FSU Leaving the ACC?

The exact location is irrelevant, the Big Ten / Fox just want the eyeballs from Florida and FSU gives you that over Miami.
This helps recruiting and more importantly overall viewership on Big Ten games / Fox
I agree, I think the revenue gap has changed the dynamics now to where those AAU memberships ect. Won’t mean as much other than something else to hype the new member(s) up if they HAPPEN to have that status.
 
I've said this for a long time. I always get the "but they're charter members, tradition, etc". Let's be real. A lot of those teams don't bring enough value to match their payment.
Yea the “trimming the fat” portion of realignment has been talked about for awhile now but we haven’t seen it happen (other than the temple /BE move but that wasn’t really a realignment deal either) Maybe this is the beginning :noidea: who knows, because the timing and remaining years on their GOR ect pretty much has these schools locked in so.. maybe they “trim” first to try and keep valuable members happy/more competitive financially until the next deal? No idea but the timing/length of GOR left on the surface would make this seem kinda silly but.. maybe somethin goin on behind the scenes.
 
Yea the “trimming the fat” portion of realignment has been talked about for awhile now but we haven’t seen it happen (other than the temple /BE move but that wasn’t really a realignment deal either) Maybe this is the beginning :noidea: who knows, because the timing and remaining years on their GOR ect pretty much has these schools locked in so.. maybe they “trim” first to try and keep valuable members happy/more competitive financially until the next deal? No idea but the timing/length of GOR left on the surface would make this seem kinda silly but.. maybe somethin goin on behind the scenes.
Assuming two “ Superconferences”, how is Rutgers more “super” than say a NC State, Az State or Oklahoma State? Cold hard answer is THEY AREN’T!

But they get more coin, even if THEY AREN’T.
 
I’ve seen you make this argument before and it’s not legally correct. Universities are entities capable of being sued. And if they lose and fail to pay, you go after them like anyone else, but it’s easier. You simply start putting liens on all the buildings - I’d start with Sanford Stadium. Now they can’t do anything to it without your permission. Universities are sued all the time and pay up all the time.

I would agree with this with a private university but would this truly apply with a public one? I mean, can I get a lien on the Tennessee State Capitol if the Tennessee State Government fails to pay me for a lawsuit that I win against them?

Could Sovereign Immunity apply?

Sorry, anarchist side of me I guess but I think if you had the State Executive and Legislative Branch behind you, a public university could get out of the GOR. There would be no way for the judiciary to get the executive branch (i.e. police, state secretary of state, etc. to enforce the ruling).

I think these GORs are kind of flimsy at best for a variety of reasons and would love to see them legally challenged. For example, if I was a judge on the case, I would argue that the signers of the contract for Florida State on the TV deal would not have anticipated events like NIL and cite to the fact that they are now at a major competitive disadvantage that was unforeseeable in the original contract. The deal is therefore not fair. Either the television party needs to pay them something equitable or the contract would be null in void. Kind of a theory of Promissory Estoppel.

Great debate though. I know I am arguing against you but thanks for the response.
 
First UCF is not going to make more per FSU as I don’t know where you got those numbers.

Second there is zero reason for the ACC to expand as there aren’t any potential teams that move any kind of needle. West Virginia at best is a meh add and who are you going to take with them? It would be an excessive in subtraction by addition.

Notre Dame is the only name that would be a home run but the ACC has given them everything they want and they stay independent. Their new deals put them in SEC and B1G territory so there is zero incentive for them to do anything.

Expansion opens up the TV contract for renegotiation, that is the logic.
 
Even then. I don't think the recruiting angle is that important.
Idk if I see Florida recruits going to Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc just because more ppl from FL are watching their games. Maybe Mich, OSU, PSU would grab an extra one or two

Big Ten / Fox going down south is mainly for money from viewership in that region

To be fair, it is probably overrated but leagues have clearly made selections based on it or it has been discussion points.
 
Assuming two “ Superconferences”, how is Rutgers more “super” than say a NC State, Az State or Oklahoma State? Cold hard answer is THEY AREN’T!

But they get more coin, even if THEY AREN’T.
Its the number of TV's in their area. They dont even need people to watch them, they just need that bundled with the cable/tv services.
 
Assuming two “ Superconferences”, how is Rutgers more “super” than say a NC State, Az State or Oklahoma State? Cold hard answer is THEY AREN’T!

But they get more coin, even if THEY AREN’T.

It had to do with location although I really think Syracuse would have been a better pick up. They are just too far north of NYC. However, I am not sure Rutgers has really brought that much attention to the B1G to NYC. Syracuse is still a bigger draw (probably even in NYC) more than Rutgers.
 
I would agree with this with a private university but would this truly apply with a public one? I mean, can I get a lien on the Tennessee State Capitol if the Tennessee State Government fails to pay me for a lawsuit that I win against them?

