Down goes the ACC
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2023 4:55 pm
This account has been pretty good at reporting stuff. Gonna be a wild next 6 months.
http://www.yosefscabin.com/forum/
Signing that was very dumb. How on earth do you give a league complete ownership of all your TV games in every sport to the league? There are lawyers who seem to think there is wording to give FSU an argument they can win.
Well, they are wrong. They aren't being held hostage by anything other than a contract that they agreed to and both parties are performing under. Neither has broken a contractual obligation to the other and the ACC has done explicitly what is stated in said agreement.AppStFan1 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 4:26 pmSigning that was very dumb. How on earth do you give a league complete ownership of all your TV games in every sport to the league? There are lawyers who seem to think there is wording to give FSU an argument they can win.
I was reading the Clemson and FSU boards about this all the way back to 2022. Here is a snippet from a point that someone brought up that makes for an interesting argument and why it was so dumb to ever sign that agreement.
"the ACC's GOR includes a "competitive revenue clause". Right now, 80% of conference revenue is generated by football and, over the last several years, Clemson has accounted for the lions share of that, yet their return is peanuts compared to the competition in other leagues. This, in and of itself, should be an out for Clemson (among others). The league can't hold schools hostage if they can make twice the revenue elsewhere. That's overly punitive and inequitable. This is why I firmly believe schools like UNC, Miami, FSU and Clemson should be pooling their resources and working together collectively and collaboratively to find a way out of the ACC's unfavorable GOR."
Cheating isn't newBigdaddyg1 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 9:23 amA lot of these issues are due to simple math. Add more teams and you water down the product. Everyone can't win every game. When Wake won the ACC did they get a huge chunk of extra revenue? When FSU was down and sucked they were quiet. You can't have some huge conference and have an equitable revenue distribution. Ultimately there might be some 16-20 team super conference and they will either share the revenue or figure out how to tier it based on results. Then let the cheating run rampant.
They definitely did and it was a bad decision but I also heard there is language that the ACC must act in the best interest of it's league members as part of it and if that is true then your comment about additions not working out might be the loophole they need.ericsaid wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 4:06 amWell, they are wrong. They aren't being held hostage by anything other than a contract that they agreed to and both parties are performing under. Neither has broken a contractual obligation to the other and the ACC has done explicitly what is stated in said agreement.AppStFan1 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 4:26 pmSigning that was very dumb. How on earth do you give a league complete ownership of all your TV games in every sport to the league? There are lawyers who seem to think there is wording to give FSU an argument they can win.
I was reading the Clemson and FSU boards about this all the way back to 2022. Here is a snippet from a point that someone brought up that makes for an interesting argument and why it was so dumb to ever sign that agreement.
"the ACC's GOR includes a "competitive revenue clause". Right now, 80% of conference revenue is generated by football and, over the last several years, Clemson has accounted for the lions share of that, yet their return is peanuts compared to the competition in other leagues. This, in and of itself, should be an out for Clemson (among others). The league can't hold schools hostage if they can make twice the revenue elsewhere. That's overly punitive and inequitable. This is why I firmly believe schools like UNC, Miami, FSU and Clemson should be pooling their resources and working together collectively and collaboratively to find a way out of the ACC's unfavorable GOR."
Again, no one forced Clemson to sign. No one forced Miami to sign. They all did it willingly.
It's not the ACC's fault that the additions they made, with the approval of member institutions, of the former Big East schools hasn't panned out. One could argue that the old ACC has been worse for the newer programs than the legacy institutions.
Look at Pitt, Virginia Tech, Miami, Boston College, Louisville, Syracuse, etc. All but Virginia Tech were powers in basketball and nearly all have, through no I'll will of the ACC, run their programs into the ground.
That falls on those schools. If everyone was performing at a level to generate enough interest that their media contract would increase, they'd be fine.
That said, I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps there is something in the ACC locking in a rate for 15 years or whatever it was as occurring in bad faith by either the ACC or ESPN. Someone lied?
Indeed. The SEC is already in Florida and I'm sure the Gators don't want FSU in there with them. I would imagine that the Big Ten and Big 12 would love to add them. If the Big 12 had been able to add FSU they never would have added UCF I bet.
The Big 10 could change, but FSU is not a member of the AAU. Though not an official requirement, all members save Nebraska are members and they were at the time of their entrance to the Big 10.
I'm sure they would allow for FSU due to the money. I assume the Big 12 will make a play for them as well.hapapp wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 3:59 pmThe Big 10 could change, but FSU is not a member of the AAU. Though not an official requirement, all members save Nebraska are members and they were at the time of their entrance to the Big 10.
