed teams to move. I wouldn’t see it as a problem but my school isn’t married to the conference like the original ACC members. I was a Big East guy through and through. If GOR gets opened up, I get some Big East teams back.

CJ,
Wouldn't it be great to have an 18 team ACC
.
Eight division games and only one crossover (got to have Vt v. UVa) for nine conference games.

Boston College
Syracuse
Rutgers
Penn State
Pitt
Maryland
Louisville
Notre Dame
Virginia Tech

UVa
Carolina
Duke
Wake Forest
NC State
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami

I would take it in a minute.

(07-28-2021 08:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The only reason Texas and OU can even be looking is that the B12 GOR ends in 2025. Even with that, leaving the B12 is going to be hugely expensive for the departing schools. They are forfeiting all conference payouts for the last two years of the contract, $75-80 million each. If they were to begin play in the SEC before 2025, the television rights to their home games would be retained by the B12 and would I believe would be subject to additional exit fees.

A school leaving the ACC would likely lose all conference distributions from the ACC for 12-14 years and would not have the television rights to their own home games to carry with them to their new conference, in addition to paying exit fees to remaining conference members.

Ultimately, what makes a GOR so much more effective than exit fees alone is the loss of rights to your own home games.

The exit fees for both Texas and Oklahoma are being paid out of the buyout of the LHN so Texas is essentially picking up the tab from an ESPN gratuity for moving which may legally be why their application to the SEC was strangely joint and not separate.

As to bulletproof how does anyone know? A GOR has never taken a legal shot and UT and OU aren't being hit with a GOR penalty. In fact, to date, no departing school of any conference headed to another has paid more than the unpaid revenue still held by the conference. UT and OU are only paying the two years to deter further rancor and because it's really just a bookkeeping trick. Texas sidetracked the GOR through sovereign immunity.

Now if a move between the SEC and ACC or AAC occurs (not that the latter is likely) ESPN holds all rights and as long as the injured conference's contract is honored there are no damages and TV rights never leave ESPN's hands the GOR is simply not applicable. GOR's cover contract inventory and value. So if ESPN approves a move between conferences exit fees are all that would be applicable.

(07-28-2021 02:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 08:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The only reason Texas and OU can even be looking is that the B12 GOR ends in 2025. Even with that, leaving the B12 is going to be hugely expensive for the departing schools. They are forfeiting all conference payouts for the last two years of the contract, $75-80 million each. If they were to begin play in the SEC before 2025, the television rights to their home games would be retained by the B12 and would I believe would be subject to additional exit fees.

A school leaving the ACC would likely lose all conference distributions from the ACC for 12-14 years and would not have the television rights to their own home games to carry with them to their new conference, in addition to paying exit fees to remaining conference members.

Ultimately, what makes a GOR so much more effective than exit fees alone is the loss of rights to your own home games.

The exit fees for both Texas and Oklahoma are being paid out of the buyout of the LHN so Texas is essentially picking up the tab from an ESPN gratuity for moving which may legally be why their application to the SEC was strangely joint and not separate.

As to bulletproof how does anyone know? A GOR has never taken a legal shot and UT and OU aren't being hit with a GOR penalty. In fact, to date, no departing school of any conference headed to another has paid more than the unpaid revenue still held by the conference. UT and OU are only paying the two years to deter further rancor and because it's really just a bookkeeping trick. Texas sidetracked the GOR through sovereign immunity.

Now if a move between the SEC and ACC or AAC occurs (not that the latter is likely) ESPN holds all rights and as long as the injured conference's contract is honored there are no damages and TV rights never leave ESPN's hands the GOR is simply not applicable. GOR's cover contract inventory and value. So if ESPN approves a move between conferences exit fees are all that would be applicable.

I would have to see this challenged in court first. I can’t believe The SEC could ship The ACC two dawg awful programs like UK and Vandy in exchange for Clemson and Florida State and all The ACC can say is thank you. That doesn’t make sense.

