(03-03-2023 12:03 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 11:42 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a thought. ESPN owns the ACC rights and the SEC rights. ESPN is going to be airing Clemson and Florida St home games regardless of what conference logo is on the field.

ESPN can make more money if those 2 are playing SEC schedules rather than ACC schedules so why don’t Florida St and Clemson just pay their exit fees, the ACC gets to pocket their shares and ESPN pays Florida St and Clemson incremental increases for the duration of the contract that start at what they are making now and end up at full SEC shares.

It could lead to weird things like SEC conference games airing on ACCN but guess what, ESPN makes money either way.

Making a deal is better for everyone, I've always thought the ACC can't afford to follow through on the GoR (if they win) anymore than FSU or Clemson could (if they lose). If the ACC has any hope of remaining together after the GoR ends, they can't afford years of FSU-Alabama and Clemson-Georgia as the ACC Game of the Week which will make their brand a laughingstock. Those games will bump real ACC games to less desirable slots and there will be extensive discussion during the games of why an SEC game is the ACC game of the week, how badly we wanted out and what we were willing to endure to get out.

We usually focus on the potential costs to FSU to leave the ACC before 7/1/36, but the ACC will have costs as well if they try to hold one or more members against their will for the next 13 years. There's a win-win available here for everyone where we are free, and you get some extra money and gain stability.

It all goes back to a merger.

There’s no way certain programs are going to let FSU, Clemson or anyone else walk without a protracted legal battle. If that happens any university that challenges the GOR will immediately be on the hook for 120 million or more in exit fees and immediately forfeit their media rights through 2036. The fight would be to get those rights back.

That would get expensive really fast.

The SEC wouldn’t touch either while the process played out in North Carolina courts.

(03-03-2023 10:17 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  That's a safe (and pretty useless) comment by the UNC prez. A better contract could mean anything in a miniscule positive direction. An extra $100K per school per year is a "better contract". Does anyone here honestly believe that ESPN is going to put a dent in the looming disparity vs the mighty B1G/SEC? An extra $1M/yr per school doesn't do it. An extra $5M/yr per school doesn't do it. And that's a huge check for ESPN to write.

From my perspective, the UNC and FSU leaders are likely well aligned on objectives…yet their routes seem polar opposites to passionate fans.

UNC leaders are the good guys in discussions with the ACC and ESPN. Per UNC leaders, there are great opportunities and the ACC-ESPN relationship will address the challenges ahead.

FSU leaders are the bad guys…the conference sucks, the deal sucks, and there is an existential crisis that requires drastic measures. Whatever revenue increases the ACC & ESPN are able to generate, it will not be enough.

Nevertheless, both schools are much more valuable if the ACC can remain relevant. Both schools will likely find a home in the P2 and regret the long media contracts that the ACC signed. Both sets of leaders are catering to their donors.

(03-03-2023 02:21 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:17 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  That's a safe (and pretty useless) comment by the UNC prez. A better contract could mean anything in a miniscule positive direction. An extra $100K per school per year is a "better contract". Does anyone here honestly believe that ESPN is going to put a dent in the looming disparity vs the mighty B1G/SEC? An extra $1M/yr per school doesn't do it. An extra $5M/yr per school doesn't do it. And that's a huge check for ESPN to write.

From my perspective, the UNC and FSU leaders are likely well aligned on objectives…yet their routes seem polar opposites to passionate fans.

UNC leaders are the good guys in discussions with the ACC and ESPN. Per UNC leaders, there are great opportunities and the ACC-ESPN relationship will address the challenges ahead.

FSU leaders are the bad guys…the conference sucks, the deal sucks, and there is an existential crisis that requires drastic measures. Whatever revenue increases the ACC & ESPN are able to generate, it will not be enough.

Nevertheless, both schools are much more valuable if the ACC can remain relevant. Both schools will likely find a home in the P2 and regret the long media contracts that the ACC signed. Both sets of leaders are catering to their donors.

So you think this is an intentional good cop / bad cop situation? Or they're both acting independently in their different routes? In either case, I'm not convinced that UNC shares FSU/Clemson's aspirations to get out of the ACC. I'm sure they're increasingly leaning that way...but not there yet (even if the GoR vanished). I do think they're sitting back to see what unfolds.