I wonder if the suing schools will have to prove that the ACC did knowingly and intentionally underperform in their attempts (or lack thereof) to increase revenue. They would have to prove that ESPN and other league-wide sponsors wanted to pay the ACC more money and the ACC said “nah we’re good”.AppStFan1 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 12:17 pmThey definitely did and it was a bad decision but I also heard there is language that the ACC must act in the best interest of it's league members as part of it and if that is true then your comment about additions not working out might be the loophole they need.ericsaid wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 4:06 amWell, they are wrong. They aren't being held hostage by anything other than a contract that they agreed to and both parties are performing under. Neither has broken a contractual obligation to the other and the ACC has done explicitly what is stated in said agreement.AppStFan1 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 4:26 pmSigning that was very dumb. How on earth do you give a league complete ownership of all your TV games in every sport to the league? There are lawyers who seem to think there is wording to give FSU an argument they can win.
I was reading the Clemson and FSU boards about this all the way back to 2022. Here is a snippet from a point that someone brought up that makes for an interesting argument and why it was so dumb to ever sign that agreement.
"the ACC's GOR includes a "competitive revenue clause". Right now, 80% of conference revenue is generated by football and, over the last several years, Clemson has accounted for the lions share of that, yet their return is peanuts compared to the competition in other leagues. This, in and of itself, should be an out for Clemson (among others). The league can't hold schools hostage if they can make twice the revenue elsewhere. That's overly punitive and inequitable. This is why I firmly believe schools like UNC, Miami, FSU and Clemson should be pooling their resources and working together collectively and collaboratively to find a way out of the ACC's unfavorable GOR."
Again, no one forced Clemson to sign. No one forced Miami to sign. They all did it willingly.
It's not the ACC's fault that the additions they made, with the approval of member institutions, of the former Big East schools hasn't panned out. One could argue that the old ACC has been worse for the newer programs than the legacy institutions.
Look at Pitt, Virginia Tech, Miami, Boston College, Louisville, Syracuse, etc. All but Virginia Tech were powers in basketball and nearly all have, through no I'll will of the ACC, run their programs into the ground.
That falls on those schools. If everyone was performing at a level to generate enough interest that their media contract would increase, they'd be fine.
That said, I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps there is something in the ACC locking in a rate for 15 years or whatever it was as occurring in bad faith by either the ACC or ESPN. Someone lied?
I predict that FSU, Clemson, and others will not be part of the ACC or have started the separation process within 3 years from now.
BingoAPPdiesel wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 12:13 amI wonder if the suing schools will have to prove that the ACC did knowingly and intentionally underperform in their attempts (or lack thereof) to increase revenue. They would have to prove that ESPN and other league-wide sponsors wanted to pay the ACC more money and the ACC said “nah we’re good”.AppStFan1 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 12:17 pmThey definitely did and it was a bad decision but I also heard there is language that the ACC must act in the best interest of it's league members as part of it and if that is true then your comment about additions not working out might be the loophole they need.ericsaid wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 4:06 amWell, they are wrong. They aren't being held hostage by anything other than a contract that they agreed to and both parties are performing under. Neither has broken a contractual obligation to the other and the ACC has done explicitly what is stated in said agreement.AppStFan1 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 4:26 pmSigning that was very dumb. How on earth do you give a league complete ownership of all your TV games in every sport to the league? There are lawyers who seem to think there is wording to give FSU an argument they can win.
I was reading the Clemson and FSU boards about this all the way back to 2022. Here is a snippet from a point that someone brought up that makes for an interesting argument and why it was so dumb to ever sign that agreement.
"the ACC's GOR includes a "competitive revenue clause". Right now, 80% of conference revenue is generated by football and, over the last several years, Clemson has accounted for the lions share of that, yet their return is peanuts compared to the competition in other leagues. This, in and of itself, should be an out for Clemson (among others). The league can't hold schools hostage if they can make twice the revenue elsewhere. That's overly punitive and inequitable. This is why I firmly believe schools like UNC, Miami, FSU and Clemson should be pooling their resources and working together collectively and collaboratively to find a way out of the ACC's unfavorable GOR."
Again, no one forced Clemson to sign. No one forced Miami to sign. They all did it willingly.
It's not the ACC's fault that the additions they made, with the approval of member institutions, of the former Big East schools hasn't panned out. One could argue that the old ACC has been worse for the newer programs than the legacy institutions.
Look at Pitt, Virginia Tech, Miami, Boston College, Louisville, Syracuse, etc. All but Virginia Tech were powers in basketball and nearly all have, through no I'll will of the ACC, run their programs into the ground.
That falls on those schools. If everyone was performing at a level to generate enough interest that their media contract would increase, they'd be fine.
That said, I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps there is something in the ACC locking in a rate for 15 years or whatever it was as occurring in bad faith by either the ACC or ESPN. Someone lied?
I predict that FSU, Clemson, and others will not be part of the ACC or have started the separation process within 3 years from now.