(07-28-2021 02:37 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 02:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 08:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The only reason Texas and OU can even be looking is that the B12 GOR ends in 2025. Even with that, leaving the B12 is going to be hugely expensive for the departing schools. They are forfeiting all conference payouts for the last two years of the contract, $75-80 million each. If they were to begin play in the SEC before 2025, the television rights to their home games would be retained by the B12 and would I believe would be subject to additional exit fees.

A school leaving the ACC would likely lose all conference distributions from the ACC for 12-14 years and would not have the television rights to their own home games to carry with them to their new conference, in addition to paying exit fees to remaining conference members.

Ultimately, what makes a GOR so much more effective than exit fees alone is the loss of rights to your own home games.

The exit fees for both Texas and Oklahoma are being paid out of the buyout of the LHN so Texas is essentially picking up the tab from an ESPN gratuity for moving which may legally be why their application to the SEC was strangely joint and not separate.

As to bulletproof how does anyone know? A GOR has never taken a legal shot and UT and OU aren't being hit with a GOR penalty. In fact, to date, no departing school of any conference headed to another has paid more than the unpaid revenue still held by the conference. UT and OU are only paying the two years to deter further rancor and because it's really just a bookkeeping trick. Texas sidetracked the GOR through sovereign immunity.

Now if a move between the SEC and ACC or AAC occurs (not that the latter is likely) ESPN holds all rights and as long as the injured conference's contract is honored there are no damages and TV rights never leave ESPN's hands the GOR is simply not applicable. GOR's cover contract inventory and value. So if ESPN approves a move between conferences exit fees are all that would be applicable.

I would have to see this challenged in court first. I can’t believe The SEC could ship The ACC two dawg awful programs like UK and Vandy in exchange for Clemson and Florida State and all The ACC can say is thank you. That doesn’t make sense.

Did I say that is how it would work? If the ACC is paid their full contract there are no damages. A GOR protects ESPN from FOX taking their rights. If ESPN would retain full rights no matter what and if the departing party pays exit fees and ESPN sees an opportunity to make a good deal more from those rights elsewhere then all parties are satisfied, which legally is quite different from happy or pleased.

So let's say hypothetically FSU demands out, lobbies ESPN to speak with the SEC to open a pathway. The SEC has not initiated contact. ESPN is the rights holder and they mention FSU's interest. The SEC asks ESPN for a valuation of that addition. ESPN gives one and if the SEC can't make money then it's dead. If the SEC can make money but ESPN can't it's dead. If the SEC can make money and ESPN can make enough money to cover all ACC school's current paychecks and still make money then it is viable. So ESPN then weighs political and relational fallout. If it damages future relations and ESPN is intent on future relations it is dead. But, if ESPN is intent on building a very high dollar conference of 20-24 schools, cutting out 3 contracts for 1 and eliminating 2 prematurely fading networks and its overhead and possibly using part of the affected party to maintain a near 50% stake in the other high content conference then anything is possible because they would merely broker out most of the schools for leverage and increased profits and pay the remainder the contract to those not placed.

I have heard rumors only that this may indeed be in exploration already. The SEC office fielded over 10 inquiries about membership in days following the newsflash on OU and UT. We'll if 8 of them were from the B12 where did the other's come from?

(07-28-2021 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 02:37 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 02:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 08:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The only reason Texas and OU can even be looking is that the B12 GOR ends in 2025. Even with that, leaving the B12 is going to be hugely expensive for the departing schools. They are forfeiting all conference payouts for the last two years of the contract, $75-80 million each. If they were to begin play in the SEC before 2025, the television rights to their home games would be retained by the B12 and would I believe would be subject to additional exit fees.

A school leaving the ACC would likely lose all conference distributions from the ACC for 12-14 years and would not have the television rights to their own home games to carry with them to their new conference, in addition to paying exit fees to remaining conference members.

Ultimately, what makes a GOR so much more effective than exit fees alone is the loss of rights to your own home games.

The exit fees for both Texas and Oklahoma are being paid out of the buyout of the LHN so Texas is essentially picking up the tab from an ESPN gratuity for moving which may legally be why their application to the SEC was strangely joint and not separate.

