BMX Bandit said:

---

your head in the sand is why you can't see that the sun came up and there is no doubt FSU is definitely leaving the ACC. the only questions are when and how much it costs.

---

If the price is too high…they will stay until the Grant of Rights expires. They may spend into lost, fictional income trying to unwind it but in the past the ACC defended largely successfully their exit fees and GoR. It's odd you and others think the jurisprudence has flipped somehow in the meantime.

I certainly do agree FSU's desire is high. So high they might not be lucid. And our fans taking a stand on it is just odd. Who cares?


To be clear: we won't get back at Texas or Bama or Sankey by adding a weaker football school. And FSU is signaling total desperation currently.

Notice Baylor, Tech, and OkState gave up legal means for retaining Texas and OU other than enforcing the contract fully and both states until one year from their contractual obligations. ESPN likely provided the inducement that freed them up. We know switching home and home timing with Michigan games with Big 12 opponents was an example of what ESPN agreed to.

And, no, I don't think shutting down the LHN a year early was material, but the implosion of Oklahoma's deal with Bally might have been since Mouse had to sell it off as part of the consent agreement for the partial Fox acquisition.

Just odd we care at all and defend clearly incomplete understanding of what is going on,

Wait, you think FSU is going to stay in the ACC? Really?

It seems that ship has sailed. As BMX said, "when and how much" are the only questions.

Panama Red said:

---

Wait, you think FSU is going to stay in the ACC? Really?

It seems that ship has sailed. As BMX said, "when and how much" are the only questions.

---

The idea that I don't buy, and that other folks who look at this closely don't buy, is that an FSU departure is imminent. They have to find a way to get out of the grant of rights, and the idea that they will do so by winning a lawsuit seems a longshot.

OU and Texas didn't take that approach; they bided their time until their was only one year left on the Big XII's GOR, then negotiated a deal. The problem for FSU is that the ACC's GOR expires in 2036, so negotiating a way out could require a lot more money.

A lot of people have been misled by the discussion about this possibility in the ACC's motion to dismiss. It is just a possibility that their lawyers were putting before the court as a reason why a judgment voiding the GOR is not FSU's only way out. That doesn't mean the ACC is eager, or even willing, to negotiate an exit.

Certainly, the future beyond 2036 looks bleak for the ACC. But, things could change, and this whole argument could be rendered moot by other changes to the college football landscape.

I think is a very safe bet that FSU will be out of ACC on date closer to 2024 than 2036. (So before 2030).

I have not read any briefing, but how does sovereign immunity not save FSU?

Panama Red said:

---

I think is a very safe bet that FSU will be out of ACC on date closer to 2024 than 2036. (So before 2030).

I have not read any briefing, but how does sovereign immunity not save FSU?

---

The Grant of Rights was devised primarily to deal with the difficulties created by trying to sue to enforce liquidated damages provisions in conference bylaws.

Under the Grant of Rights, FSU sold it's media rights to the conference. So, rather than the conference having to sue FSU if it leaves, the conference owns FSU's television rights, and FSU cannot take those rights with them to a new conference. FSU has sold its TV rights through 2036. It cannot sell them twice.

It would be like if the SEC decided that they no longer wanted to deal with ESPN, and tried to do a deal with Fox to televise SEC games before the expiration of the current contract; ESPN would bring a suit against Fox seeking an injunction preventing Fox from airing games for which ESPN owns the rights by contract (the SEC might be joined as a party in such a suit, but that's beside the point).

Sovereign immunity could bar the ACC from suing FSU, but with the Grant of Rights, they don't have to. Instead, they can sue anyone that seeks to interfere with their property rights and obtain a court order preventing them from doing so (rather than sue for damages). And, just like you wouldn't buy a house without the owner showing they had clear title, no conference is likely to take on FSU without their media rights. ESPN certainly wouldn't pay the SEC an additional pro rata share for FSU joining, like they did for OU and Texas, if FSU didn't bring the right to televise their games with them.

Quote:

---

FSU sold it's media rights to the conference

---

FSU is saying they didn't because the Board of Regents had to sign such a contract, which never occurred.

Panama Red said:

---

Quote:

---

FSU sold it's media rights to the conference

---

FSU is saying they didn't because the Board of Regents had to sign such a contract, which never occurred.

---

I think partial performance is going to kill them on that point. Can't take the money and then claim that you never had a deal. I haven't seen that argument, but the "Board" can't sign a contract; it can only authorize someone to sign on behalf of the university (usually, the president for major contracts).