(03-03-2023 01:43 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:28 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 07:10 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  The ACC’s grant of rights agreement has become a major talking point when it comes to the future of college football

In simplest terms, a grant of rights dictates who owns a thing, such as intellectual property rights, or an image. In the case of college football and the ACC, that means revenue from television broadcasts.

Back in 2016, the ACC and ESPN agreed to a 20-year media rights deal through 2035-36, a deal that brought about the birth of the ACC Network — owned and operated by ESPN — which launched in 2019.

At the same time, the ACC extended its grant of rights deal nine additional years, taking that through 2035-36.

That deal, per Steve Wiseman of The News and Observer, based out of Raleigh, North Carolina, “irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference during the term all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement.”

In layman's terms, as explained by Wiseman, “any TV revenue a school is due from the ACC’s contract with ESPN is conference property through June 30, 2036, regardless of whether the school remains an ACC member or leaves for another conference.”

Explained further by Wiseman, the ACC’s grant of rights means that were a school to leave the conference for another, “the ACC would get any media revenue generated from athletic events on its campus through summer 2036.”

Which in essence would mean, as ESPN’s Andrea Adelson explained it, “Any departing school would ... forfeit its media rights and the ability to have home games and some non-conference games air on TV. In all sports. Through 2036.”

Throw in exit fees — according to Adelson, those currently stand at $120 million — and that is a lot of money to lose, considering the ACC paid out $36.1 million to each of its 15 schools (that includes Notre Dame) for the 2020-21 fiscal year, per The Athletic. Millions generated primarily by television. And that number is expected to continue to rise.


Many have suggested that schools could go to court to challenge the ACC’s grant of rights — and the exit fee — but per Adelson, according to an ESPN source, the conference “believes it has what it needs to keep things together with its grant of rights.”

Underscoring that point Adelson wrote, “Words used to describe the (grant of rights) to me in the last week include ‘rigid,’ ‘really good legal document’ and the possibility of going to court to get out of it ‘a legal battle of all time.’

That is a major reason for the proposed “loose agreement” with the Pac-12, where the ACC Network would broadcast Pac-12 events.

Per Sports Illustrated, “The new partnership with the Pac-12 may not reopen the contract, but it will change the bottom line.”

Linko
https://www.deseret.com/2022/7/8/2320096...-heres-why

Per espn and North Carolina reporting...

Color me unsurprised at their voiced conclusions.

If they felt they needed to go on the record, one wonders if FSU and Clemson are starting to rattle some cages.

You do realize those comments are from July of last year?

You’re insinuating that ACC officials or the UNC President went on the record after FSU and Clemson went public.

The reality is they commented 7 months BEFORE.

Color me surprised…

No, I didn't see the date. Thanks for the head's up : )

That said, FSU's been making known their concerns about the ACC deal for quite some time.

And July? What was going on in July last year? (looking)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80...ealignment

In June, USC/UCLA happened, and in July TX and OK happened.

I think we can guess why the ACC GoR might have been a topic to bring up at that point...

Oh, and articles like these from last July:

https://www.tomahawknation.com/2022/7/5/...tkins-camp

https://www.tomahawknation.com/2022/7/8/...rvell-espn

https://www.tampabay.com/sports/seminole...and-miami/

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...n-playoff/

And here's August of 2021:

https://www.si.com/college/syracuse/foot...ealignment

So who knows.

(03-03-2023 02:39 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 02:21 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:17 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  That's a safe (and pretty useless) comment by the UNC prez. A better contract could mean anything in a miniscule positive direction. An extra $100K per school per year is a "better contract". Does anyone here honestly believe that ESPN is going to put a dent in the looming disparity vs the mighty B1G/SEC? An extra $1M/yr per school doesn't do it. An extra $5M/yr per school doesn't do it. And that's a huge check for ESPN to write.

From my perspective, the UNC and FSU leaders are likely well aligned on objectives…yet their routes seem polar opposites to passionate fans.

UNC leaders are the good guys in discussions with the ACC and ESPN. Per UNC leaders, there are great opportunities and the ACC-ESPN relationship will address the challenges ahead.

FSU leaders are the bad guys…the conference sucks, the deal sucks, and there is an existential crisis that requires drastic measures. Whatever revenue increases the ACC & ESPN are able to generate, it will not be enough.

Nevertheless, both schools are much more valuable if the ACC can remain relevant. Both schools will likely find a home in the P2 and regret the long media contracts that the ACC signed. Both sets of leaders are catering to their donors.