As to bulletproof how does anyone know? A GOR has never taken a legal shot and UT and OU aren't being hit with a GOR penalty. In fact, to date, no departing school of any conference headed to another has paid more than the unpaid revenue still held by the conference. UT and OU are only paying the two years to deter further rancor and because it's really just a bookkeeping trick. Texas sidetracked the GOR through sovereign immunity.

Now if a move between the SEC and ACC or AAC occurs (not that the latter is likely) ESPN holds all rights and as long as the injured conference's contract is honored there are no damages and TV rights never leave ESPN's hands the GOR is simply not applicable. GOR's cover contract inventory and value. So if ESPN approves a move between conferences exit fees are all that would be applicable.

I would have to see this challenged in court first. I can’t believe The SEC could ship The ACC two dawg awful programs like UK and Vandy in exchange for Clemson and Florida State and all The ACC can say is thank you. That doesn’t make sense.

Did I say that is how it would work? If the ACC is paid their full contract there are no damages. A GOR protects ESPN from FOX taking their rights. If ESPN would retain full rights no matter what and if the departing party pays exit fees and ESPN sees an opportunity to make a good deal more from those rights elsewhere then all parties are satisfied, which legally is quite different from happy or pleased.

So let's say hypothetically FSU demands out, lobbies ESPN to speak with the SEC to open a pathway. The SEC has not initiated contact. ESPN is the rights holder and they mention FSU's interest. The SEC asks ESPN for a valuation of that addition. ESPN gives one and if the SEC can't make money then it's dead. If the SEC can make money but ESPN can't it's dead. If the SEC can make money and ESPN can make enough money to cover all ACC school's current paychecks and still make money then it is viable. So ESPN then weighs political and relational fallout. If it damages future relations and ESPN is intent on future relations it is dead. But, if ESPN is intent on building a very high dollar conference of 20-24 schools, cutting out 3 contracts for 1 and eliminating 2 prematurely fading networks and its overhead and possibly using part of the affected party to maintain a near 50% stake in the other high content conference then anything is possible because they would merely broker out most of the schools for leverage and increased profits and pay the remainder the contract to those not placed.

I have heard rumors only that this may indeed be in exploration already. The SEC office fielded over 10 inquiries about membership in days following the newsflash on OU and UT. We'll if 8 of them were from the B12 where did the other's come from?

It might not monetarily damage the remaining teams, it would certainly damage their ability to recruit. If an ACC program recruits a kid from Florida and tells him once every two years you’ll be playing Florida State in Tallahassee, how does a program keep that kid when Florida State is no longer in the conference.

There’s a lot more involved in this then just dollar signs and I’m afraid the powers that be are forgetting that.

Well sorry kid ESPN thinks it’s OK that you get to play in the Aluminum Mausoleum in Lexington or in front of 20K in Nashville instead of in Tallahassee or in Death Valley against Clemson. Have fun…

That’s an Apple and Oranges comparison and if you don’t think that’s damaging to ACC programs, I don’t know what to say.

I think it is more likely FSU just waits to leave in 2036 anyway, so I wouldn't worry about damages.

The marriage will end, but most likely when the contracts no longer forces things.

(07-28-2021 03:44 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 02:37 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 02:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 08:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The only reason Texas and OU can even be looking is that the B12 GOR ends in 2025. Even with that, leaving the B12 is going to be hugely expensive for the departing schools. They are forfeiting all conference payouts for the last two years of the contract, $75-80 million each. If they were to begin play in the SEC before 2025, the television rights to their home games would be retained by the B12 and would I believe would be subject to additional exit fees.

A school leaving the ACC would likely lose all conference distributions from the ACC for 12-14 years and would not have the television rights to their own home games to carry with them to their new conference, in addition to paying exit fees to remaining conference members.

Ultimately, what makes a GOR so much more effective than exit fees alone is the loss of rights to your own home games.

