Realignment talk not going away

[Jabberwocky 1666]

Spoiler

On the afternoon of Aug. 9, hours before leaders of ACC schools met again to discuss expansion, Ed Weisiger, the chairman of the N.C. State Board of Trustees, sent a text message to Randy Woodson, the university chancellor. The two often remained in contact throughout August, the month that decided the ACC’s future, and now Weisiger wanted Woodson to have the latest.

“I heard about this today,” Weisiger wrote, and “wanted you to be aware though you probably know about this.”

What he was about to send was an unsolicited entreaty from his counterpart at Southern Methodist University, an outline of a deal that at first seemed outlandish. Weisiger referred to it as “bizarre” and “not believable.” Soon enough, though, it would come to change the entire future of the ACC.

The exchange between Weisiger and Woodson surfaced among the hundreds of pages of documents N.C. State recently released to The News & Observer in response to a public records request. The emails, drafts of statements and text messages detail some of the back-and-forth among decision-makers throughout August. The records don’t tell the entire story, as only Woodson and a few others know it, but they nonetheless provide the most complete accounting yet of how N.C. State came to support expansion, and how various players attempted to sway its leadership.

SMU WILLING TO COME TO ACC FOR FREE? “BIZARRE”
On Aug. 9, Weisiger acknowledged his skepticism about what he was about to share but here it was, nonetheless, for Woodson’s consideration: a proposal from SMU — a desperate plea — meant to sell N.C. State on the idea of expansion.

Weisiger had received the proposal earlier in the day. It arrived via email from David Miller, the chairman of the SMU board of trustees and a successful businessman who’d played football for the Mustangs in the early 1970s. If the ACC was going to expand, Miller wanted to fight for SMU’s inclusion. One of the most important steps, he knew, was convincing N.C. State it was a good idea.

“My understanding is ACC Presidents meet again tonight to discuss expansion,” Miller wrote to Weisiger. “I’d love to share my thoughts with you about what SMU and Dallas bring to the table, but also (in case you’re not aware) want to let you know that we’ve offered to come into the conference and not participate in media revenues for 7 years.

“Amounts to several hundred million dollars that can go into ‘Success Pool’. Would appear to help solve issue with bigger football programs, such as yours. We’re fortunate to have a very wealthy alumni base that is passionate about athletics and willing to underwrite whatever costs are incurred to get SMU back to Power Conference status. Sorry to be so long winded in an email but wanted to make sure you and your President were fully up to speed on this.”

Not long after Weisiger passed Miller’s pitch onto Woodson, Woodson texted back.

“Welcome to the world of folks lobbying,” he wrote, and Weisiger responded with a “haha” tapback. The next morning Woodson filled Weisiger in on the meeting of ACC presidents and chancellors from the night before: “I’ll be brief, no official vote was taken. There is not sufficient support at this time to invite new programs into the conference.”

A little more than three weeks passed before there was an official vote. The first and only one, given the resistance among some ACC members — N.C. State included — to support adding Cal, Stanford and SMU to a conference with deep North Carolina roots, and a league in which all 15 members reside in the Eastern Time Zone. Twelve of them are in states that border the Atlantic Ocean.

When news of ACC expansion became official on Sept. 1, Stanhope Kelly, a former member of N.C. State Board of Trustees, congratulated Weisiger in a text message. N.C. State, after all, had for weeks held an outsized amount of power. It initially had joined three other schools — Clemson, Florida State and North Carolina — in opposition to expansion. For it to happen, one of those schools had to change its position to give the ACC the required three-fourths majority vote.

N.C. State became the one. Kelly seemed happy with the news.

“Proud of you, the BOT, and Randy for leading the way,” he wrote to Weisiger.

“Thanks Stan,” Weisiger wrote back. “Interesting month. I appreciate your input and counsel.”

It was their first exchange in more than three weeks.

EXPANSION SKEPTICISM STRONG
On Aug. 8, Kelly had texted Weisiger asking where things stood with the ACC’s expansion talks. There’d been a lot of speculation. Weisiger responded that he’d soon be speaking with Woodson about it, and that “the long term ESPN deal (and their financial straits) make it tough for any deal to happen.”

