FSU to B1G
- Thread starter PURPLE Book Cat
- Start date
1) Correct. Stanford and USC joining makes ND joining easier as it preserves long-term standing series.
2) Agree. Never thought OU/OSU made much sense, but feels like “plug your nose and take the plunge” with Cal.
4) See #2
Correct. The issue is just how committed they actually are to athletics in the long run. That’s admittedly awkward on an NU fan board, but the consideration for all other B1G members.
Curious, is Notre Dame still trying to freeze out Miami, or is the big 10 just not interested?
I was surprised to see FSU ranked as highly as it is in many programs.
Per USNews rankings, they would be in the top half of Big Ten universities - even including USC and UCLA
When Rick Scott was Governor, he made it a priority to get funding for UF and FSU so that they could ascend to be among the elite of public universities. It seems to be paying off, as both have moved up significantly in the rankings.
Yeah you can't ignore large part of the student body because 20% is naked and painting themselves
Get them in. Four 6 or 7 team divisions in The Really B1G! I'll post them later. East, South, Midwest, and West!
Florida State can fire off all the warning shots they want they along with Clemson and North Carolina aren't going anywhere as long as the Grant of Rights are in place. There is also no way that Notre Dame is joining the ACC now or anytime soon.
On the topic of time zones the western part of Florida is in the Central Time Zone with the boundry not being all that far from Tallahassee.
On the topic of time zones the western part of Florida is in the Central Time Zone with the boundry not being all that far from Tallahassee.
I'm in the camp that FSU (and ACC schools generally) won't be able to announce moves until 2030-2032 (with the moves being effective in 2036).
Reality is that ACC buyout to get granted TV rights back will be way too steep. Those TV rights are probably worth $300-400 million with 13 years left.
Reality is that ACC buyout to get granted TV rights back will be way too steep. Those TV rights are probably worth $300-400 million with 13 years left.
The schools leaving the ACC would have several colorable and viable arguments of defenses and excuses for non-performance. The doctrines of frustration of purpose, impossibility, and commercial impracticability would hold enough water to create an existential crisis for the ACC.
To preserve the availability of the above defenses, and lessen the exposure for the receiving conferences, neither the B1G nor the SEC would act alone or act first. FSU and Clemson, by openly expressing their dissatisfaction with the status quo, have enhanced the availability of commercial impracticability for each other, and the other schools in the ACC. Neither conference should extend an invite prior to each school independently requesting an invitation from B1G and the SEC, otherwise they would invite their own exposure. Similar episodes of silence happened prior to Nebraska, then Rutgers and Maryland, and later USC and UCLA joining, which insulated the B1G from exposure to each school's previous conferences. But active discussions were ongoing prior to those departures, as they are now (i.e. between FSU and the B1G). Clemson leaving for the SEC and FSU leaving for the B1G would fundamentally change the value of the television contracts, opening the door to frustration of purpose, impossibility, and commercial impracticability. Regardless, if an early settlement among the ACC and the departing schools isn't reach, lawyers undoubtedly will make colorable arguments that the changes in the broader media landscape themselves have created a situation of commercial impracticability for the ACC's member schools vis a vis their ability to compete with other schools.
The three page bare bones agreement holding the ACC schools together and allocating media rights now does no favors for the ACC. Much is left to interpretation - and argumentation.
If Clemson requested an invitation from the SEC (potentially with schools like Miami, Virginia Tech and NC State), and FSU requested an invitation from the B1G (potentially with schools like North Carolina, UVA, Georgia Tech and Notre Dame) the defenses to this grant of rights contract are wide open - and all of the relevant parties at the ACC, the B1G and the SEC know it.
Not sure if you are a lawyer, but I have listened to lawyers opine on the likelihood of a school getting out of the GOR. From everything I’ve heard, there is not much of a case. The simplicity of the GOR agreement is one of its strengths.
I’m sure Clemson and Fsu can find lawyers who will argue their case. They will very likely lose.
If you confine your attention to the 4 corners of the GOR, you may be right. But if you look at the bigger picture (and there is a much bigger picture here) I wouldn’t dismiss the flip side of the argument.
From a lawyer’s perspective (with some high stakes and highly adversarial sports law experience) I get the sense that as the business, political and competitive pressures mount the importance of the GOR and the will to enforce it as written could begin to unravel.
GOUNUII
Yes, and the stakes are just as high for the schools that will be hurt by dissolution of the GOR (Wake, BC, Cuse). They will be in no man’s land and not highly valued by other conferences. They can find good lawyers too.
It's the kind of thing that doesn't go to trial. They settle. Leftover ACC schools won't risk losing a judgment and then owe anything back to the departing schools years later, it could bankrupt the remains of the conference.
It's interesting to see anyone think anything is "iron clad."
- Non-Lawyer but friends with lots of lawyers who generally laugh at the assumption that any contracts are rock-solid.