The exit fees for both Texas and Oklahoma are being paid out of the buyout of the LHN so Texas is essentially picking up the tab from an ESPN gratuity for moving which may legally be why their application to the SEC was strangely joint and not separate.

As to bulletproof how does anyone know? A GOR has never taken a legal shot and UT and OU aren't being hit with a GOR penalty. In fact, to date, no departing school of any conference headed to another has paid more than the unpaid revenue still held by the conference. UT and OU are only paying the two years to deter further rancor and because it's really just a bookkeeping trick. Texas sidetracked the GOR through sovereign immunity.

Now if a move between the SEC and ACC or AAC occurs (not that the latter is likely) ESPN holds all rights and as long as the injured conference's contract is honored there are no damages and TV rights never leave ESPN's hands the GOR is simply not applicable. GOR's cover contract inventory and value. So if ESPN approves a move between conferences exit fees are all that would be applicable.

I would have to see this challenged in court first. I can’t believe The SEC could ship The ACC two dawg awful programs like UK and Vandy in exchange for Clemson and Florida State and all The ACC can say is thank you. That doesn’t make sense.

Did I say that is how it would work? If the ACC is paid their full contract there are no damages. A GOR protects ESPN from FOX taking their rights. If ESPN would retain full rights no matter what and if the departing party pays exit fees and ESPN sees an opportunity to make a good deal more from those rights elsewhere then all parties are satisfied, which legally is quite different from happy or pleased.

So let's say hypothetically FSU demands out, lobbies ESPN to speak with the SEC to open a pathway. The SEC has not initiated contact. ESPN is the rights holder and they mention FSU's interest. The SEC asks ESPN for a valuation of that addition. ESPN gives one and if the SEC can't make money then it's dead. If the SEC can make money but ESPN can't it's dead. If the SEC can make money and ESPN can make enough money to cover all ACC school's current paychecks and still make money then it is viable. So ESPN then weighs political and relational fallout. If it damages future relations and ESPN is intent on future relations it is dead. But, if ESPN is intent on building a very high dollar conference of 20-24 schools, cutting out 3 contracts for 1 and eliminating 2 prematurely fading networks and its overhead and possibly using part of the affected party to maintain a near 50% stake in the other high content conference then anything is possible because they would merely broker out most of the schools for leverage and increased profits and pay the remainder the contract to those not placed.

I have heard rumors only that this may indeed be in exploration already. The SEC office fielded over 10 inquiries about membership in days following the newsflash on OU and UT. We'll if 8 of them were from the B12 where did the other's come from?

It might not monetarily damage the remaining teams, it would certainly damage their ability to recruit. If an ACC program recruits a kid from Florida and tells him once every two years you’ll be playing Florida State in Tallahassee, how does a program keep that kid when Florida State is no longer in the conference.

There’s a lot more involved in this then just dollar signs and I’m afraid the powers that be are forgetting that.

Well sorry kid ESPN thinks it’s OK that you get to play in the Aluminum Mausoleum in Lexington or in front of 20K in Nashville instead of in Tallahassee or in Death Valley against Clemson. Have fun…

That’s an Apple and Oranges comparison and if you don’t think that’s damaging to ACC programs, I don’t know what to say.

Jim I'm not speaking about what I think are damages. I'm saying legally a monetary value is assigned and that's all courts look at. Every broken relationship in life has damages courts never discuss. It's very sad, but unfortunately reality. Of course the loss of FSU is injurious. Ditto for OU and UT.

(07-28-2021 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 03:44 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 02:37 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 02:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The exit fees for both Texas and Oklahoma are being paid out of the buyout of the LHN so Texas is essentially picking up the tab from an ESPN gratuity for moving which may legally be why their application to the SEC was strangely joint and not separate.

As to bulletproof how does anyone know? A GOR has never taken a legal shot and UT and OU aren't being hit with a GOR penalty. In fact, to date, no departing school of any conference headed to another has paid more than the unpaid revenue still held by the conference. UT and OU are only paying the two years to deter further rancor and because it's really just a bookkeeping trick. Texas sidetracked the GOR through sovereign immunity.