“Adding members to the ACC requires something additive,” Weisiger wrote, “and west coast schools don’t fit that narrative. However, those schools are desperate but adding west coast travel to the athletic depts of the ACC (and vice versa) hardly makes sense. Will let you know.”

In the weeks to follow, what at first appeared to hardly make sense to N.C. State, and its leaders, gradually became more palatable. Along the way, ACC expansion, which to its opponents was a non-starter of an idea throughout the first half of August, gradually became more realistic until it finally passed. In the six weeks since it did, the question of how and why N.C. State reached its decision to support expansion has lingered. It’s a question that Woodson has avoided answering.

discussion” and “ACC update” and, when the conversation was apparently at its most serious and formal: “A special meeting of the ACC Board of Directors” to discuss “potential additions to the ACC’s membership.”

The first of those was Aug. 4 and the second on Aug. 9. University presidents met and talked, with ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips and others, but took no formal vote on expansion. There was no need to, in the absence of the necessary support to expand. The talks could’ve ended there, or in the weeks after, if the league’s four holdouts remained united in their opposition.

Those who favored expansion, though, needed to convince only one of those schools that it was the right move. But which one? FSU had become the ACC’s most vociferous critic, its petulance and angst a growing and festering sore spot among league administrators and rival schools. Clemson had been quieter in its criticism but, like FSU, had expressed concern about its ability to compete as the ACC’s revenue disparity with the SEC and Big Ten continued to grow.

UNC, meanwhile, understood its place as the most desired of ACC members, if the league were ever to crumble like the Pac-12. Administrators at North Carolina made no secret of their skepticism surrounding ACC expansion, their belief that adding West Coast schools was more trouble than it was worth. That left N.C. State. If any of the schools opposed to expansion was going to change its position, State seemed the most obvious candidate.

AN EXPERT VOICE WEIGHS IN
It was during a rare lull in conference meetings, toward the middle of August, when Weisiger received an impassioned plea from an old friend. It came via a text message, but it was one of those texts that was so long that Weisiger’s iPhone opened it in a separate window. It was from Ben Sutton, a prominent Wake Forest alumnus (with both an undergraduate and law degree) and booster who founded ISP Sports, which in the 1990s became arguably the most influential college sports media and marketing company in the United States.

Sutton remains one of the most powerful behind-the-scenes influencers in college athletics. Among his friends he counts athletics directors and school presidents and conference commissioners and television and media executives around the country. In mid-August, with the ACC’s expansion talks having stalled, Sutton’s text to Weisiger arrived in capital letters:

“APOLOGIES FOR THE LENGTH, BUT WANTED YOU TO HAVE INFO I HAVE SHARED WITH MULTIPLE PRESIDENTS AND AD’s OVER THE PAST WEEK.”

The crux of his long message quickly became clear enough: the ACC could no longer wait.

“We’ve all been watching this movie for 25 years as the ACC consistently waited for others to make the first move and by the time the league’s leaders decided to respond, they were totally reactionary and playing for 3rd and 4th place in a 5 horse race,” Sutton wrote. He soon summarized his argument in three sentences:

“The ACC has to expand. And now. It is entirely about setting yourself up for the next move (one of the definitions of strategy).” To Sutton, the ACC’s choices were clear. It could either “ultimately get eaten up,” as he wrote, “or you can play the game.” And the game was “to be the #3 conference in terms of revenue output and one of only three bona fide, financially stable national conferences.”

Allowing expansion, Sutton argued, would be “like buying insurance for the future members of the ACC. The ACC contract with ESPN requires 14 full members in the league. If Carolina and Virginia leave, by taking Cal and Stanford, you take no haircut. If FSU goes independent (they are seriously considering it), SMU could fill the gap.”

Sometimes they were in smaller groups, like the one on Aug. 23 among Ryan (the Virginia President), Woodson, Phillips (the ACC Commissioner), UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz, Clemson President Jim Clements and Ben Tario, the ACC’s Chief Financial Officer. Sometimes, the meetings came about spur of the moment, like when Phillips texted both Woodson and Guskiewicz early the morning of Aug. 27 for a meeting with the two of them.

of schools like that.