What money have they accepted for future rights? None that I have seen.

Panama Red said:

---

What money have they accepted for future rights? None that I have seen.

---

The grant of rights was ESPN's condition for doing their current deal with the ACC. They have been taking money under that deal for years. Once you partially perform, that often solves any Statute of Frauds issues, and makes the contract enforceable.

Quote:

---

Once you partially perform, that often solves any Statute of Frauds issues, and makes the contract enforceable

---

What is your best case for that application to a state entity with sovereign immunity?

Panama Red said:

---

Quote:

---

Once you partially perform, that often solves any Statute of Frauds issues, and makes the contract enforceable

---

What is your best case for that application to a state entity with sovereign immunity?

---

I've explained to you why sovereign immunity is not a problem with the grant of rights. If FSU tries to leave without working a deal with the ACC, no conference is likely to take them because they know the ACC would sue anyone that tried to televise an FSU home game in violation of the ACC's deal with ESPN.

Panama Red said:

---

Quote:

---

Once you partially perform, that often solves any Statute of Frauds issues, and makes the contract enforceable

---

What is your best case for that application to a state entity with sovereign immunity?

---

Why did Texas and OU not leave before 2024???

Why did ACC and Maryland negotiate a lower buyout in 2014??? https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/08/08/acc-maryland-settle-lawsuits-buyout-big-ten-conference/13781545/

Bringing in a theory that sovereign immunity upends grants of property rights decimates the ability of state schools to grant licenses for money in enforceable contracts. They really don't want what they claim they want…

I assume that means you don't have a case you can cite?


Respectfully, you haven't really explained it. You were trying to avoid the clear implication of sovereign immunity by separating it into a different issue when it is clearly tied into the entire case the ACC is trying to make.

If someone is going to enforce this contract, it has to be a valid contract. Florida state is going to claim it's not a valid contract and say that the ACC can't sue them to see if it's enforceable because of sovereign immunity.

I have no idea if that will be a successful argument or not. I have not read a single word of any of the briefing, and suspect you also have not.

But I do know that sovereign immunity is one hell of a defense for a state to have.

Panama Red said:

---

I assume that means you don't have a case you can cite?


Respectfully, you haven't really explained it. You were trying to avoid the clear implication of sovereign immunity by separating it into a different issue when it is clearly tied into the entire case the ACC is trying to make.

If someone is going to enforce this contract, it has to be a valid contract. Florida state is going to claim it's not a valid contract and say that the ACC can't sue them to see if it's enforceable because of sovereign immunity.

I have no idea if that will be a successful argument or not. I have not read a single word of any of the briefing, and suspect you also have not.

But I do know that sovereign immunity is one hell of a defense for a state to have.

---

Maybe you're just arguing to argue. Otherwise pay his retainer if you want his legal opinion and establish an hourly rate.

Panama Red said:

---

I assume that means you don't have a case you can cite?


Respectfully, you haven't really explained it. You were trying to avoid the clear implication of sovereign immunity by separating it into a different issue when it is clearly tied into the entire case the ACC is trying to make.

If someone is going to enforce this contract, it has to be a valid contract. Florida state is going to claim it's not a valid contract and say that the ACC can't sue them to see if it's enforceable because of sovereign immunity.

I have no idea if that will be a successful argument or not. I have not read a single word of any of the briefing, and suspect you also have not.

But I do know that sovereign immunity is one hell of a defense for a state to have.

---

I'll type this again, in hopes that maybe it will sink in this time.

Let's say FSU leaves the ACC without negotiating a release of the grant of rights. Let's say the Big Ten accepted them as a member. The first time that Fox, CBS, or NBC tried to televise an FSU home game, the ACC and ESPN would sue whichever network was trying to air the game for infringing on their intellectual property. FSU might not even be joined in the lawsuit (they might be a party to be joined if feasible, but if jurisdictional issues, or sovereign immunity prevented that, the case would still proceed in their absence). Whether FSU was a party or not, you would expect the Big Ten's TV partner to assert that the GOR was not enforceable, to which the ACC and ESPN would reply with their partial performance claim (which I think they would win).

None of that would be impacted by sovereign immunity because no one is suing FSU. The ACC and ESPN would merely be seeking injunctive relief against a private party (the other TV network).

twk said:

---

Panama Red said:

---

I assume that means you don't have a case you can cite?