Now if a move between the SEC and ACC or AAC occurs (not that the latter is likely) ESPN holds all rights and as long as the injured conference's contract is honored there are no damages and TV rights never leave ESPN's hands the GOR is simply not applicable. GOR's cover contract inventory and value. So if ESPN approves a move between conferences exit fees are all that would be applicable.

I would have to see this challenged in court first. I can’t believe The SEC could ship The ACC two dawg awful programs like UK and Vandy in exchange for Clemson and Florida State and all The ACC can say is thank you. That doesn’t make sense.

Did I say that is how it would work? If the ACC is paid their full contract there are no damages. A GOR protects ESPN from FOX taking their rights. If ESPN would retain full rights no matter what and if the departing party pays exit fees and ESPN sees an opportunity to make a good deal more from those rights elsewhere then all parties are satisfied, which legally is quite different from happy or pleased.

So let's say hypothetically FSU demands out, lobbies ESPN to speak with the SEC to open a pathway. The SEC has not initiated contact. ESPN is the rights holder and they mention FSU's interest. The SEC asks ESPN for a valuation of that addition. ESPN gives one and if the SEC can't make money then it's dead. If the SEC can make money but ESPN can't it's dead. If the SEC can make money and ESPN can make enough money to cover all ACC school's current paychecks and still make money then it is viable. So ESPN then weighs political and relational fallout. If it damages future relations and ESPN is intent on future relations it is dead. But, if ESPN is intent on building a very high dollar conference of 20-24 schools, cutting out 3 contracts for 1 and eliminating 2 prematurely fading networks and its overhead and possibly using part of the affected party to maintain a near 50% stake in the other high content conference then anything is possible because they would merely broker out most of the schools for leverage and increased profits and pay the remainder the contract to those not placed.

I have heard rumors only that this may indeed be in exploration already. The SEC office fielded over 10 inquiries about membership in days following the newsflash on OU and UT. We'll if 8 of them were from the B12 where did the other's come from?

It might not monetarily damage the remaining teams, it would certainly damage their ability to recruit. If an ACC program recruits a kid from Florida and tells him once every two years you’ll be playing Florida State in Tallahassee, how does a program keep that kid when Florida State is no longer in the conference.

There’s a lot more involved in this then just dollar signs and I’m afraid the powers that be are forgetting that.

Well sorry kid ESPN thinks it’s OK that you get to play in the Aluminum Mausoleum in Lexington or in front of 20K in Nashville instead of in Tallahassee or in Death Valley against Clemson. Have fun…

That’s an Apple and Oranges comparison and if you don’t think that’s damaging to ACC programs, I don’t know what to say.

Jim I'm not speaking about what I think are damages. I'm saying legally a monetary value is assigned and that's all courts look at. Every broken relationship in life has damages courts never discuss. It's very sad, but unfortunately reality. Of course the loss of FSU is injurious. Ditto for OU and UT.

I understand your position. I would say however I believe conferences are opening themselves up to class action if they don’t try to rectify some of the injustices that they are causing. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the state attorney generals in Kansas, Iowa, West Virginia bring legal action against ESPN and The SEC for damaging their state universities.

While universities might hide behind Soverign immunity conferences and broadcast entities enjoy no such absurd protections.

See item 2 post #2.

Right on cue The Big 12 starts legal action against ESPN.

(07-28-2021 04:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 03:44 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2021 02:37 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I would have to see this challenged in court first. I can’t believe The SEC could ship The ACC two dawg awful programs like UK and Vandy in exchange for Clemson and Florida State and all The ACC can say is thank you. That doesn’t make sense.

Did I say that is how it would work? If the ACC is paid their full contract there are no damages. A GOR protects ESPN from FOX taking their rights. If ESPN would retain full rights no matter what and if the departing party pays exit fees and ESPN sees an opportunity to make a good deal more from those rights elsewhere then all parties are satisfied, which legally is quite different from happy or pleased.