“But never did that enter in conversations that I had with any parties and other people.”

If that’s true — if N.C. State wasn’t compelled to vote yes in hopes of AAU membership — then the next most-likely explanation is that it came to believe supporting expansion afforded the best chance at long term stability and growth. Stability, at least, is an increasingly valuable commodity in a major college athletics landscape that grows more volatile all the time.

Two years ago, the SEC announced its intention to add Oklahoma and Texas. Last year, the Big Ten poached USC and UCLA from the Pac-12, and then added Oregon and Washington this year, leading to the death of that conference as it has been known. In expanding west, first into the Central Time Zone and then into the Pacific, the ACC is following what other leagues have done.

Will the move allow N.C. State, and other schools like it, to secure a place at the table in major college sports? Or will it further destabilize the ACC, and hasten the departures of schools that rejected expansion? There are arguments for both.

“I tell people, this situation is so fluid,” Weisiger said. “You know, three years from now, five years from now, this could look like a wonderful decision. Or it could look like a horrible decision. But I do know it was the best decision for the short term. At least, I agreed with the chancellor on that. ...

“But in terms of answering the rest? I mean, it’s a ‘who knows’ on the rest of all that.”

 

[TKthunder2 4991]

1 hour ago, Jabberwocky said:

If FSU goes independent (they are seriously considering it)

👀

[billfromlaketravis 11481]

Florida State would have trouble scheduling as an independent. 
 

Florida is legally required to play them. Miami is always going to say yes. UCF would crawl through glass to play FSU regularly. 
 

Clemson and UNC don’t give a f*** about the ACC. 
 

That’s 5 solid games to start. Backfill with USF, FIU, and FAU.

[gatormarc 911]

4 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Florida is legally required to play them.

Florida is not legally required to play FSU but we would continue to play them anyway.

[John80 157]

I don't know how going independent would help FSU but the only constant is their bizarre behavior. 

[TKthunder2 4991]

Makes sense in a weird way.

1. Go independent

2. Broadcast your own games online (no one else will risk it because…)

3. Get sued by the ACC due to the GOR

4. Legally nullify the GOR in court or settle out of court (and show Clemson/UNC/UVA the way out as well) and confirm once and for all whether you own your TV rights or not.

5. Join the SEC or Big Ten and hopefully break even financially prior to 2036.

 

Short term they’ll lose some money but depending on the settlement amount they likely come out ahead than staying in the ACC for another 12 years. If this was a 5 year problem this would be dumb, but with over a decade left on their TV deal this isn’t a horrible plan.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Francisco 2.0 32393]

3 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

 

Now this is the scintillating realignment news that everyone was waiting for.

The dominos are starting to fall.

 

 

[Vertigo 20285]

3 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Now this is the scintillating realignment news that everyone was waiting for.

The dominos are starting to fall.

 

 

Sleeping giant imo. 

[Francisco 2.0 32393]

1 minute ago, Vertigo said:

Sleeping giant imo. 

Their NIL collective endowment is massive.

 

[Saint Austin 745]

32 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Hopefully this won't affect their rivalry game with Monitor.

[SimkinsMan 4387]

45 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Now this is the scintillating realignment news that everyone was waiting for.

The dominos are starting to fall.

 

 

Merrimack fills a cavernous hole in the MAAC. 

[TKthunder2 4991]

They also added Sacred Heart as well.

https://maacsports.com/news/2023/10/22/baseball-maac-welcomes-merrimack-college-and-sacred-heart-university-as-newest-full-members.aspx
 

This put the NEC in a real bind as they’ll be down to 7 and already have 2 members (Stonehill and LeMoyne) transitioning up from DII offsetting their loss of St Francis who dropped all sports and Mount St Mary’s who also went to the MAAC.

They need a waiver from the NCAA and will have to beg some less than enthusiastic DII to move up or grab full independent Chicago State out West in order to survive.

I have my eye on New Haven as the most likely call up with Bentley as the next best option.

