Surprised no one is talking about - and if a thread was started about it, I didn't see it. So, apologies if this a duplicate thread in that regard.
What happened with the FSU - Clemson - ACC thing yesterday?
- Thread starter I4CtheFuture
- Start date
lol...so much blustering on here by our resident legal experts on how Clemson and FSU leaving the ACC was imminent and unavoidable.
I said it all along. That GOR is ironclad.
This article sums it up beautifully. It was pure fantasy for FSU or anyone else to think they could leave the ACC. So many lectures on here from our great legal minds, talking down to folks about how the GOR really wasn't that solid and condescendingly explaining why our feeble minds couldn't understand how FSU and Clemson leaving was really a likely reality.
I said it all along. That GOR is ironclad.
This article sums it up beautifully. It was pure fantasy for FSU or anyone else to think they could leave the ACC. So many lectures on here from our great legal minds, talking down to folks about how the GOR really wasn't that solid and condescendingly explaining why our feeble minds couldn't understand how FSU and Clemson leaving was really a likely reality.
From burn the ships to bend the knee: Florida State, Clemson stuck with ACC - like it or not
From burn the ships to bend the knee, the ugly divorce that wasn't between Florida State, Clemson and the ACC is close to resolution.
www.usatoday.com
From the synopsis I read, uneven revenue sharing and a large reduction in buyouts for them to leave the conference. ( Both odd concessions if the GOR was so ironclad)
Leaves me thinking it just set the timetable for them leaving to be late 2020's.
From a Clemson site, so I won't link.
Exit Fee Schedule
CURRENT Exit Fee: 3X ACC Budget
Escalating over time
FY26: $165M +/-
NEW Exit Fee Schedule
FY26: $165M
Descending $18M per year until $75M in 2030-’31, and leveling off
Upon payment of Exit Fee an exiting member leaves with their future media rights.
So, descending buyout making it a greater possibility each year, and the schools leaving will now retain their media rights.
Leaves me thinking it just set the timetable for them leaving to be late 2020's.
From a Clemson site, so I won't link.
Exit Fee Schedule
CURRENT Exit Fee: 3X ACC Budget
Escalating over time
FY26: $165M +/-
NEW Exit Fee Schedule
FY26: $165M
Descending $18M per year until $75M in 2030-’31, and leveling off
Upon payment of Exit Fee an exiting member leaves with their future media rights.
So, descending buyout making it a greater possibility each year, and the schools leaving will now retain their media rights.
Last edited:
I don't think they are really that much in the way of concessions. ACC knows FSU and Clemson have nowhere to go so lowering the buyout each year doesn't mean much. Neither the Big 10 nor SEC seem to want them all that badly. Particularly the SEC, which is controlled by ESPN who is obviously not going to pay more for the same teams they are getting on a discount in the ACC. The Bit 10 flat-out said they would not be interested in FSU.
FSU And Clemson had NO leverage in this fight to leave the conference. The GOR obviously could not be undone. That was apparent all along. And, even if it could, there was no landing spot for either school. For the ACC, the ongoing litigation just served to damage the brand and have a cloud hanging over the conference. Sometimes you settle just to make something go away.
In the end, it wasn't much of a negotiation. The ACC gave up very little (nothing really). FSU And Clemson get their extra money from unequal revenue sharing but mostly walk away with their tails between their legs.
From burn the ships to bend the knee: Florida State, Clemson stuck with ACC - like it or not
From burn the ships to bend the knee, the ugly divorce that wasn't between Florida State, Clemson and the ACC is close to resolution.
www.usatoday.com
After all the hyperbole and histrionics, all the wasted millions in legal fees, we now see the crux of the situation.
Florida State brought a knife to a gun fight.
Wait, it did less than that. It brought the fantasy of what could be. And Clemson followed.
If you’re shocked by the latest twist in the ACC vs. Florida State and Clemson lawsuits that’s now in the makeup phase of the program, you clearly haven’t been following along. It was nearly three months ago that Florida State athletic director Mike Alford told USA TODAY Sports, “We never said we wanted to leave the ACC” — after his university spent months, and millions in legal fees, doing just that.
It was last summer when multiple people from the Big Ten told USA TODAY Sports that the league never had direct or indirect talks with Florida State, and wasn’t interested in adding the Seminoles, which the league deemed a “bad partner” that was trying to break up the ACC in search of greener financial pastures.
While we can argue the merits of Florida State and Clemson’s reasons for trying to escape the ACC – and I agree with a few – there is no argument about the foundation of the case.
Florida State and Clemson had no leverage.
Had. No. Leverage.
Florida State’s grand plan was to get out of the ACC, and then become an attractive candidate for the Big Ten. Who among us wouldn’t want the blue blood football program, and sudden mercenary, for hire?
That’s right, FSU – and Clemson, to a lesser extent because it wasn’t publicly grandstanding – decided to risk its A-rating media properties brand on a whim and a hope.
Then kept doubling down.
It is here where we introduce Hernan Cortes, the famous Spanish conquistador, who in 1519 ordered his ships to be burned after landing in Mexico to prevent retreat and motivate his crew to succeed in the new land.