So let's say hypothetically FSU demands out, lobbies ESPN to speak with the SEC to open a pathway. The SEC has not initiated contact. ESPN is the rights holder and they mention FSU's interest. The SEC asks ESPN for a valuation of that addition. ESPN gives one and if the SEC can't make money then it's dead. If the SEC can make money but ESPN can't it's dead. If the SEC can make money and ESPN can make enough money to cover all ACC school's current paychecks and still make money then it is viable. So ESPN then weighs political and relational fallout. If it damages future relations and ESPN is intent on future relations it is dead. But, if ESPN is intent on building a very high dollar conference of 20-24 schools, cutting out 3 contracts for 1 and eliminating 2 prematurely fading networks and its overhead and possibly using part of the affected party to maintain a near 50% stake in the other high content conference then anything is possible because they would merely broker out most of the schools for leverage and increased profits and pay the remainder the contract to those not placed.

I have heard rumors only that this may indeed be in exploration already. The SEC office fielded over 10 inquiries about membership in days following the newsflash on OU and UT. We'll if 8 of them were from the B12 where did the other's come from?

It might not monetarily damage the remaining teams, it would certainly damage their ability to recruit. If an ACC program recruits a kid from Florida and tells him once every two years you’ll be playing Florida State in Tallahassee, how does a program keep that kid when Florida State is no longer in the conference.

There’s a lot more involved in this then just dollar signs and I’m afraid the powers that be are forgetting that.

Well sorry kid ESPN thinks it’s OK that you get to play in the Aluminum Mausoleum in Lexington or in front of 20K in Nashville instead of in Tallahassee or in Death Valley against Clemson. Have fun…

That’s an Apple and Oranges comparison and if you don’t think that’s damaging to ACC programs, I don’t know what to say.

Jim I'm not speaking about what I think are damages. I'm saying legally a monetary value is assigned and that's all courts look at. Every broken relationship in life has damages courts never discuss. It's very sad, but unfortunately reality. Of course the loss of FSU is injurious. Ditto for OU and UT.

I understand your position. I would say however I believe conferences are opening themselves up to class action if they don’t try to rectify some of the injustices that they are causing. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the state attorney generals in Kansas, Iowa, West Virginia bring legal action against ESPN and The SEC for damaging their state universities.

I still see a P4 only with the formation of a new conference where ESPN and FOX mitigate damages by making financially whole the impacted schools and negate anti trust claims with the promotion of the best G5 and include BYU. We'll see.

The impetus of all of this isn't as much greed, though that is there, as it is fear. Top brands are being segregated by networks for profits in a new pay paradigm. So money was dangled after massive COVID losses to coerce this movement when the need was the greatest, let no crisis go unused.

Add to COVID the statistical loss of college footballs largest and wealthiest audience, Boomers, who by 2036 will range in age (if still alive from 90 to 74) and look at a demographic shift of decreased population in college aged young people, most of whom will have, or come from, less wealthy homes, and you can begin to see why academics suddenly have a stampede for more.

Now toss in the fact that outside of BYU all G5 athletic programs are subsidized by taxpayers at minimally 25% of budget, with more at or exceeding 50%, and states are strapped for cash and the National Debt threatens Federal Grants and you can begin to understand why some of the biggest brands are bonding to survive massive cuts which are going to downsize higher ed, eliminate heavily subsidized athletics, and either re-task or umbrella moderate programs within larger state school systems.

It's been underway for a decade, but now states are needing infrastructure, can't really tax more for it so subsidized sports isn't a priority. It's just one of many reasons I believe NIL and stipends are being passed by courts because legislatures lacked the political cover to do this. In the end we'll likely have 60 to 72 schools in an NIL / stipend world playing big time sports and everyone else strict amateur and then only if the programs pay for themselves.

Flying under the radar is the NCAA who used small subsidized programs as an excuse to take from larger programs. This last tourney generated 1.1 billion in revenue. They paid out ~ 305 million land likely banked 80 million in one of their 2 endowments. I can't believe everything the over see cost them the other 720 million.

So "it's not the one thing brother, It's the dismal tide!"