ESPN maintains rights to Clemson and FSU through 2036 in addition to the exit fee. Both schools have very little leverage for buying back the rights and frankly both are probably overvalued v. the average payout so they can demand more than average.The Banned said:twk said:Why would ESPN want FSU and Clemson to move from the ACC, where they have them under contract for something like $39 million per year, to the SEC, where they would have to pay something like $70+ million per year (over the life of the contract)? It just doesn't make sense. Poaching OU and t.u. from the Big XII made some sense financially, because they only got a fraction of the Big XII rights, and got the bonus of being able to drop the LHN. The money just isn't there right now, and I don't think ESPN can afford to fund a move on fear of what's going to happen after 2036.vander54 said:
Only thing I could see happening here is that ACC and SEC are all in on ESPN. So something could potentially happen here. Nearly % chance FSU or Clemson would be able to go to the BIG 10.
If the ACC lose significant viewership (which it most certainly would) does ESPN continue to pay the same amount? I'm not sure how the deal is structured but I would think ESPN could say the product they bought no longer exists. Bail on the contract all together and without the two main schools, the ACC would end up in a far worse position
Maybe I'm bad at the google machine, but is the contract public?
Realignment heads up
64,794 Views |
475 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by The Chicken Ranch
Ok, now it's fsu and Clemson to the SEC, OP?!?!
Still by end of this week?
At least you started a conversation. Completely wrong, but it is words and sentences.
Still by end of this week?
At least you started a conversation. Completely wrong, but it is words and sentences.
twk said:Why would ESPN want FSU and Clemson to move from the ACC, where they have them under contract for something like $39 million per year, to the SEC, where they would have to pay something like $70+ million per year (over the life of the contract)? It just doesn't make sense. Poaching OU and t.u. from the Big XII made some sense financially, because they only got a fraction of the Big XII rights, and got the bonus of being able to drop the LHN. The money just isn't there right now, and I don't think ESPN can afford to fund a move on fear of what's going to happen after 2036.vander54 said:
Only thing I could see happening here is that ACC and SEC are all in on ESPN. So something could potentially happen here. Nearly % chance FSU or Clemson would be able to go to the BIG 10.
I don't think it's likely to happen. Just more likely than them going to the BIG 10.
World's worst proofreader
greg.w.h said:ESPN maintains rights to Clemson and FSU through 2036 in addition to the exit fee. Both schools have very little leverage for buying back the rights and frankly both are probably overvalued v. the average payout so they can demand more than average.The Banned said:twk said:Why would ESPN want FSU and Clemson to move from the ACC, where they have them under contract for something like $39 million per year, to the SEC, where they would have to pay something like $70+ million per year (over the life of the contract)? It just doesn't make sense. Poaching OU and t.u. from the Big XII made some sense financially, because they only got a fraction of the Big XII rights, and got the bonus of being able to drop the LHN. The money just isn't there right now, and I don't think ESPN can afford to fund a move on fear of what's going to happen after 2036.vander54 said:
Only thing I could see happening here is that ACC and SEC are all in on ESPN. So something could potentially happen here. Nearly % chance FSU or Clemson would be able to go to the BIG 10.
If the ACC lose significant viewership (which it most certainly would) does ESPN continue to pay the same amount? I'm not sure how the deal is structured but I would think ESPN could say the product they bought no longer exists. Bail on the contract all together and without the two main schools, the ACC would end up in a far worse position
Maybe I'm bad at the google machine, but is the contract public?
What if it were a wash on the TV money? FSU and Clemson pay the gor money until 2036, get more money in the SEC, and end up with the same number they would have gotten to stay in the acc. I have no idea what the numbers are, just thinking out loud.
The Banned said:Toptierag2018 said:hunter2012 said:
UPDATE:
It's sounding more and more like SEC may be the destination for both FSU and Clemson.
Both are expected to leave the ACC.
As much as I wish this wasn't happening, if those two are gonna make a move, the sec needs to get them.
