Don't think anyone disagrees with that. But probably a lot closer to 2036 than 2024.
FSU vs ACC
- Thread starter DaboSits2PeePee
- Start date
Still not convinced that the ACC will negotiate a buyout with FSU. Why would they? They have an ironclad contract that was feely and voluntarily entered into by FSU. There was nothing deceptive in the contract. FSU simply has buyer's remorse since the landscape has changed. That's their only argument. If they negotiate a buyout, to what end is it? They will only be waving the white flag signaling the demise of the conference.
I think everyone is reading it incorrectly (including me initially). It's not an offer to negotiate. It's a response to the allegation by FSU that the fee is a penalty. The ACC is simply saying that FSU agreed to give up media rights to the ACC. If FSU wants them back, they're free to attempt to purchase them. They are making the point that it's not a penalty, it's a "commercial possibility".
I do agreenits the demise of the conference.
But the iron clad nature of the GOR evaporates if FSU does prove as was said "fraud in the inducement ".
It has proven to be so. Speaking with a friend of mine who is a contract lawyer, Clemson fan, and strong proponent of blowing the ACC up, he sees no legal grounds for nullifying the contract. Restraint of trade certainly does not apply.
They are going for fraud of inducement. If they can prove that, the GOR is nullified. It think that's a stretch.
Yeah, nothing about that contract meets the terms for fraud of inducement. No material facts were misrepresented by the ACC. It was all transparent.
We'll find out soon enough. There are arguments to be made. For example, we found out through this lawsuit that the ACC essentially has no TV agreement in place beyond 2027. ESPN has an OPTION to those years, but they have yet to exercise that option. If I'm FSU, I'm making the argument that you can't monetize those years bc you don't have a deal in place for those years. Any legal scholars on the board can correct me if I'm wrong. Just my simple minded brain at work.
If I understand correctly, you are right. Nothing IN the contract meets the terms for fraud of inducement. It was actions taken and info withheld in order to get the contract signed.
With luck, details will come out soon. Although, this does pass the offseason.
And that is an incorrect statement as well.
Unless of course your friend has examined said contract, which only a very very small number of individuals have.
Yes, I would agree that most Clemson fans do not trust Swofford. Most also believe that FSU has a good case and has done their homework and that if FSU leaves then the ACC is materially changed so the GOR is no longer enforcible. I think most likley FSU and the ACC settle out of court for well under $100MM and within days you see Clemson and several other teams exit the ACC. If there are two super conferences of 24 to 32 teams per conference, who gets left out? Do all teams currently in those super conferences get to stay? Are these schools permitted to compete in the NCAA in other sports? Does Illinois really add much to the B1G? Does MSU add much to the SEC?
No way the ACC settles for under $100M. Why would they? Might as well stay and fight, as they would immediately hemorrhage members and cease to exist.
Wouldn't the GOR be an ironclad statement until it's not? It might change at any time, but until someone defeats the GOR in court it seems ironclad to me.
Last edited:
Yeah. To me its like the AD saying "I fully support the coach". He does, right up until the next week when he fires him.
Some people could raise $100 million to invest in something which will pay that back numerous times over. Plus, some of the people who pony this up won't necessarily be looking to get paid back entirely with money.
It would seem to me the ACC has more to lose with it going to court. If the courts rule in favor of FSU the conference is toast. If the ACC negotiations a deal with FSU the total may be enough to keep most of the other teams in the conference and many may not have the will to fight. If FSU losses they just stay in the conference.
Side note to the current discussion, but I've never been able to discern the position of USC fans on this issue. On the one hand, our fans often laugh at Clemson being stuck in the ACC, but at other times bemoan the fact that they have an easier path to the playoff in the ACC, and then want the ACC to implode so Clemson is hung out to dry but then want the ACC to stay intact so Clemson continues with their low revenue, then we don't them in the SEC so that they don't get SEC money but do want them in the SEC because it's unlikely they'd emerge as a title contender.
It is funny that the ACC needs a fence to keep teams in the ACC. The SEC needs a fence to keep teams out. I am wondering what effects does it have with the ACC adding teams but not getting any more tv money. Even though SMU does not get anything for 5 years it will get paid before 2036. Not to mention the extra travel cost involved. I know the teams that voted against the additional teams are all teams mentioned on wanting to leave.
We will take whatever angle is necessary to throw hate at Clemmons. Pretty simple.
I want whatever Clemson doesn't. So if Clemson wants out of the ACC, then I want them to stay in. Simple as that.
FSU is likely going to lose all voting rights. So it won't just be business as usual if their exit doesn't work.
I'm beginning to think the ACC needs to go all out on this one. The ACC needs FSU from a TV standpoint. They go, and ESPN damn sure isn't going to exercise that option. Then it's open season. I think the only choice they have is to fight.
I agree here. I don't really care to debate whether they would have it easier or harder in the SEC. If they want in, I want them out. If they want the B10, I hope they end up in the B12...etc.
I'm of the opinion that yes, they want in the SEC, but I think it'll be worse for them in the long run. I think the competition will knock them down a few pegs.
I get the notion that they want it, so don't let them have it. But I also think, in the end, it brings them right back to our level.
And there it is.
The real (and let us be honest, the only) reason why some continue to argue as to why the ACC will not implode or continue in its current state 12 more years, despite all indications pointing to an entirely different outcome.
Not for me. I really don't care about their money. We've had "SEC money" for decades and hasn't meant much. Mo money, mo problems. I'd switch up with them in a heartbeat.
No one seems to be talking about is: what makes FSU think the SEC wants them in the conference? the SEC already has Florida TV market with the gators. same would apply to Clemson and the SC TV market. i guess FSU could go to another conference but their fans and media think they are a shoe-in to the SEC, post ACC.
The SEC isn't adding Clem or FSU. They're going to B12 when everything hits the fan. B12 needs that footprint to fill in their gap.
They might wind up letting them off for less if the mop flops the right way. Who knows?
I don't have any problem with it. I'm embarrassed that so many of our fans are "skeered" of the prospect. And that's all it is, I don't give a crap what pretexts any of them put up.
So you predict that those schools will go through all this just to sell themselves at a significant discount, huh? I'll take note of it.
If and when the conference goes to a nine game schedule we will want Clemson in the SEC.
I think it is like fighting a divorrce, why do it? You fight for time with the kids and for a fair settlement but why fight someone tooth and nail o keep them in a union that they clearly do not want to be part of? If the spouse pulls out provacative texts between you and the babysitter then you get more inclined to settle faster. In this case, I think FSU is not bluffing and the have the equivalent of texts with the babysitter so the ACC will be more inclined to settle closer to FSU's terms. They have already added teams to replace the expected number of teams they may lose.