Those lawyers’ positions rapidly crumble as more ACC schools look elsewhere. Looking at one school in a vacuum, the positions are more tenable. As soon as you involve more than one school and more than one conference, especially in the current inflationary and changed circumstances environment ($90MM annual revenues to other conferences’ schools, NIL, etc.), there are powerful counter arguments against the “iron clad” nature of any long term grant of rights.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a departure involved 4 or more schools in a sudden exodus all pointing to the others and impossibility of performance on the contract. That is also why this would need to involve both the B1G and the SEC. If either conference were to extend an invitation before the schools acted first, and either conference were perceived as driving the effort, then they would likely face exposure for interference.
Schools bringing the impossibility to compete in the marketplace of college athletics to light is exactly the play if you want to set up commercial impracticability arguments. That is exactly what FSU and Clemson have started.
The tricky thing for the ACC is that if they even attempt to renegotiate their media rights deals, they risk tacitly admitting that the current situation is untenable, thereby supporting arguments of commercial impracticability for any school that would like to leave.
The scenario of a school leaving very likely ends in a $60-$70MM settlement to mitigate the risks on both sides. FSU and/or Clemson leaving would trigger evaluation and stronger arguments for other schools to leave, which in turn would support FSU’s and Clemson’s positions respective of their own actions vis a vis the grant of rights.
This thread is all conjecture so I’ll end my input here. $60-$70 million is laughably low for as wttlement. Maryland paid the ACC $31 million exit fee in 2014. If, and that’s a massive if, a conference was willing to release as school fro the GOR, it would be for humdreda of millions.
Good article for those interested at Frank the tank
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
A Completely Logical College Sports Business Blog and Random Thoughts on Chicago, the Illini and the World
frankthetank.org
I agree that if the enforceability of the GOR were not in question, that a settlement in the range of $60-70MM would be low.This thread is all conjecture so I’ll end my input here. $60-$70 million is laughably low for as wttlement. Maryland paid the ACC $31 million exit fee in 2014. If, and that’s a massive if, a conference was willing to release as school fro the GOR, it would be for humdreda of millions.
Good article for those interested at Frank the tank
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
A Completely Logical College Sports Business Blog and Random Thoughts on Chicago, the Illini and the World
However, letting Maryland off the hook is a completely different animal than watching FSU, Clemson, Notre Dame and potentially others go. Any one of those schools leaving would have a material effect on the valuation of any media deal that the ACC has - leading to commercial impracticality.
Disney/ABC/ESPN aren’t going to allow FSU/ Clemson/Notre Dame to leave without some downward pressure on the value of the ACC contract. That in turn will elevate arguments against enforceability of the GOR.
The other part of this is: if the remaining schools in the ACC wish to stay together without leaving, after FSU and Clemson stake their position for a fight, there’s going to be a lot of pressure to get a settlement deal done and renegotiate the existing contracts, and fast. More likely is that at least several of the other schools will want to leave, again bolstering commercial impracticality arguments against the enforceability of the GOR for the remaining schools.
It’s going to be a settlement in that range or the end of the ACC.
You keep dragging me back with nonsensical posts. There is no pressure on the other ACC schools to do anything. Fsu can leave the ACC tomorrow but the ACC owns FSU’s media rights. There is nothing that will change that other than a few hundred million dollars.
Hey I'm not trying to drag you or anyone into anything. For a variety of reasons this is a subject of particular interest to me.
I think most impartial observers would disagree with the statement that there is no pressure on the other ACC schools to do anything. The difference in payout between the ACC and B1G/SEC could render them non-competitive with peer schools that are generating $30-$40MM+ more by the early 2030s.
If you are wake forest or Syracuse, the current payout from the ACC is the best they are going to do. If you are them, the longer this deal the better. They have zero incentive to change anything because as soon as this deal expires or is negotiated to an end, they are out in the cold.
I agree… if you are wake forest or Syracuse (or Duke or BC or Louisville or Pitt).
Obviously FSU and Clemson do not agree, and schools like UVA, UNC, GT, VT and NC State may have options as good or better than Maryland did when it left the ACC.
Why is Pitt passed over? Anecdotally, they seem to compare favorably with MD and RU in athletics and academics. Not AAU? Small market? PSU veto?
The question that is asked of any potential expansion school is “by adding this school, is it additive or dilutive from a tv deal perspective”. Right now the only non BIG -non SEC school that is a definite yes is ND.
Schools they might be a yes or close are in new markets (fsu, unc uva, uw, Oregon). Stanford/Cal might be exempt from this question due to their academic chops (being affiliated with Stanford might make up for the dilutive factor).
Pitt is a definite no.
Elegantly put and completely agree. Notre Dame is the only school for which the additive value is evident beyond DMAs for the Big Ten.
The reason FSU belongs in the same category of ND is that it (unlike Miami, I might add) would add the Tampa-St. Petersburg, Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne, and Miami-Fort Lauderdale DMAs - each of which independently are in the top 20. Adding Florida to the geographic footprint would provide a massive boon to the Big Ten Network. The only comparable add would be Notre Dame.