Yep
And I'm sure the rest of the sec teams felt the same way about adding ou and tu
If it's happening then the sec needed to add them
If the sec gets fsu and Clemson nothing the big10 can do will be able to surpass the sec in football strength
twk said:
The contract is not public, but the kind of clause you hypothesize would be unlikely. Why would the conference agree to a contract which the TV folks could terminate any time the ratings go down? A change in membership would be different, but the GOR prevents that.
The GOR does not mean they can't leave. It means they don't have the broadcasting rights to their home games. If ESPN says they don't want/can't show an SEC/B1G team on the ACC network, that network is now materially different than they signed up for. They cut the commission on the ACC network. There absolutely has to be a clause for this. It would be stupid for any network to enter into an agreement that could bankrupt them with absolutely no way out of it.
If FSU and Clemson were to leave without cutting a deal on the GOR, not only would they have to pay the exit fee under the ACC bylaws (I've seen $120 million mentioned, but have no idea if that is accurate), but also, they would not be able to have any of their home games televised by the tv partner of their new conference, so they would get no tv money for that period. So, they only way they can leave is to find some number that the ACC would accept for a buyout of the GOR, and the ACC simply has no incentive to settle for anything reasonable, at least not until they get very close to the end of the GOR (when it would sort of be like a MLB team out of the post season race that has a star who will be a free agent at the end of the season)Logos Stick said:greg.w.h said:ESPN maintains rights to Clemson and FSU through 2036 in addition to the exit fee. Both schools have very little leverage for buying back the rights and frankly both are probably overvalued v. the average payout so they can demand more than average.The Banned said:twk said:Why would ESPN want FSU and Clemson to move from the ACC, where they have them under contract for something like $39 million per year, to the SEC, where they would have to pay something like $70+ million per year (over the life of the contract)? It just doesn't make sense. Poaching OU and t.u. from the Big XII made some sense financially, because they only got a fraction of the Big XII rights, and got the bonus of being able to drop the LHN. The money just isn't there right now, and I don't think ESPN can afford to fund a move on fear of what's going to happen after 2036.vander54 said:
Only thing I could see happening here is that ACC and SEC are all in on ESPN. So something could potentially happen here. Nearly % chance FSU or Clemson would be able to go to the BIG 10.
If the ACC lose significant viewership (which it most certainly would) does ESPN continue to pay the same amount? I'm not sure how the deal is structured but I would think ESPN could say the product they bought no longer exists. Bail on the contract all together and without the two main schools, the ACC would end up in a far worse position
Maybe I'm bad at the google machine, but is the contract public?
What if it were a wash on the TV money? FSU and Clemson pay the gor money until 2036, get more money in the SEC, and end up with the same number they would have gotten to stay in the acc. I have no idea what the numbers are, just thinking out loud.
They get no revenue from their games. Zero. The cost to buy out is higher than the average because Clemson and to a lesser extent FSU. Clearing enough extra to be a wash means some form of negotiated settlement with no games to trade like Fox did with Texas / Michigan.Logos Stick said:greg.w.h said:ESPN maintains rights to Clemson and FSU through 2036 in addition to the exit fee. Both schools have very little leverage for buying back the rights and frankly both are probably overvalued v. the average payout so they can demand more than average.The Banned said:twk said:Why would ESPN want FSU and Clemson to move from the ACC, where they have them under contract for something like $39 million per year, to the SEC, where they would have to pay something like $70+ million per year (over the life of the contract)? It just doesn't make sense. Poaching OU and t.u. from the Big XII made some sense financially, because they only got a fraction of the Big XII rights, and got the bonus of being able to drop the LHN. The money just isn't there right now, and I don't think ESPN can afford to fund a move on fear of what's going to happen after 2036.vander54 said:
Only thing I could see happening here is that ACC and SEC are all in on ESPN. So something could potentially happen here. Nearly % chance FSU or Clemson would be able to go to the BIG 10.
If the ACC lose significant viewership (which it most certainly would) does ESPN continue to pay the same amount? I'm not sure how the deal is structured but I would think ESPN could say the product they bought no longer exists. Bail on the contract all together and without the two main schools, the ACC would end up in a far worse position
Maybe I'm bad at the google machine, but is the contract public?