[John80 157]

I think the only school that could get away with Florida State's behavior is Notre Dame. I don't see Michigan or Georgia putting up with Florida State's constant public temper tantrums and threats. The B10 and SEC have succeeded because there is a cohesion and you are inviting a malcontent that is never happy. If the SEC has to add someone, I hope it's Clemson and UNC but I prefer to stay at 16.

[DanTheHorn 4925]

1 hour ago, John80 said:

I think the only school that could get away with Florida State's behavior is Notre Dame. I don't see Michigan or Georgia putting up with Florida State's constant public temper tantrums and threats. The B10 and SEC have succeeded because there is a cohesion and you are inviting a malcontent that is never happy. If the SEC has to add someone, I hope it's Clemson and UNC but I prefer to stay at 16.

Have you not heard that the SEC has already invited the biggest malcontent

-aggy

Edited October 24, 2023 by DanTheHorn

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

['stache 21815]

14 hours ago, John80 said:

I think the only school that could get away with Florida State's behavior is Notre Dame. I don't see Michigan or Georgia putting up with Florida State's constant public temper tantrums and threats. The B10 and SEC have succeeded because there is a cohesion and you are inviting a malcontent that is never happy. If the SEC has to add someone, I hope it's Clemson and UNC but I prefer to stay at 16.

They’re really just mad about the money, right? I mean they’ll be making less than UCF soon. SEC would fix that, money makes everyone happy.

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

They’re really just mad about the money, right? I mean they’ll be making less than UCF soon. SEC would fix that, money makes everyone happy.

I think that's it.  They don't have some inherent dislike of the ACC, they just don't want to be that far behind Florida (and obviously UCF) in income.

[bullet 1597]

On 10/23/2023 at 10:47 AM, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Now this is the scintillating realignment news that everyone was waiting for.

The dominos are starting to fall.

 

 

Well the NEC and MEAC may need some sort of merger.  Both are getting short of teams.

[bullet 1597]

1 hour ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Being a 2 Pac sounds like a stupid idea that will kill their athletic programs.  All seems to be about the lawsuit.

Much better solution:

Negotiate with CFP to get 2/70th shares for the next two years for OSU/WSU.  Article seems to indicate nobody is opposed to that.

Negotiate with 10 Pac to allow the 2 to add all 12 MWC schools.

Continue on with the lawsuit over residual money, assets and basketball credits (or reach a settlement).

[thunderlounge 7834]

11 minutes ago, bullet said:

Negotiate with 10 Pac to allow the 2 to add all 12 MWC schools.

How can you negotiate with former members who have no voting rights, nor representation on the board?

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[bullet 1597]

5 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

How can you negotiate with former members who have no voting rights, nor representation on the board?

They ARE in mediation negotiating with them now.

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

The "What'd I Miss?" Conference: Wazzu, FSU, Ore St., Clemson.  How many more do we need?

[thunderlounge 7834]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

They ARE in mediation negotiating with them now.

About whether or not they get any say in what happen with the conference. 
 

The same conference in which they don’t have voting rights, per bylaw as well as precedence, yet are trying to run.

That’s what they’re in court for. Do those entities which have informed the conference they are leaving (all but 2), have any voting rights or not. The bylaws, as well as precedence, say they do not.

So the 2 left got an injunction to stop the leaving entities from trying to carve up the remaining conference assets. Problem being, there is still a conference, with members, even if for only a short time frame.

You can’t fault the two-fer for trying to keep what is legally theirs. 

[Richard Kimball 1495]

On 10/19/2023 at 6:22 PM, Tex Long said:

Taylor Swift vs Jennifer Lawrence

Roller Derby, Jello Rasslin'

 

Taylor Swift vs Jennifer Lawrence Jello Rasslin.

They had some awesome shit back on Wide World of Sports.

 

[Tex Long 4400]

7 minutes ago, Richard Kimball said:

Taylor Swift vs Jennifer Lawrence Jello Rasslin.

They had some awesome shit back on Wide World of Sports.

 

Anitas Ekberg vs Gina Lollobigida

Double-dutch Rope Skipping

 

[Lone Star Horn 2016]

First off, have some respect and spell their names correctly.