So you think this is an intentional good cop / bad cop situation? Or they're both acting independently in their different routes? In either case, I'm not convinced that UNC shares FSU/Clemson's aspirations to get out of the ACC. I'm sure they're increasingly leaning that way...but not there yet (even if the GoR vanished). I do think they're sitting back to see what unfolds.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s intentional, it’s what the respective donor bases demand in terms of public comments. Neither set of leaders is “sitting back to see what unfolds.” Just because someone doesn’t behave like General Sherman leaving Atlanta, doesn’t mean that they’re less active or effective in addressing problems.

FWIW - “aspirations to get out of the ACC” is fan-speak that suggests FSU is a victim to some dastardly trick. IIRC, John Swofford made the final in-person pitches in Charlottesville and Tallahassee to have schools sign the original GOR…FSU and UVa were once lone hold-outs. The risks associated with the GOR and long media contracts were known.

(03-03-2023 01:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  About this part:

“irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference during the term all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement.”

So it seems like the grant of rights only applies to those rights needed to fulfill the ESPN contract. IMO that might be a loophole- there might be some rights that could be granted to another conference that do not involve fulfilling the ESPN contract with the ACC.

But I am not an expert on this.

I'm not either, but that is intriguing. I think ESPN's power to potentially say "Clemson & FSU rights are unnecessary to the ACC's fulfilling their contractual obligations" would hinge on how those obligations are "expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement".

And of course we're speculating based upon 1) an outdated GoR and 2) an ESPN agreement we've never seen. But ADs and attorneys for ACC schools have made the pilgrimage to Greensboro to read both, and don't seem to be universally convinced that there are no options but to sit quietly and wait for 2036. Even Commissioner Phillips could only muster "I think it holds, but your guess is as good as mine.”

If the ACC really had us over a barrel, why wouldn't they release the GoR publicly and make that apparent to everyone? We're told repeatedly here (and I agree, it makes sense) that university presidents and other leaders HATE uncertainty. The power of the GoR is designed to be so intimidating that everyone just sits on their hands and quietly counts days until the end...now that some schools appear ready to not sit quietly any longer, uncertainty and instability pervade the conference. How long do the ACC presidents want this to go on before they trade it for a known quantity that is stable and known, even if that outcome is not as desirable as the POTENTIAL best case scenario following a battle?

(03-03-2023 03:22 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 02:39 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 02:21 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:17 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  That's a safe (and pretty useless) comment by the UNC prez. A better contract could mean anything in a miniscule positive direction. An extra $100K per school per year is a "better contract". Does anyone here honestly believe that ESPN is going to put a dent in the looming disparity vs the mighty B1G/SEC? An extra $1M/yr per school doesn't do it. An extra $5M/yr per school doesn't do it. And that's a huge check for ESPN to write.

From my perspective, the UNC and FSU leaders are likely well aligned on objectives…yet their routes seem polar opposites to passionate fans.

UNC leaders are the good guys in discussions with the ACC and ESPN. Per UNC leaders, there are great opportunities and the ACC-ESPN relationship will address the challenges ahead.

FSU leaders are the bad guys…the conference sucks, the deal sucks, and there is an existential crisis that requires drastic measures. Whatever revenue increases the ACC & ESPN are able to generate, it will not be enough.

Nevertheless, both schools are much more valuable if the ACC can remain relevant. Both schools will likely find a home in the P2 and regret the long media contracts that the ACC signed. Both sets of leaders are catering to their donors.

So you think this is an intentional good cop / bad cop situation? Or they're both acting independently in their different routes? In either case, I'm not convinced that UNC shares FSU/Clemson's aspirations to get out of the ACC. I'm sure they're increasingly leaning that way...but not there yet (even if the GoR vanished). I do think they're sitting back to see what unfolds.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s intentional, it’s what the respective donor bases demand in terms of public comments. Neither set of leaders is “sitting back to see what unfolds.” Just because someone doesn’t behave like General Sherman leaving Atlanta, doesn’t mean that they’re less active or effective in addressing problems.

FWIW - “aspirations to get out of the ACC” is fan-speak that suggests FSU is a victim to some dastardly trick. IIRC, John Swofford made the final in-person pitches in Charlottesville and Tallahassee to have schools sign the original GOR…FSU and UVa were once lone hold-outs. The risks associated with the GOR and long media contracts were known.

No it's really not.