Could Sovereign Immunity apply?

Sorry, anarchist side of me I guess but I think if you had the State Executive and Legislative Branch behind you, a public university could get out of the GOR. There would be no way for the judiciary to get the executive branch (i.e. police, state secretary of state, etc. to enforce the ruling).

I think these GORs are kind of flimsy at best for a variety of reasons and would love to see them legally challenged. For example, if I was a judge on the case, I would argue that the signers of the contract for Florida State on the TV deal would not have anticipated events like NIL and cite to the fact that they are now at a major competitive disadvantage that was unforeseeable in the original contract. The deal is therefore not fair. Either the television party needs to pay them something equitable or the contract would be null in void. Kind of a theory of Promissory Estoppel.

Great debate though. I know I am arguing against you but thanks for the response.
Private v. public doesn't matter. This idea that the government can't be sued is crazy. Universities get sued all the time and pay up all the time.

They do have access to sovereign immunity, but that defense is typically waived to the extent there is insurance. I specialized in municipal law back in the 80s and early 90s so I know a lot about this area of law. Typically states have some type of what is called slot insurance. The idea is that the "state" should be on tap for damages. If their driver hits you, you should be able to recover. If they violate a contract, you should be able to recover. But, it makes for a juicy target. So many jurisdictions will insure up to, say, 1 million dollars, but then not up to 5 million dollars, then anything over 5 million. The balance/give and take is that we want to protect our citizens from the wrongdoing of the state, and a million in insurance does that for 90% of the claims. But the nuisance suits are in the 1-5 million range, so we can get rid of those with sovereign immunity. Then you have the really bad cases and insurance covers those.

You are really going off the deep end to bring up the contention between the executive and legislative branches. Municipalities, quasi governmental agencies, etc. don't get wrapped up in that. They aren't somehow immune from the laws. The legislature can pass laws that the executive branch has to follow - it just has to be within the rules.

The GORs are rock fucking solid. Just because you don't anticipate something, you don't get to get out of a contract. If I buy a car, and 6 months later car prices drop 50%, I have no recourse because I didn't know the prices where going to drop. That's the risk you take entering a contract. Here it is worse ... they entered the GOR, which was signed by FSU for the express purpose to keep schools like FSU from leaving the ACC like Maryland did. It's doing exactly what FSU wanted it to do, they just don't like it anymore. Tough shit. Shouldn't have signed such a long-term agreement. Contracts often turn out not to be fair to everyone. If you don't like it, you can refuse to fulfiil the contract. The ACC would then get all the money FSU generated elsewhere. But FSU can certainly withdraw from the ACC, and they would lose about $500 million.

Promissory Estoppel doesn't apply here. There is an actual, fully negotiated contract with consideration.
 
Expansion opens up the TV contract for renegotiation, that is the logic.
It doesn't in the SEC. We just get pro-rata shares for TX and OU. What may re-open the negotiations is the additional IC game, and the 6-3-3 scheduling that improves the inventory of games.
 
Its the number of TV's in their area. They dont even need people to watch them, they just need that bundled with the cable/tv services.
That is no longer the economics of college football. If you want to make money, you need to have people watching your games, and/or starting in 2026 you better get into the CFP. The bundled cable is 2007-2012 CFB economics.
 
It doesn't in the SEC. We just get pro-rata shares for TX and OU. What may re-open the negotiations is the additional IC game, and the 6-3-3 scheduling that improves the inventory of games.

I am not talking about the SEC. I was stating if the ACC expands, it should reopen negotiations.
 
Private v. public doesn't matter. This idea that the government can't be sued is crazy. Universities get sued all the time and pay up all the time.

They do have access to sovereign immunity, but that defense is typically waived to the extent there is insurance. I specialized in municipal law back in the 80s and early 90s so I know a lot about this area of law. Typically states have some type of what is called slot insurance. The idea is that the "state" should be on tap for damages. If their driver hits you, you should be able to recover. If they violate a contract, you should be able to recover. But, it makes for a juicy target. So many jurisdictions will insure up to, say, 1 million dollars, but then not up to 5 million dollars, then anything over 5 million. The balance/give and take is that we want to protect our citizens from the wrongdoing of the state, and a million in insurance does that for 90% of the claims. But the nuisance suits are in the 1-5 million range, so we can get rid of those with sovereign immunity. Then you have the really bad cases and insurance covers those.

You are really going off the deep end to bring up the contention between the executive and legislative branches. Municipalities, quasi governmental agencies, etc. don't get wrapped up in that. They aren't somehow immune from the laws. The legislature can pass laws that the executive branch has to follow - it just has to be within the rules.