For reference, UNC would bring the Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham DMAs, though neither is in the top 20. UVA might not add much from a DMA perspective (considering that the B1G already established presence within the Washington DC DMA). Washington's add of Seattle (the #12 DMA) might bring a third of FSU's media value, for context.
This is why (looking at the "build Rutgers brand within the NYC DMA" history) the Georgia Tech noise does not go away - Atlanta is the #7 DMA. But even presuming (falsely) that GT would drive wide interest in a Georgia-dominated state, capturing the Atlanta DMA to the extent that the Big Ten would capture the three major Florida DMAs would likely bring less than half of the value to the conference of FSU.
Stanford/Cal additions would from a media business perspective only make sense in the context of Notre Dame.
Wild rumor suggests Big Ten could add Clemson, Oregon, others by end of this week
Could the Big Ten again shock the world with a big-time expansion move?
As of today: "In an interview with ESPN earlier Wednesday, Florida State athletic director Michael Alford said, "We have a great understanding of what opportunities there are in that document. How that document could hold us back, but also what the opportunities are. So this is going to be a discussion. We'll keep getting legal advice. Our legal team has a good understanding of that document."
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...consider-leaving-acc-due-revenue-distribution
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...consider-leaving-acc-due-revenue-distribution
Perhaps more telling:
"Board chair Peter Collins, who told Warchant.com on Tuesday the grant of rights "will not be the document that keeps us from taking action," told trustees they would hear again from Alford and McCullough soon on a plan moving forward."
If I am OSU, Michigan, USC, I would certainly prefer not to be caring NU, Indy or Illinois on my back every year.
Yes, but they also need to have them they will beat regularly too.
How do you think Oklahoma & Texas boosters will feel after a couple of 6-6 or 7-5 seasons in the SEC?
Very telling.
I wonder if UNC, UVA, & Clemson are paying attention and praying for a similar payout deal.
Maryland has a nice flat $50M exit fee. 👏
I can’t understand why this story has any legs. The buyout fee, to leave the league, which does NOT include the grant of rights, is $120 million. I have seen some figures for the GOR buyout at $500 to $600 million.
If FSU had a legal strategy to contest the GOR, they would have executed in it by now. Unless they are willing to write an enormous check, they will be in the ACC for many years to come.
I thought I read it was $130M buyout. The total GoR would be $31M times 12 years until 2036? So that would $341M roughly to buy out. Though that would ultimately be a negotiation between FSU and the ACC, maybe they could get it a bit lower.
Unless there is some legal "out" that hasn't been discussed or discovered yet, it could be on the order of $300-400M to get out right now. Their best avenue is to get 8 of the 14 ACC schools to vote in favor of dissolving the GoR. Supposedly a group of 7 schools have considered that course of action - FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, NC St, UVA, VT. Seems like FSU is the ringleader of the bunch and is willing to take relatively drastic mesaures even if that means paying a bunch of $$ up front in order to get back to revenue parity with their competition in the SEC and B1G. But I find it a bit unlikely that 8 schools in the ACC would be willing to dissolve the GoR because there aren't enough slots left in the B1G or SEC to fit all those universities - so some of them would basically be voting to dissolve their conference, and what - then go to what's left of the scraps of some merger between ACC and Big 12 or select Pac10 teams?
A major factor impacting the exposure for raiding the PAC was that the B1G did not want to on its own dissolve the conference.
It is telling the ACC schools a similar narrative: if you request it on your own, and some of you go elsewhere, then both your and our exposure under the current frameworks are limited - whatever they say.
It is consistent with the efforts of roughly half of the ACC schools to publicly explore options to leave the conference.
This also creates incentive for the ACC to negotiate a deal that preserves some value as opposed to the potential alternative of the entire conference dissolving. A $60-70MM up front fee plus an annual fee from the school to the remaining members to help level the playing field does this, and may keep a core of the ACC together. Otherwise, it will become the next PAC scenario.
Are you comparing the pac situation with the ACC situation? Because that’s idiotic. The pac tv deal expires in 2024, ACC in 2036.
Do some research. The only way FSU is going anywhere is if ACC dissolves (not happening), FSU lawyers win in court (not going to happen) fSU strokes a check for $400 million (not going to happen).
Disagree. There is one other option: a negotiated exit.
Half of the schools in the ACC have publicly explored leaving. This development alone impacts any damages calculation in a breach of contract. It also is about leverage.
The ACC can still remain a second-tier conference without dissolving. If a few schools leave in a negotiated exit, the remaining schools may see an increase in revenues received as part of the buyout, while schools that bring more revenues to the B1G could pay an annual fee to the ACC while still receiving net more than they would have if they remained in the ACC.
The above win-win scenario is better than a plausible alternative: the ACC falling apart. If the ACC disintegrates (which is indeed plausible and being actively explored), enforcing a grant of rights becomes a legal impossibility. Schools like FSU right now have a perverse set of incentives: leave the conference on agreeable terms, or nuke the conference. Each is likely a better outcome than remaining with no change.