Why did it take 3 years for ESPN to launch ACCN? Considering SECN was up and running, it's not like ESPN was reinventing the wheel. I would argue that the ACC was harmed by ESPN's failure to set up the ACCN sooner.

(03-03-2023 03:52 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Why did it take 3 years for ESPN to launch ACCN? Considering SECN was up and running, it's not like ESPN was reinventing the wheel. I would argue that the ACC was harmed by ESPN's failure to set up the ACCN sooner.

ESPN had to buy a lot of the ACC Network games from Raycom.

In the original 2011 contract, modified somewhat when Syracuse and Pitt came in, ESPN sublicensed a bunch of ACC football and basketball games to Raycom. Raycom was a syndicator, they organized a consortium of over-the-air TV stations across the ACC footprint (and sometimes beyond) to show games, after ESPN had made their Tier 1 picks. Raycom then sold what seems to me like half of those games to Fox Sports Networks, now Bally Sports Networks (plus some non-Fox, non-Bally's RSN's because it made sense to have ACC games on MASN etc).

When the ACC decided that they DID want a cable TV network, ESPN told them that it wasn't feasible without the Tier 2 and 3 games that had been sold to Raycom for $50M a year.

According to a Jim Phillips comment, when the Raycom sublicense is over each ACC school gets a $3M bump. I think that means that ESPN / ACC is paying Raycom 3x14 =$42M to get the Raycom games back from Raycom to show them on the ACC Network. It was "cost prohibitive to get the RSN games back" I read somewhere last night.

So that's why the ACC Network doesn't come online until 2019. The SEC sold ESPN everything, lock stock and barrel, and let ESPN show whatever whenever. ESPN, ABC, ESPN-U, syndication, SEC Network, SEC was cool with it. Big East has a deal like that with Fox--Big Fox, FS1, FS2, CBS-SN, Bally Sports. The ACC 2011 contract carved out a sublicense for their Raycom partners, and that meant starting a network was much harder.

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2022/...-deal.html

https://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/asset...eement.pdf

(03-03-2023 09:36 AM)JTApps1 Wrote:  What if FSU and Clemson go to the SEC now, but agree to not televise home games in any sport. They would only get paid for road games and maybe neutral site games depending on the GOR language. Then they could offer "free" in-house coverage for home games through their own websites (remember when that was the original streaming for college sports?) that is available to anyone who is a member of IPTAY or the Seminole Boosters. This would lead to increased donations to those clubs to help off-set the TV revenue. They would also still get NCAA distributions which are fairly even among the conferences. Even giving up as much as half of the SEC media rights would still generate a good bit more than what the ACC is giving them now.

That's a non-starter from the SEC's perspective. We're not adding anybody until their business in their old Conference is taken care of.

What would actually happen is that FSU would zero money from any TV broadcasts, they'd lose about $45m a year for 13 years that they otherwise would have made in the ACC, and their football team would really go down the toilet, perhaps so much so that the SEC wasn't interested in them in 2036.

FSU's situation with the ACC is vaguely similar to Putin's threats to use Nukes in his current conflict. They can threaten to leave the ACC in order to extract some concessions, just like Putin can threaten to use his Nukes, but if/when they actually push the button then the fallout will probably end up on their own front door and cause vast destruction to something they love. That's why I've predicted for a while now that FSU will push very hard for concessions from the ACC, they'll try to get all the money that they can, but at the end of the day that's all they'll do. The only way they can get out of their current situation is if they get a whole lot of outside help, which is outside of their control.

(03-03-2023 11:42 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a thought. ESPN owns the ACC rights and the SEC rights. ESPN is going to be airing Clemson and Florida St home games regardless of what conference logo is on the field.

ESPN can make more money if those 2 are playing SEC schedules rather than ACC schedules so why don’t Florida St and Clemson just pay their exit fees, the ACC gets to pocket their shares and ESPN pays Florida St and Clemson incremental increases for the duration of the contract that start at what they are making now and end up at full SEC shares.

It could lead to weird things like SEC conference games airing on ACCN but guess what, ESPN makes money either way.