Respectfully, you haven't really explained it. You were trying to avoid the clear implication of sovereign immunity by separating it into a different issue when it is clearly tied into the entire case the ACC is trying to make.

If someone is going to enforce this contract, it has to be a valid contract. Florida state is going to claim it's not a valid contract and say that the ACC can't sue them to see if it's enforceable because of sovereign immunity.

I have no idea if that will be a successful argument or not. I have not read a single word of any of the briefing, and suspect you also have not.

But I do know that sovereign immunity is one hell of a defense for a state to have.

---

I'll type this again, in hopes that maybe it will sink in this time.

Let's say FSU leaves the ACC without negotiating a release of the grant of rights. Let's say the Big Ten accepted them as a member. The first time that Fox, CBS, or NBC tried to televise an FSU home game, the ACC and ESPN would sue whichever network was trying to air the game for infringing on their intellectual property. FSU might not even be joined in the lawsuit (they might be a party to be joined if feasible, but if jurisdictional issues, or sovereign immunity prevented that, the case would still proceed in their absence). Whether FSU was a party or not, you would expect the Big Ten's TV partner to assert that the GOR was not enforceable, to which the ACC and ESPN would reply with their partial performance claim (which I think they would win).

None of that would be impacted by sovereign immunity because no one is suing FSU. The ACC and ESPN would merely be seeking injunctive relief against a private party (the other TV network).

---

So what happens if FSU goes to the SEC instead of the Big 10? ESPN is not going to sue itself for broadcasting the FSU SEC game instead of broadcasting the potential FSU ACC game.

The only people out any money in that scenario would be the ACC office for their portion of the tv money from those particular FSU game(s), Assuming ESPN is still paying the rest of the ACC schools the same amount for broadcasting their games, at least.

That would make assessing damages more difficult than in your example that includes different television networks.

Wes97 said:

---

twk said:

---

Panama Red said:

---

I assume that means you don't have a case you can cite?


Respectfully, you haven't really explained it. You were trying to avoid the clear implication of sovereign immunity by separating it into a different issue when it is clearly tied into the entire case the ACC is trying to make.

If someone is going to enforce this contract, it has to be a valid contract. Florida state is going to claim it's not a valid contract and say that the ACC can't sue them to see if it's enforceable because of sovereign immunity.

I have no idea if that will be a successful argument or not. I have not read a single word of any of the briefing, and suspect you also have not.

But I do know that sovereign immunity is one hell of a defense for a state to have.

---

I'll type this again, in hopes that maybe it will sink in this time.

Let's say FSU leaves the ACC without negotiating a release of the grant of rights. Let's say the Big Ten accepted them as a member. The first time that Fox, CBS, or NBC tried to televise an FSU home game, the ACC and ESPN would sue whichever network was trying to air the game for infringing on their intellectual property. FSU might not even be joined in the lawsuit (they might be a party to be joined if feasible, but if jurisdictional issues, or sovereign immunity prevented that, the case would still proceed in their absence). Whether FSU was a party or not, you would expect the Big Ten's TV partner to assert that the GOR was not enforceable, to which the ACC and ESPN would reply with their partial performance claim (which I think they would win).

None of that would be impacted by sovereign immunity because no one is suing FSU. The ACC and ESPN would merely be seeking injunctive relief against a private party (the other TV network).

---

So what happens if FSU goes to the SEC instead of the Big 10? ESPN is not going to sue itself for broadcasting the FSU SEC game instead of broadcasting the potential FSU ACC game.

The only people out any money in that scenario would be the ACC office for their portion of the tv money from those particular FSU game(s), Assuming ESPN is still paying the rest of the ACC schools the same amount for broadcasting their games, at least.

That would make assessing damages more difficult than in your example that includes different television networks.

---

In the SEC scenario, the ACC would sue ESPN if it didn't pay the conference for FSU's share. I suppose ESPN could choose to pay twice for FSU, but that seems unlikely. It's a little less straightforward, but still, something between the ACC and a private party.

Point being the money ESPN pays to the ACC office largely goes to fsu (after the ACC office gets their cut). Unless the ACC wants to make the argument that they should get to continue receiving the ESPN money related to FSU broadcasts but no longer have to pay any of it out to FSU….

As long as all the other schools continue to get the same amount from ESPN and the ACC office gets their cut of the FSU money…. Where are the damages?

Wes97 said:

---

Point being the money ESPN pays to the ACC office largely goes to fsu (after the ACC office gets their cut). Unless the ACC wants to make the argument that they should get to continue receiving the ESPN money related to FSU broadcasts but no longer have to pay any of it out to FSU….