Then per surly rules, show pics, in their prime

Anita Ekberg

Gina Lollobrigida

[bullet 1597]

17 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

About whether or not they get any say in what happen with the conference. 
 

The same conference in which they don’t have voting rights, per bylaw as well as precedence, yet are trying to run.

That’s what they’re in court for. Do those entities which have informed the conference they are leaving (all but 2), have any voting rights or not. The bylaws, as well as precedence, say they do not.

So the 2 left got an injunction to stop the leaving entities from trying to carve up the remaining conference assets. Problem being, there is still a conference, with members, even if for only a short time frame.

You can’t fault the two-fer for trying to keep what is legally theirs. 

The by-laws are not clear at all.  The same passage that says they have no voting rights says the remaining schools can sue for damages to the conference if announce intent to leave, when its clear there is no penalty for leaving on 8/2/24.  It seems like that passage is talking about them actually leaving instead of just announcing.   Or maybe its mixing the two.  Its just really unclear and very poorly written.

And while you can sympathize with them for being left behind, they are easily the two weakest state schools in the P5 in fan support despite being decent sized schools.  OSU is bigger than Oregon.  The assets of the Pac 12 were overwhelmingly earned by someone else.

 

[bullet 1597]

 

[oSuJeff97 3435]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

 

Am I nuts or didn’t Army used to be in AAC? Or was it Conference USA? I remember them playing Tulsa regularly for a while…

[thunderlounge 7834]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

The by-laws are not clear at all.  The same passage that says they have no voting rights says the remaining schools can sue for damages to the conference if announce intent to leave, when its clear there is no penalty for leaving on 8/2/24.  It seems like that passage is talking about them actually leaving instead of just announcing.   Or maybe its mixing the two.  Its just really unclear and very poorly written.

And while you can sympathize with them for being left behind, they are easily the two weakest state schools in the P5 in fan support despite being decent sized schools.  OSU is bigger than Oregon.  The assets of the Pac 12 were overwhelmingly earned by someone else.

 

On August 1st, before 3 of the 4 corners along with UW/UO made their move, did USC/UCLA/CU have voting rights on the board?

The answer is clearly, firmly, “NO.”

The two left absolutely suck shit through a straw. There is no debating that. However, just because they’re the bottom of the barrel doesn’t mean that their rights to the conference they are STILL in are diminished or fail to exist.

Those whom have left, forfeited their rights. It’s been shown that is how it works. End of story.

The rest is nothing more than low-IQ fluff to watch with a bowl of popcorn. Cheap entertainment.

It doesn’t matter who contributed in the past. They’ve left.

 

You want to tell me now that TX/ou should sue the b12 for their prior contributions to the conference? Because that’s what you’re saying the leaving entities of the pac should do, so what’s the difference.

Get the fuck outta here with that weak ass line of thinking. Those leaving the pac knew what would happen, and now they have to deal with it. Whether or not the remaining two are relevant in anything is inconsequential to whether or not they have rights. And they do have every right.

I couldn’t care less about the future of either program, but that doesn’t mean the leaving entities get to call the shots. They don’t.

IF the pac were to cease to exist after this season, that’s one thing.  However it’s going to still be a conference next season, without those entities. Might not be big, might not last more than 24 months, but it will last past the date of those departing. 
 

You leave, you forfeit current conference rights to include voting rights. Period. 

[gatormarc 911]

45 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Am I nuts or didn’t Army used to be in AAC? Or was it Conference USA? I remember them playing Tulsa regularly for a while…

They were CUSA 1998-2004 before returning to Independent status.

Though they have only played Tulsa once, in 2007.

[Texas Wahoo 3397]

 

 

[oSuJeff97 3435]

2 hours ago, gatormarc said:

They were CUSA 1998-2004 before returning to Independent status.

Though they have only played Tulsa once, in 2007.

Thanks a lot, bourbon.

[gatormarc 911]

4 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Thanks a lot, bourbon.

Maybe you're thinking Tulane? They started playing them annually when they were in CUSA and have continued to play them regularly since.