ESPN potentially makes more money airing FSU/Clemson games in the SEC, but what if they both fall to the middle of the pack and win 5-8 games a year until 2036? That's not unrealistic at all, and in that scenario their games will very rarely make the top 3 games of the week. In the ACC, they're both very likely to continue at or near the top of the heap, thus bolstering the value of ESPN's ACC contract. Also, assuming that both of them are perennial contenders in the SEC from now until 2036, the only additional value they bring to ESPN is the difference between what the broadcast games would have been without them and what it ends up being with them, instead. ie: say Clemson is 11-2 and is 3rd in the SEC. If they weren't around and Tennessee was 11-2 and 3rd in the SEC, instead of 10-3 and 4th in the SEC, how much better are the SEC's ratings due to Clemson's inclusion? Also, what happens to the value of the ACC contract when Clemson goes 11-2 in the SEC, and likely would have been 12-1 or 13-0 and in the CFP if they were still in the ACC? I'm pretty sure that a 12-1 Wake doesn't do it for ESPN the way a 12-1 Clemson does.

My thought: there's some potential upside but a whole lot of potential downside to ESPN if they help facilitate FSU/Clemson's move to the SEC now. On the flip side, if they wait until 2036, or let FSU/Clemson extricate themselves from their own mess, then they can still get them into the SEC in 2036 without the downside risks.

(03-03-2023 12:03 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 11:42 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a thought. ESPN owns the ACC rights and the SEC rights. ESPN is going to be airing Clemson and Florida St home games regardless of what conference logo is on the field.

ESPN can make more money if those 2 are playing SEC schedules rather than ACC schedules so why don’t Florida St and Clemson just pay their exit fees, the ACC gets to pocket their shares and ESPN pays Florida St and Clemson incremental increases for the duration of the contract that start at what they are making now and end up at full SEC shares.

It could lead to weird things like SEC conference games airing on ACCN but guess what, ESPN makes money either way.

Making a deal is better for everyone, I've always thought the ACC can't afford to follow through on the GoR (if they win) anymore than FSU or Clemson could (if they lose). If the ACC has any hope of remaining together after the GoR ends, they can't afford years of FSU-Alabama and Clemson-Georgia as the ACC Game of the Week which will make their brand a laughingstock. Those games will bump real ACC games to less desirable slots and there will be extensive discussion during the games of why an SEC game is the ACC game of the week, how badly we wanted out and what we were willing to endure to get out.

We usually focus on the potential costs to FSU to leave the ACC before 7/1/36, but the ACC will have costs as well if they try to hold one or more members against their will for the next 13 years. There's a win-win available here for everyone where we are free, and you get some extra money and gain stability.

The upside for the ACC is that their contract stays the same but they get more money per school. I'm sure they could handle a little embarrassment for an extra $7-8m per school for 13 years, that would bring them that much closer to on par with the P2.

The downside for FSU is they'd be flushing $500m in future revenues down the drain. Nobody is preventing Mark Cuban from lighting $500m on fire, and he could afford it, especially if it were spaced out over 13 years...but why in the world would he do that?

There is no scenario where FSU makes vague threats and is allowed to walk away. There is no scenario where FSU willingly chooses to forego $500m+ in future revenues, unless all parties impacted by that decision have negotiated an exit agreement ahead of time, and that exit agreement ends up being revenue positive for FSU and all other parties. As it's impossible for the ACC and ESPN to know if any agreement would be revenue positive or not, and the SEC wants NO PART of the FSU drama to fall on us, I'd say that it's unlikely that FSU manages an escape any time soon.

As an aside, people here seem to think that FSU would be some sort of savior to the SEC or B1G. We're all making $75m a year, and bringing FSU or Clemson on board would add maybe a million or 2 per school per year to that total. The bigger schools are making another $100m+ from other revenue sources on top of that $75m from the Conference. Would we even notice an extra $1-2m? Chris Del Conte has that in his couch. Would it be worth the potential liability of a Tortious Interference lawsuit, pissing off the ACC, ESPN, lots of people in Congress, heck maybe even the White House, for maybe a 1% boost to our revenues? Hell, no.

Look at what OUT had to go through to escape 1 year early.

(03-03-2023 03:52 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Why did it take 3 years for ESPN to launch ACCN? Considering SECN was up and running, it's not like ESPN was reinventing the wheel. I would argue that the ACC was harmed by ESPN's failure to set up the ACCN sooner.

A challenge in launching the ACC conference network was building not just the central production facilities, but the facilities required at each member school. This helps speak to why the ACC Network’s linear (TV) launch took three years. Most of the schools had massive infrastructure upgrades to make before then, to say nothing of staffing requirements. The facilities built include features such as multiple control rooms with display-covered walls or studios with green-screen backdrops and broadcast desks. Designs varied as the only requirement was to ensure the ability to handle a linear broadcast (an event airing at a scheduled time).