What if it were a wash on the TV money? FSU and Clemson pay the gor money until 2036, get more money in the SEC, and end up with the same number they would have gotten to stay in the acc. I have no idea what the numbers are, just thinking out loud.
Now could they come to a reasonable accommodation? How did that work out for Texas and OU???
NyAggie said:The Banned said:Toptierag2018 said:hunter2012 said:
UPDATE:
It's sounding more and more like SEC may be the destination for both FSU and Clemson.
Both are expected to leave the ACC.
As much as I wish this wasn't happening, if those two are gonna make a move, the sec needs to get them.
Yep
And I'm sure the rest of the sec teams felt the same way about adding ou and tu
If it's happening then the sec needed to add them
If the sec gets fsu and Clemson nothing the big10 can do will be able to surpass the sec in football strength
Exactly. If FSU and Clemson joined the sec, 18 of the last 19 championships would have come from "SEC" teams
I don't think it's happening but NOOOOOO!
18 teams is too damn many, we would have to go to 10 conference games (3-7-7) to come close to making that work.
18 teams is too damn many, we would have to go to 10 conference games (3-7-7) to come close to making that work.
This is the deep breath before the plunge…..
ntxVol said:
I don't think it's happening but NOOOOOO!
18 teams is too damn many, we would have to go to 10 conference games (3-7-7) to come close to making that work.
Well you just have two 9 team divisions. And you play the other 8 teams in your division. We could take the 9 most western teams in the super SEC and put them in a division. You could call it the south west conference or something…
In your opinion, what would the reasoning be for them not leaving? ACC restructuring the money?
Bot happening. They'll run the everybody rotates through every two years playbook with 1 permanent and 8 rotating each year.amercer said:ntxVol said:
I don't think it's happening but NOOOOOO!
18 teams is too damn many, we would have to go to 10 conference games (3-7-7) to come close to making that work.
Well you just have two 9 team divisions. And you play the other 8 teams in your division. We could take the 9 most western teams in the super SEC and put them in a division. You could call it the south west conference or something…
The Banned said:
In your opinion, what would the reasoning be for them not leaving? ACC restructuring the money?
They are leaving. The question is when, not if. There are 2 possible answers to that question and they end in 4 and 5.
ESPN could not refuse to show FSU home games because they've left the ACC without getting a release of the GOR and claim breach by the ACC; those games would still be available for ESPN to cover at the ACC rates. ESPN would be perfectly happy to televise, for example, a FSU/UGA game in Tallahassee under the ACC contract. They would be tickled pink to cover FSU/Michigan under the ACC contract if FSU somehow finagled a Big Ten invitation. The problem for FSU would be that whichever conference they join under that scenario, they won't be getting any TV money since they won't be bringing their rights with them until 2036.The Banned said:twk said:
The contract is not public, but the kind of clause you hypothesize would be unlikely. Why would the conference agree to a contract which the TV folks could terminate any time the ratings go down? A change in membership would be different, but the GOR prevents that.
The GOR does not mean they can't leave. It means they don't have the broadcasting rights to their home games. If ESPN says they don't want/can't show an SEC/B1G team on the ACC network, that network is now materially different than they signed up for. They cut the commission on the ACC network. There absolutely has to be a clause for this. It would be stupid for any network to enter into an agreement that could bankrupt them with absolutely no way out of it.
No. Nine. 1 permanent and eight rotating. Play rotating every two years and home and home every four.ntxVol said:
I don't think it's happening but NOOOOOO!
18 teams is too damn many, we would have to go to 10 conference games (3-7-7) to come close to making that work.
No…you said by August 15th. Can't move those goalposts now.Toptierag2018 said:The Banned said:
In your opinion, what would the reasoning be for them not leaving? ACC restructuring the money?
They are leaving. The question is when, not if. There are 2 possible answers to that question and they end in 4 and 5.
greg.w.h said:No…you said by August 15th. Can't move those goalposts now.Toptierag2018 said:The Banned said:
In your opinion, what would the reasoning be for them not leaving? ACC restructuring the money?