[oSuJeff97 3435]

5 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

Maybe you're thinking Tulane? They started playing them annually when they were in CUSA and have continued to play them regularly since.

Nah I was thinking of Tulsa, just not remembering right (again...Bourbon).

I think the deal was that everyone around here made a big deal about it at the time because they were briefly in the same conference, but I guess they never played? Or maybe Tulsa joined C-USA right after Army left? I can't keep track.. feels like Tulsa was jumping conferences every couple of years there for a while.... WAC, C-USA, Big East, AAC, etc.

Edited October 25, 2023 by oSuJeff97

['stache 21815]

48 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Nah I was thinking of Tulsa, just not remembering right (again...Bourbon).

I think the deal was that everyone around here made a big deal about it at the time because they were briefly in the same conference, but I guess they never played? Or maybe Tulsa joined C-USA right after Army left? I can't keep track.. feels like Tulsa was jumping conferences every couple of years there for a while.... WAC, C-USA, Big East, AAC, etc.

You're thinking of Navy. They've played Tulsa each of the last 10 years because Navy was in the west division for some reason. They don't play this year because no more divisions.

Edited October 25, 2023 by 'stache

[Francisco 2.0 32393]

 

 

 

[BurntOrange&White 39933]

1 hour ago, Texas Wahoo said:

 

 

I hope they win this then vote to only distribute to themselves

[camel at sea 589]

6 hours ago, bullet said:

 

That's a good add for them.  Who are the biggest brands (you know, relatively speaking) in that league now?  Army, Navy, Memphis, Tulane?  They really need a couple of their big enrollment members to take off.    

[oSuJeff97 3435]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

You're thinking of Navy. They've played Tulsa each of the last 10 years because Navy was in the west division for some reason. They don't play this year because no more divisions.

Goddamn bourbon….

[bullet 1597]

9 hours ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Am I nuts or didn’t Army used to be in AAC? Or was it Conference USA? I remember them playing Tulsa regularly for a while…

CUSA with a lot of the schools now in the AAC.  Memphis, Tulane, UAB, ECU along with Southern Miss, UH, Cincy and Louisville.  And eventually USF and TCU before they dropped out.

[bullet 1597]

9 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

On August 1st, before 3 of the 4 corners along with UW/UO made their move, did USC/UCLA/CU have voting rights on the board?

The answer is clearly, firmly, “NO.”

The two left absolutely suck shit through a straw. There is no debating that. However, just because they’re the bottom of the barrel doesn’t mean that their rights to the conference they are STILL in are diminished or fail to exist.

Those whom have left, forfeited their rights. It’s been shown that is how it works. End of story.

The rest is nothing more than low-IQ fluff to watch with a bowl of popcorn. Cheap entertainment.

It doesn’t matter who contributed in the past. They’ve left.

 

You want to tell me now that TX/ou should sue the b12 for their prior contributions to the conference? Because that’s what you’re saying the leaving entities of the pac should do, so what’s the difference.

Get the fuck outta here with that weak ass line of thinking. Those leaving the pac knew what would happen, and now they have to deal with it. Whether or not the remaining two are relevant in anything is inconsequential to whether or not they have rights. And they do have every right.

I couldn’t care less about the future of either program, but that doesn’t mean the leaving entities get to call the shots. They don’t.

IF the pac were to cease to exist after this season, that’s one thing.  However it’s going to still be a conference next season, without those entities. Might not be big, might not last more than 24 months, but it will last past the date of those departing. 
 

You leave, you forfeit current conference rights to include voting rights. Period. 

Actually the whole conference left.  UH didn't inherit all the SWC assets when they were the last to turn out the lights.

This isn't at all like 2 schools out of 10 leaving.  And UT and OU never acknowledged that their voting rights were gone.  They just quit coming to future oriented meetings.

[gatormarc 911]

14 hours ago, 'stache said:

15 hours ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Nah I was thinking of Tulsa, just not remembering right (again...Bourbon).

I think the deal was that everyone around here made a big deal about it at the time because they were briefly in the same conference, but I guess they never played? Or maybe Tulsa joined C-USA right after Army left? I can't keep track.. feels like Tulsa was jumping conferences every couple of years there for a while.... WAC, C-USA, Big East, AAC, etc.