Link
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/buildin...llion.html

Link
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc.../40039245/

(03-03-2023 06:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 11:42 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a thought. ESPN owns the ACC rights and the SEC rights. ESPN is going to be airing Clemson and Florida St home games regardless of what conference logo is on the field.

ESPN can make more money if those 2 are playing SEC schedules rather than ACC schedules so why don’t Florida St and Clemson just pay their exit fees, the ACC gets to pocket their shares and ESPN pays Florida St and Clemson incremental increases for the duration of the contract that start at what they are making now and end up at full SEC shares.

It could lead to weird things like SEC conference games airing on ACCN but guess what, ESPN makes money either way.

ESPN potentially makes more money airing FSU/Clemson games in the SEC, but what if they both fall to the middle of the pack and win 5-8 games a year until 2036? That's not unrealistic at all, and in that scenario their games will very rarely make the top 3 games of the week. In the ACC, they're both very likely to continue at or near the top of the heap, thus bolstering the value of ESPN's ACC contract. Also, assuming that both of them are perennial contenders in the SEC from now until 2036, the only additional value they bring to ESPN is the difference between what the broadcast games would have been without them and what it ends up being with them, instead. ie: say Clemson is 11-2 and is 3rd in the SEC. If they weren't around and Tennessee was 11-2 and 3rd in the SEC, instead of 10-3 and 4th in the SEC, how much better are the SEC's ratings due to Clemson's inclusion? Also, what happens to the value of the ACC contract when Clemson goes 11-2 in the SEC, and likely would have been 12-1 or 13-0 and in the CFP if they were still in the ACC? I'm pretty sure that a 12-1 Wake doesn't do it for ESPN the way a 12-1 Clemson does.

My thought: there's some potential upside but a whole lot of potential downside to ESPN if they help facilitate FSU/Clemson's move to the SEC now. On the flip side, if they wait until 2036, or let FSU/Clemson extricate themselves from their own mess, then they can still get them into the SEC in 2036 without the downside risks.

You make some good points and Clemson and Florida St struggling in the SEC is a distinct possibility but remember that there’s 2 teams in every game. Even if Florida St and Clemson stumble out of the gate, you can fall back on their opponent as the draw.

A good Clemson team vs WF is just ho hum.

A great Alabama or Georgia visiting an ok Clemson team is still going to be ratings gold.

(03-03-2023 12:12 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 12:03 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 11:42 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Here’s a thought. ESPN owns the ACC rights and the SEC rights. ESPN is going to be airing Clemson and Florida St home games regardless of what conference logo is on the field.

ESPN can make more money if those 2 are playing SEC schedules rather than ACC schedules so why don’t Florida St and Clemson just pay their exit fees, the ACC gets to pocket their shares and ESPN pays Florida St and Clemson incremental increases for the duration of the contract that start at what they are making now and end up at full SEC shares.

It could lead to weird things like SEC conference games airing on ACCN but guess what, ESPN makes money either way.

Making a deal is better for everyone, I've always thought the ACC can't afford to follow through on the GoR (if they win) anymore than FSU or Clemson could (if they lose). If the ACC has any hope of remaining together after the GoR ends, they can't afford years of FSU-Alabama and Clemson-Georgia as the ACC Game of the Week which will make their brand a laughingstock. Those games will bump real ACC games to less desirable slots and there will be extensive discussion during the games of why an SEC game is the ACC game of the week, how badly we wanted out and what we were willing to endure to get out.

We usually focus on the potential costs to FSU to leave the ACC before 7/1/36, but the ACC will have costs as well if they try to hold one or more members against their will for the next 13 years. There's a win-win available here for everyone where we are free, and you get some extra money and gain stability.

If it runs through 2036, my long-range bet would be the top ACC teams go to the B1G, some of the middling's hope for the SEC, and those at the bottom are cast off to a C-USA level conference or just get out of major college athletics.

Typical BS scare tactics. Too bad your hand in this is as weak as the Pac's hand in their current contract negotiations. We don't NEED anybody else. We don't necessarily even WANT anybody else right now. We haven't even absorbed OUT yet, and that's a whole lot bigger bite than FSU and Clemson. The B1G hasn't absorbed USCLA yet.