As long as all the other schools continue to get the same amount from ESPN and the ACC office gets their cut of the FSU money…. Where are the damages?

---

Yes, that's exactly what the ACC would say, because that is what FSU agreed to. The ACC went to its schools and told them ESPN was wiling to enter into a contract, but only as long as the schools were willing to assign their rights to the conference for the duration of the deal.

In practice, ESPN is unlikely to play ball with FSU in order to facilitate a move to the SEC because of this very scenario. Besides potentially contractual liability, ESPN would not want to stick their necks out in this way and potentially draw a tortious interference claim. They will prefer to be an innocent bystander and not pick sides. I don't see ESPN doing more for FSU than they did for OU and Texas.

It would be hilarious if FsU moved to the SEC, and the ACC demanded all the TV money for FSU games, and the SEC was just like "Kay"

The "no wait" from the ACC would be heard around the world

Panama Red said:

---

Wait, you think FSU is going to stay in the ACC? Really?

It seems that ship has sailed. As BMX said, "when and how much" are the only questions.

---

I didn't say anything like that. Do you have difficulty reading English? Or are you just upset because everyone isn't getting on the Ron Paul "it's happening!!!" Bandwagon? I'm not emotionally invested in whether or not FSU would join the SEC. On the one hand, playing FSU 2 out of 4 years would be pretty cool. On the other hand, we'd probably go to only 1 permanent rivals which would be negative. But, then again, the sips love telling us how we aren't their real rival, OU is, dealing with tsips every other year is probably just about the right amount of sip. On the whole, though, FSU won't really affect my life either way dramatically. I frankly don't understand why some of you guys are this emotional about whether it happens; I don't care either way.

All I said was that ESPN saying "Hey, we want our confidential information to be protected" probably meant that they want their confidential information to be protected. Saying, "We want our confidential information protected" probably isn't a secret code for "we are the Illuminati, we secretly control the Courts, and we want FSU to win."

That's a very emotional post from you. Are you OK?

People discussing college football realignment on a college football message board is not "being emotional". We are not trying to hurt you. It will be OK. You are literally the only person that is showing any emotion at all on this thread.


There was nothing emotional about Panama's question. You were literally the only person on this thread being emotional

Other than you, the rest of us on this thread ( those that agree with me, and those that disagree with me) are just discussing what may potentially occur. Not sure what it is about realignment talk that triggers you, but I hope you find peace.

twk said:

---

Wes97 said:

---

Point being the money ESPN pays to the ACC office largely goes to fsu (after the ACC office gets their cut). Unless the ACC wants to make the argument that they should get to continue receiving the ESPN money related to FSU broadcasts but no longer have to pay any of it out to FSU….

As long as all the other schools continue to get the same amount from ESPN and the ACC office gets their cut of the FSU money…. Where are the damages?

---

Yes, that's exactly what the ACC would say, because that is what FSU agreed to. The ACC went to its schools and told them ESPN was wiling to enter into a contract, but only as long as the schools were willing to assign their rights to the conference for the duration of the deal.

In practice, ESPN is unlikely to play ball with FSU in order to facilitate a move to the SEC because of this very scenario. Besides potentially contractual liability, ESPN would not want to stick their necks out in this way and potentially draw a tortious interference claim. They will prefer to be an innocent bystander and not pick sides. I don't see ESPN doing more for FSU than they did for OU and Texas.

---

If the GOR language tracks that language ("duration of the deal") because it's what ESPN wanted then it doesn't seem nearly so insurmountable assuming ESPN has no intention of exercising the option in 2027.

Which why would it, the conference just bent ESPN over by adding schools that didn't add $ value at full shares and then divvied up the spoils when those supplicants agreed to a pittance of those full TV $ shares. Pretty terrible contract on that point for ESPN based on the faulty assumption the conference wouldn't be looking to add scraps. Any additions were supposed to be like Notre Dame, not Cal and SMU.

That aspect gets lost in the shuffle and doesn't get enough laughs.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2023/08/10/smu-cal-stanford-acc-expansion

Quote:

---

. . . A clause in the ACC's deal with ESPN "requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member." If new members "do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue" . . . .

---

I suppose ESPN should be glad the ACC stopped at 3 teams nobody wanted who were of course willing to kickback part of their shares to current conference members.

If they succeed in their lawsuit maybe…