Absolutely. However for FSU, Clemson, Miami, and maybe one or two more schools, they know exactly what the landscape will be if they stay which is making $50M+ less than some of their in-state rivals for the next 12 years. Apparently there are scenarios that have Florida making $90M+ more than FSU within the next 3 years alone. If you are the ACC, you fight tooth and nail like you said. But think there will be a point where you take the money and try to fight another day. Otherwise they are the PAC waiting to happen.
Wasn’t this said or at least could’ve been said about the Big 12? I have no idea what is going to happen but has a conference actually held a deflector’s feet to the for multiple years? I know FSU’s situation is completely different but holy hell 12 years is an eternity in this day and age.
Agreed - both sides are doing what's right for them. Obviously, I don't know the legalese of the contract. But from a common sense perspective, it just seems hard for me to understand FSU's case. The whole grant-of-rights thing started after the B12's first near-implosion and everyone knew the purpose of them was to be an ironclad way to prevent teams from leaving conferences. The ACC signed theirs when FSU and Clemson and others were looking at leaving too, so those schools had their opportunity and chose to stay and committed to the terms they signed - largely, I think, because Florida and South Carolina didn't want those schools in the SEC, and without a clear destination, they didn't want to bolt. I just think it's hard for them to argue they didn't willingly and knowingly get into this as an iron-clad agreement. The B12 largely held UT and OU's feet to the fire - they wanted to leave earlier but the B12 wouldn't let them out unless they paid their whole fees, which is why we have this one bizarro transition year with both the new and old schools. Only 1 or 2 years rather than 12, but they were fine with a pissed off UT/OU for at least a little while. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. From the ESPN article I saw, it seems the competing legal cases could take years to sort out. FSU would benefit from Clemson or someone else joining them, but so far, no one seems to be biting.
UT/OU weren’t pissed off, at least not publicly. IIRC, both sides said they were going to let the contract play out. But ultimately they along with Nebraska, Colorado, A&M, Missouri, UH and the new comers all settled paying a fraction of the exit fees to get out early. Obviously the amount of years and money is on another level in this case. I do think Clemson and some others will join in at some point. There is just too much money to be made to sit tight for the next decade.
Lawyers make a living on both breech of contract and implied warranty. The only thing you learn from study is THE LAWYERS ALWAYS WIN, even in defeat..
I don't think UT or OU paid any exit fees because their exit prompted the big 12 to move up their new TV deal which kicks in next year. The whole 50 million dollar bullshit was just what UT would lose by leaving. It ignored the fact that they'll be paid by the SEC next year. If you're ESPN and FSU is allowed to leave then you might sue the ACC for breach of contract. FSU leaving the ACC is an existential threat to the conference. They can't settle and let the program leave.
Maybe all true, but irrelevant to my point since, you know, there are lawyers on both sides. I thought you didn't care about college football?
FWIW, I'm pretty sure they said that because they had no choice. Ultimately, the B12 got $100MM in bonus money to let them out a year early. https://www.texasfootball.com/artic...xas-oklahoma-to-leave-big-12-join-sec-in-2024 UT and OU each paid $50MM to be let out a year early, which was a settlement simply because without it, the B12 would still have had the rights to all their games. That said, it also benefited the B12 simply by letting them negotiate their new TV deal earlier, which worked out well after we saw the Pac10 trainwreck. The SEC income replaces the B12 income they would have gotten, so assuming that's like $15MM more, UT and OU net paid $35MM or so each.
I can't remember the exact details but believe they actually did pay the $50M/school exit fee. You are absolutely right in that ESPN did help bail them out which was probably the catalyst in the getting a deal done. With regards to ESPN, guess it all depends where FSU or the other schools head out to. If it's the SEC, I don't think they would care too much. Obviously they would not want to lose national brands to FOX and the BIG.
Not sure I would call it bonus money since they were actually owed $160MM. All of this is to say schools have historically found ways to get out earlier and cheaper than what was contractually agreed upon. Honestly the ACC might be better off stealing one of Yormack's rumored ideas of making it a basketball conference and poaching UCONN, Villanova, Memphis and Gonzaga.
Clemson, UNC and UVA are thought to be rooting for FSU as (supposedly) they have destinations lined up.
When I say bonus money, I mean that they got $100M to let UT/OU leave a year early. If UT/OU simply waited another year, they'd have owed nothing at all (similar to how USC/UCLA walked at the end of their term). That's a pretty hefty price to get out of the media rights deal 1 year earlier - imagine what the price would be if UT/OU were under contract another 12 years. I agree they can negotiate their way down. But these rights-deals specifically gave all the power to the conferences because they were tired of schools just leaving whenever they wanted and just paying a small exit fee. I believe UT and OU are the only two schools to leave in the middle of a grant-of-rights since that system came into place, and $50MM/yr to do it is way different than when previous schools have left their conferences.
UVA/UNC to the B1G is a definite yes, but why would the SEC want Clemson and FSU when they already have USC (east) and UF? There has been so much online debate within the ACC the last 12 months. IMO, the most delusional fanbase in the conference are the Miami fans who think the SEC wants them.
All true. Really interested to see how this plays out since it’s the first time it will be challenged in court.
No they didn't. It was just PR by the big 12. https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...big-12-sec-espn-role-realignment/70910157007/
The driving force for the B1G and SEC adding teams is increasing annual per school TV revenue, not total conference revenue. For reasons already mentioned, I don't see how Clemson and FSU bring enough to ESPN to do that. Maybe the solution is the two schools would agree to a reduced revenue share for a period of time like Oregon and UW did to join the B1G.
FSU amends their lawsuit with 20 additional pages of rage. https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-s...missioner-john-swofford-in-amended-complaint/