They are leaving. The question is when, not if. There are 2 possible answers to that question and they end in 4 and 5.
I mean the season they will begin play in their new conference.
August 15th is still a go.
Toptierag2018 said:greg.w.h said:No…you said by August 15th. Can't move those goalposts now.Toptierag2018 said:The Banned said:
In your opinion, what would the reasoning be for them not leaving? ACC restructuring the money?
They are leaving. The question is when, not if. There are 2 possible answers to that question and they end in 4 and 5.
I mean the season they will begin play in their new conference.
August 15th is still a go.
So you're calling your shot that by Tuesday we know if they're leaving? You've given no reason for it to not happen so you have to stick with it
twk said:ESPN could not refuse to show FSU home games because they've left the ACC without getting a release of the GOR and claim breach by the ACC; those games would still be available for ESPN to cover at the ACC rates. ESPN would be perfectly happy to televise, for example, a FSU/UGA game in Tallahassee under the ACC contract. They would be tickled pink to cover FSU/Michigan under the ACC contract if FSU somehow finagled a Big Ten invitation. The problem for FSU would be that whichever conference they join under that scenario, they won't be getting any TV money since they won't be bringing their rights with them until 2036.The Banned said:twk said:
The contract is not public, but the kind of clause you hypothesize would be unlikely. Why would the conference agree to a contract which the TV folks could terminate any time the ratings go down? A change in membership would be different, but the GOR prevents that.
The GOR does not mean they can't leave. It means they don't have the broadcasting rights to their home games. If ESPN says they don't want/can't show an SEC/B1G team on the ACC network, that network is now materially different than they signed up for. They cut the commission on the ACC network. There absolutely has to be a clause for this. It would be stupid for any network to enter into an agreement that could bankrupt them with absolutely no way out of it.
This is the problem with contract language not being available. The ACC GOR does not keep a team from joining a different conference. What if they join a conference that prohibits any games shown in a different network/profit sharing program/etc? Now courts have to figure out jurisdiction.
Everything I'm typing may be nonsense based on the entirety of the language. But based on what we know… no one knows
The new conference can't control rights that have already been sold. ESPN and the ACC could enforce their rights by obtaining injunctive relief. The ACC grant of rights is available online.The Banned said:twk said:ESPN could not refuse to show FSU home games because they've left the ACC without getting a release of the GOR and claim breach by the ACC; those games would still be available for ESPN to cover at the ACC rates. ESPN would be perfectly happy to televise, for example, a FSU/UGA game in Tallahassee under the ACC contract. They would be tickled pink to cover FSU/Michigan under the ACC contract if FSU somehow finagled a Big Ten invitation. The problem for FSU would be that whichever conference they join under that scenario, they won't be getting any TV money since they won't be bringing their rights with them until 2036.The Banned said:twk said:
The contract is not public, but the kind of clause you hypothesize would be unlikely. Why would the conference agree to a contract which the TV folks could terminate any time the ratings go down? A change in membership would be different, but the GOR prevents that.
The GOR does not mean they can't leave. It means they don't have the broadcasting rights to their home games. If ESPN says they don't want/can't show an SEC/B1G team on the ACC network, that network is now materially different than they signed up for. They cut the commission on the ACC network. There absolutely has to be a clause for this. It would be stupid for any network to enter into an agreement that could bankrupt them with absolutely no way out of it.
This is the problem with contract language not being available. The ACC GOR does not keep a team from joining a different conference. What if they join a conference that prohibits any games shown in a different network/profit sharing program/etc? Now courts have to figure out jurisdiction.