You're thinking of Navy. They've played Tulsa each of the last 10 years because Navy was in the west division for some reason. They don't play this year because no more divisions.

You cracked the code!

[Hurtlocker 2212]

On 10/21/2023 at 10:37 PM, TKthunder2 said:

 

4. Legally nullify the GOR in court or settle out of court (and show Clemson/UNC/UVA the way out as well) and confirm once and for all whether you own your TV rights or not.

 

Nullifying would be massively expensive and would basically affect the entire entertainment industry.    So many organizations outside of college football would be funding this fight the numbers are staggeringly huge, likely a factor of 1,000x more than FSU could dream of coming up with.    So with you that the settle would likely be cheaper to just buy the rights back.   But if that went to court, damn would there be a lot of expensive suits lining up to fight them.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[TKthunder2 4991]

5 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Nullifying would be massively expensive and would basically affect the entire entertainment industry.    So many organizations outside of college football would be funding this fight the numbers are staggeringly huge, likely a factor of 1,000x more than FSU could dream of coming up with.    So with you that the settle would likely be cheaper to just buy the rights back.   But if that went to court, damn would there be a lot of expensive suits lining up to fight them.

I know you disagree (we’ve had this talk before I’m fairly certain) but I still have yet to see any evidence of a GOR being enforced on a government entity. That the major difference here. ESPN/FOX would not be involved. The ACC would have to sue FSU directly and I don’t think that would have a favorable outcome. Plus even if it did it would cost money and the state could theoretically pass a law voiding unfavorable government contracts which is unique versus a standard GOR on an individual or private company.

Courts have also ruled certain GORs invalid where people signed away their lifetime of rights for $1. I’m no media rights expert here but while I agree that it will cost many MANY dollars to lawyers, I do not think this is a cut and dry as say Taylor Swift’s GOR (which she was still able to get out of by re-recording her music). FSU seems to have a plan, I’m curious to see the outcome.

[Texas Wahoo 3397]

23 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

I know you disagree (we’ve had this talk before I’m fairly certain) but I still have yet to see any evidence of a GOR being enforced on a government entity. That the major difference here. ESPN/FOX would not be involved. The ACC would have to sue FSU directly and I don’t think that would have a favorable outcome. Plus even if it did it would cost money and the state could theoretically pass a law voiding unfavorable government contracts which is unique versus a standard GOR on an individual or private company.

Courts have also ruled certain GORs invalid where people signed away their lifetime of rights for $1. I’m no media rights expert here but while I agree that it will cost many MANY dollars to lawyers, I do not think this is a cut and dry as say Taylor Swift’s GOR (which she was still able to get out of by re-recording her music). FSU seems to have a plan, I’m curious to see the outcome.

My understanding is that FSU would have to sue the ACC to get their rights back, not the other way around, which is why I do not think things like sovereign immunity would play much of a role here.

I suppose an alternative would be FSU to just not worry about getting their rights back and trying to broadcast their rights separately.  I cannot imagine FOX or any other major network wants to get into the business of broadcasting games whose rights belong to anyone else - as then it would likely lead to ESPN/FOX suing each other.

[TKthunder2 4991]

3 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

My understanding is that FSU would have to sue the ACC to get their rights back, not the other way around, which is why I do not think things like sovereign immunity would play much of a role here.

I suppose an alternative would be FSU to just not worry about getting their rights back and trying to broadcast their rights separately.  I cannot imagine FOX or any other major network wants to get into the business of broadcasting games whose rights belong to anyone else - as then it would likely lead to ESPN/FOX suing each other.

Yes the premise here was that FSU goes independent and broadcasts their own events without permission. Agree ESPN/FOX won’t want to get involved.

['stache 21815]

I’m looking forward to the 30 for 30 on realignment to learn how all the ACC schools didn’t see the trend of escalating media rights values and locked themselves into that shitty deal. I bet ESPN execs were dancing in the streets. “I can’t believed all of them signed, LoL!!!”

Edited October 26, 2023 by 'stache