The GORs are rock fucking solid. Just because you don't anticipate something, you don't get to get out of a contract. If I buy a car, and 6 months later car prices drop 50%, I have no recourse because I didn't know the prices where going to drop. That's the risk you take entering a contract. Here it is worse ... they entered the GOR, which was signed by FSU for the express purpose to keep schools like FSU from leaving the ACC like Maryland did. It's doing exactly what FSU wanted it to do, they just don't like it anymore. Tough shit. Shouldn't have signed such a long-term agreement. Contracts often turn out not to be fair to everyone. If you don't like it, you can refuse to fulfiil the contract. The ACC would then get all the money FSU generated elsewhere. But FSU can certainly withdraw from the ACC, and they would lose about $500 million.

Promissory Estoppel doesn't apply here. There is an actual, fully negotiated contract with consideration.

I have seen parties get out of contracts for much less that were signed. I do think the NIL is a possible unforeseeable event that could create some potential on this front.

I have literally seen an automotive company lose a suit over something that was expressly called out in the owners manual. When the defense council cited to the owners manual, the Judge's comments was something of the effect that "no one reads the owner manuals." Granted it would depend on the jurisdiction. I would be a little nervous about the GOR if it was adjudicated in California who is traditionally very open to adjusting contracts to make them "fair" more than enforcing contracts.

Granted, I could see University Big Whigs not getting sympathy like you can with other suits.

I don't see Clemson or FSU going anywhere but apparently their magic lawyers have a way out per the Florida Athletic Director. Perhaps they know something we don't or isn't public in the news...
 
I have seen parties get out of contracts for much less that were signed. I do think the NIL is a possible unforeseeable event that could create some potential on this front.

I have literally seen an automotive company lose a suit over something that was expressly called out in the owners manual. When the defense council cited to the owners manual, the Judge's comments was something of the effect that "no one reads the owner manuals." Granted it would depend on the jurisdiction. I would be a little nervous about the GOR if it was adjudicated in California who is traditionally very open to adjusting contracts to make them "fair" more than enforcing contracts.

Granted, I could see University Big Whigs not getting sympathy like you can with other suits.

I don't see Clemson or FSU going anywhere but apparently their magic lawyers have a way out per the Florida Athletic Director. Perhaps they know something we don't or isn't public in the news...
Not a chance in the world. I am telling you that absent some force majeure scenario, that isn't happening. NIL was clearly foreseeable... they knew the players would get paid at some point. The idea that at some point in time in the future I can get out of a contract because I didn't forsee everything that could have happened isn't a thing.

I'll repeat one last time ... FSU is complaining about an agreement they willingly signed, that is doing exactly what they wanted it to do, because they no longer want it to do that. They would get laughed out of court if that is their argument.

The FSU AD is full of shit.
 
@Thiefery and @Wild Turkey

Here is one of the articles about UCF and FSU. Perhaps the Orland Sentinel is incorrect?

i couldn't read the article (paywall).. but from my understanding the new Big12 deal is 31.6 mil to each member.. and that's for all 3 tiers of rights. the ACC received over 36 mil in distribution in '22.. and that will steadily move up each year as the ACC channel increases it's payouts.

It's projected that the payout will be around 39 mil for the '24 season. The complaint of FSU and Clemson isn't about the payouts of the Big12 since they are making 8 mil more, but because of the schools in the SEC and BiG who will be getting like 40 million plus more
 
i couldn't read the article (paywall).. but from my understanding the new Big12 deal is 31.6 mil to each member.. and that's for all 3 tiers of rights. the ACC received over 36 mil in distribution in '22.. and that will steadily move up each year as the ACC channel increases it's payouts.

It's projected that the payout will be around 39 mil for the '24 season. The complaint of FSU and Clemson isn't about the payouts of the Big12 since they are making 8 mil more, but because of the schools in the SEC and BiG who will be getting like 40 million plus more

Well the issue is that there are a lot of other articles but they seem to be pointing back to this one as original source so perhaps the title and premise of the article is misleading. A lot of message boards are citing to this to make the argument. However, doing a deeper dive, I think you and Wild Turkey are correct.
 
Not a chance in the world. I am telling you that absent some force majeure scenario, that isn't happening. NIL was clearly foreseeable... they knew the players would get paid at some point. The idea that at some point in time in the future I can get out of a contract because I didn't forsee everything that could have happened isn't a thing.

I'll repeat one last time ... FSU is complaining about an agreement they willingly signed, that is doing exactly what they wanted it to do, because they no longer want it to do that. They would get laughed out of court if that is their argument.

The FSU AD is full of shit.

Well to be fair, I doubt any of the current parties at FSU were responsible for signing that contract.
 
What about booting some ACC bottom feeders to free up more money for the desirables in that conference?

I don’t think we’ve seen that move yet, it’s been predicted some long term for even the SEC/BIG but the only case I can think of was the BigEast booting Temple several years ago But iirc that was for being cheap and not willing to invest enough to be a viable member ect. (Something of that nature, been awhile now).

GOR cuts both ways. Can't leave, can't boot.
 
Back
Top