Everything I'm typing may be nonsense based on the entirety of the language. But based on what we know… no one knows
twk said:The new conference can't control rights that have already been sold. ESPN and the ACC could enforce their rights by obtaining injunctive relief. The ACC grant of rights is available online.The Banned said:twk said:ESPN could not refuse to show FSU home games because they've left the ACC without getting a release of the GOR and claim breach by the ACC; those games would still be available for ESPN to cover at the ACC rates. ESPN would be perfectly happy to televise, for example, a FSU/UGA game in Tallahassee under the ACC contract. They would be tickled pink to cover FSU/Michigan under the ACC contract if FSU somehow finagled a Big Ten invitation. The problem for FSU would be that whichever conference they join under that scenario, they won't be getting any TV money since they won't be bringing their rights with them until 2036.The Banned said:twk said:
The contract is not public, but the kind of clause you hypothesize would be unlikely. Why would the conference agree to a contract which the TV folks could terminate any time the ratings go down? A change in membership would be different, but the GOR prevents that.
The GOR does not mean they can't leave. It means they don't have the broadcasting rights to their home games. If ESPN says they don't want/can't show an SEC/B1G team on the ACC network, that network is now materially different than they signed up for. They cut the commission on the ACC network. There absolutely has to be a clause for this. It would be stupid for any network to enter into an agreement that could bankrupt them with absolutely no way out of it.
This is the problem with contract language not being available. The ACC GOR does not keep a team from joining a different conference. What if they join a conference that prohibits any games shown in a different network/profit sharing program/etc? Now courts have to figure out jurisdiction.
Everything I'm typing may be nonsense based on the entirety of the language. But based on what we know… no one knows
I'm pretty sure I posted the actual contract in this thread.
But here it is again.
World's worst proofreader
That's how you kill a conference. May as well change the name because it would no longer be what it was before.greg.w.h said:No. Nine. 1 permanent and eight rotating. Play rotating every two years and home and home every four.ntxVol said:
I don't think it's happening but NOOOOOO!
18 teams is too damn many, we would have to go to 10 conference games (3-7-7) to come close to making that work.
I don't think FSU is leaving anyway because of the GOR. They would be worse off, just makes know logical sense for them to leave. They can piss and moan all they want but the fact is, they are stuck in the ACC for the next 10 years.
twk said:The new conference can't control rights that have already been sold. ESPN and the ACC could enforce their rights by obtaining injunctive relief. The ACC grant of rights is available online.The Banned said:twk said:ESPN could not refuse to show FSU home games because they've left the ACC without getting a release of the GOR and claim breach by the ACC; those games would still be available for ESPN to cover at the ACC rates. ESPN would be perfectly happy to televise, for example, a FSU/UGA game in Tallahassee under the ACC contract. They would be tickled pink to cover FSU/Michigan under the ACC contract if FSU somehow finagled a Big Ten invitation. The problem for FSU would be that whichever conference they join under that scenario, they won't be getting any TV money since they won't be bringing their rights with them until 2036.The Banned said:twk said:
The contract is not public, but the kind of clause you hypothesize would be unlikely. Why would the conference agree to a contract which the TV folks could terminate any time the ratings go down? A change in membership would be different, but the GOR prevents that.
The GOR does not mean they can't leave. It means they don't have the broadcasting rights to their home games. If ESPN says they don't want/can't show an SEC/B1G team on the ACC network, that network is now materially different than they signed up for. They cut the commission on the ACC network. There absolutely has to be a clause for this. It would be stupid for any network to enter into an agreement that could bankrupt them with absolutely no way out of it.
This is the problem with contract language not being available. The ACC GOR does not keep a team from joining a different conference. What if they join a conference that prohibits any games shown in a different network/profit sharing program/etc? Now courts have to figure out jurisdiction.
Everything I'm typing may be nonsense based on the entirety of the language. But based on what we know… no one knows
Therein lies the rub. The ACC right were sold to ESPN. The SEC rights were sold to ESPN. Should there be conflicting contract language, arbitration follows. The ACC must have some sort of valuation clauses included, unless ESPN is the dumbest company of all time. If the ACC wants to hold on the home game rights of FSU/Clemson, they better have an iron clad way of making sure ESPN doesn't devalue the hell out of it.
This is why vander can post the GOR addendum. None of that matters without being able to reference the larger contract.
What an awful setup that would be…greg.w.h said:No. Nine. 1 permanent and eight rotating. Play rotating every two years and home and home every four.ntxVol said:
I don't think it's happening but NOOOOOO!