FSU gave up the security of the SEC for the glory of 3 National Titles. Anybody but Bama, LSU, Georgia and Florida would have done the same if we were in your shoes back in 1990. Now it's time to pay the price for those 3 titles, do your time and maybe we'll let you join in 2036. But you'd better hope that we want you, because if we don't you can bet the B1G really wouldn't.

(03-03-2023 01:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  About this part:

“irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference during the term all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement.”

So it seems like the grant of rights only applies to those rights needed to fulfill the ESPN contract. IMO that might be a loophole- there might be some rights that could be granted to another conference that do not involve fulfilling the ESPN contract with the ACC.

But I am not an expert on this.

Yeah, any rights not needed for the ESPN contract are available. Women's basketball maybe. As we all know, that's on the uptick. Kliavkoff told us so. It could be worth 10s of dollars.

(03-03-2023 02:21 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:17 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  That's a safe (and pretty useless) comment by the UNC prez. A better contract could mean anything in a miniscule positive direction. An extra $100K per school per year is a "better contract". Does anyone here honestly believe that ESPN is going to put a dent in the looming disparity vs the mighty B1G/SEC? An extra $1M/yr per school doesn't do it. An extra $5M/yr per school doesn't do it. And that's a huge check for ESPN to write.

From my perspective, the UNC and FSU leaders are likely well aligned on objectives…yet their routes seem polar opposites to passionate fans.

UNC leaders are the good guys in discussions with the ACC and ESPN. Per UNC leaders, there are great opportunities and the ACC-ESPN relationship will address the challenges ahead.

FSU leaders are the bad guys…the conference sucks, the deal sucks, and there is an existential crisis that requires drastic measures. Whatever revenue increases the ACC & ESPN are able to generate, it will not be enough.

Nevertheless, both schools are much more valuable if the ACC can remain relevant. Both schools will likely find a home in the P2 and regret the long media contracts that the ACC signed. Both sets of leaders are catering to their donors.

Both sets are catering to their passions. UNC can compete with any basketball school in the country while remaining in the ACC. FSU can't compete with Vanderbilt on the gridiron (financially) while remaining in the ACC. And if basketball starts to become more important financially, while football becomes less so between now and 2036, UNC very well might end up staying in the ACC.

(03-03-2023 06:34 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  FSU gave up the security of the SEC for the glory of 3 National Titles.

Really?

In hindsight, sure, FSU should have chosen differently. However....let's not act like this was some super-ridiculous, slam-dunk decision in 1990. In 1990, this wasn't like they turned down an offer to go work at JPMorgan to go and work at Local Credit Union. In 1990, the SEC was just another conference.

(03-03-2023 09:48 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 06:34 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  FSU gave up the security of the SEC for the glory of 3 National Titles.

Really?

In hindsight, sure, FSU should have chosen differently. However....let's not act like this was some super-ridiculous, slam-dunk decision in 1990. In 1990, this wasn't like they turned down an offer to go work at JPMorgan to go and work at Local Credit Union. In 1990, the SEC was just another conference.

In 1990 there wasn't 3 million dollars' worth of difference between any of the conferences. Wonder who changed that? You know, I bet it wasn't any athletic conference. More likely it was an outside corporate entity using money to create favor. Kind of like what happens in other aspects of our lives besides sports.

Florida State couldn't have known that then, and we all should know better by now!

This is what any ACC School has to find their way around:

"Each of the member institutions...agrees to satisfy and perform all contractual obligations of a Member Institution during the Term that are expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement. The Grant of Rights...includes, without limitation, the right to produce and distribute all events of such Member Institution that are subject to the ESPN agreement..."

"Each of the Member Institutions acknowledges that the Grant of Rights during the entire Term is irrevocable and effective until the end of the term regardless of whether the Member Institution withdraws from the Conference during the Term or otherwise ceases to participate in the Conference in accordance with the Conference's Constitution and Bylaws."


IMHO their options are:
1. Walk away from $400-500M +/- with little media value to offer potential suitors after paying 120M to exercise that option.
2. Argue that ESPN /ACC are not living up to their end of the agreement as presented when they signed GOR, knowing this will at least get them to the negotiating table.

The distant third option, (bordering conspiracy theory) is that more schools are involved and FSU has been the only vocal party so far. The schools involved would have a landing spot and would be paid some marginal amount (for things other than their media value) until such time that the GOR goes away and they are compensated as full members. Eventually it all comes down to a math problem, but I don’t see how the math works yet.