18 teams is too damn many, we would have to go to 10 conference games (3-7-7) to come close to making that work.
This is the agreed to pattern at 16 schools: 1-7. To be clear it adds a single conference game. How that kills a conference I think you left unexplained.ntxVol said:That's how you kill a conference. May as well change the name because it would no longer be what it was before.greg.w.h said:No. Nine. 1 permanent and eight rotating. Play rotating every two years and home and home every four.ntxVol said:
I don't think it's happening but NOOOOOO!
18 teams is too damn many, we would have to go to 10 conference games (3-7-7) to come close to making that work.
I don't think FSU is leaving anyway because of the GOR. They would be worse off, just makes know logical sense for them to leave. They can piss and moan all they want but the fact is, they are stuck in the ACC for the next 10 years.
If you say so. Same as will be followed in 2024 with one less game.West Point Aggie said:What an awful setup that would be…greg.w.h said:No. Nine. 1 permanent and eight rotating. Play rotating every two years and home and home every four.ntxVol said:
I don't think it's happening but NOOOOOO!
18 teams is too damn many, we would have to go to 10 conference games (3-7-7) to come close to making that work.
Realignment clifsnotes for the last 2 weeks?
Well we know when, they are leaving by Tuesday according to your TopTier information! So do you think it is Monday or Tuesday? Or is it happening later today? So many possibilities!
Toptierag2018 said:
Florida State will announce their intentions to leave the ACC by August 15th.
Florida State insiders are reporting this.
ESPN will need to pony up more $$ or lose them all to FOX.
Poop slap if you are wrong?
The Banned said:
Therein lies the rub. The ACC right were sold to ESPN. The SEC rights were sold to ESPN. Should there be conflicting contract language, arbitration follows. The ACC must have some sort of valuation clauses included, unless ESPN is the dumbest company of all time. If the ACC wants to hold on the home game rights of FSU/Clemson, they better have an iron clad way of making sure ESPN doesn't devalue the hell out of it.
This is why vander can post the GOR addendum. None of that matters without being able to reference the larger contract.
To me the interesting part is the money is SO dramatically different SEC/B1G vs ACC, and "locked in" over 13 years, so that opens up a lot of incentive and possibilities for deals, negotiations, etc.
If Florida State and Clemson want to move ACC to SEC, that's ESPN to ESPN, so there's a negotiated settlement possible that makes sense for everyone. What does ESPN think it's worth to keep them from making the B1G & Fox stronger?
There's potential for loans against future revenue from the conference or private equity. (B1G did this with Rutgers and Maryland apparently)
Clemson and FSU add two more teams with strong potential to make the Playoff, which brings significant additional revenue to the conference. and maybe March Madness?
SMU offering to take zero money for several years and self-fund to get on the future gravy train.
Oregon and Washington took half shares to get a spot and future shares.
It's all just money, which means it's all negotiable.
LOL
Surprisingly, I see Notre Dame listed here. Dr. Loftin said not too long ago that he did not see a way for ND to become AAU anytime soon. Also, the Big 10 would've taken OU in a heartbeat. They don't care about academic ranking as much as they care about keeping ahead of the SEC in money per school.Chester said:Notre Dame became a member of the AAU this year.leardriver said:Quote:
A requirement to join the big 10 is to be an AAU member. Neither Clemson or Florida State are.
Neither is Notre Dame. However, ND is always in the conversation for B1G membership.
CB, '67
Featured Stories
See All
Tennessee transfer forward Cade Phillips commits to Texas A&M hoops
by Luke Evangelist
18:30
2h ago
656
All-American Kyndal Stowers always striving for improvement
by Kay Naegeli
5:13
7h ago
3.8k
Elko's recruiting machine is becoming more efficient
by Ryan Brauninger
Aldo the Apache
Tennessee transfer forward Cade Phillips commits to Texas A&M hoops
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
107
J.P. 03
Tennessee transfer forward Cade Phillips commits to Texas A&M hoops
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
67