Florida State burned the ships knowing it didn’t have back channel negotiations with the Big Ten, or any semblance of a landing place if it were successful in its lawsuit against the ACC.
The Seminoles did it all knowing it signed the ironclad Grant of Rights agreement with the ACC not once (in 2013), but twice (again in 2016). Did it knowing ESPN would never, ever walk away from, or alter, a favorable media rights deal with the ACC through 2036.
Florida State did it knowing the ACC knew it held all the cards – and by all the cards, I mean all the cards – and wasn’t negotiating with a rogue member.
Only after it was clear last summer that FSU had no landing spot if it left the ACC, and that capital investment wasn’t the answer, did the school arrive at the negotiating table with the ACC — burned ships smoldering in the background.
FSU and Clemson have legit arguments in this fight. Without them, there is no ACC football. Who in their right mind wants to watch Wake Forest and Syracuse go it for four quarters on a perfectly good Saturday afternoon?
Especially when Tennessee vs. Florida is on another network. Or Michigan vs. Penn State, or Georgia vs. LSU or Ohio State vs. Southern California or any other combination of SEC and Big Ten games you can imagine.
ESPN is paying for Florida State and Clemson football in the ACC media rights deal, and to a lesser extent, Miami and as many Notre Dame games as it can get. FSU and Clemson feel as though the rest of the ACC earns off their brands, and that’s a legitimate argument.
But Vanderbilt and the Mississippi schools (among others) earn off SEC blue bloods, and Purdue, Indiana and Rutgers (among others) earn off Big Ten blue bloods.
That’s a partnership.
While football is the fuel, there are other benefits of conference partnership (at the top of the list, scheduling for every other sport) that hold critical value to an efficient engine.
If and until college football decides to break away from the rest of college sports and become a quasi-professional league of 50-60 teams that can afford it, this is the conference affiliation setup moving forward.
That's odd. I read the huge drop in buyouts and FSU and Clemson retaining their media rights (the large penalty in what used to the GOR) as very large concessions.
They never received an invite before because they were stuck in the "ironclad" grant of rights, and it would cost a too much on top of the ACC retaining their media rights .
Now the buyout will drop significantly and the ACC will not retain their rights. If anything, this seems to be conceding that they are leaving in next 5 years or so.
Edit: And they got extra revenue on top in the meantime. That tiger site said roughly 15 million extra a year based on initial calculations.
From burn the ships to bend the knee: Florida State, Clemson stuck with ACC - like it or not
From burn the ships to bend the knee, the ugly divorce that wasn't between Florida State, Clemson and the ACC is close to resolution.www.usatoday.com
After all the hyperbole and histrionics, all the wasted millions in legal fees, we now see the crux of the situation.
Florida State brought a knife to a gun fight.
Wait, it did less than that. It brought the fantasy of what could be. And Clemson followed.
If you’re shocked by the latest twist in the ACC vs. Florida State and Clemson lawsuits that’s now in the makeup phase of the program, you clearly haven’t been following along. It was nearly three months ago that Florida State athletic director Mike Alford told USA TODAY Sports, “We never said we wanted to leave the ACC” — after his university spent months, and millions in legal fees, doing just that.
It was last summer when multiple people from the Big Ten told USA TODAY Sports that the league never had direct or indirect talks with Florida State, and wasn’t interested in adding the Seminoles, which the league deemed a “bad partner” that was trying to break up the ACC in search of greener financial pastures.
While we can argue the merits of Florida State and Clemson’s reasons for trying to escape the ACC – and I agree with a few – there is no argument about the foundation of the case.
Florida State and Clemson had no leverage.
Had. No. Leverage.
Florida State’s grand plan was to get out of the ACC, and then become an attractive candidate for the Big Ten. Who among us wouldn’t want the blue blood football program, and sudden mercenary, for hire?
That’s right, FSU – and Clemson, to a lesser extent because it wasn’t publicly grandstanding – decided to risk its A-rating media properties brand on a whim and a hope.
Then kept doubling down.
It is here where we introduce Hernan Cortes, the famous Spanish conquistador, who in 1519 ordered his ships to be burned after landing in Mexico to prevent retreat and motivate his crew to succeed in the new land.
Florida State burned the ships knowing it didn’t have back channel negotiations with the Big Ten, or any semblance of a landing place if it were successful in its lawsuit against the ACC.
The Seminoles did it all knowing it signed the ironclad Grant of Rights agreement with the ACC not once (in 2013), but twice (again in 2016). Did it knowing ESPN would never, ever walk away from, or alter, a favorable media rights deal with the ACC through 2036.
Florida State did it knowing the ACC knew it held all the cards – and by all the cards, I mean all the cards – and wasn’t negotiating with a rogue member.
Only after it was clear last summer that FSU had no landing spot if it left the ACC, and that capital investment wasn’t the answer, did the school arrive at the negotiating table with the ACC — burned ships smoldering in the background.
FSU and Clemson have legit arguments in this fight. Without them, there is no ACC football. Who in their right mind wants to watch Wake Forest and Syracuse go it for four quarters on a perfectly good Saturday afternoon?
Especially when Tennessee vs. Florida is on another network. Or Michigan vs. Penn State, or Georgia vs. LSU or Ohio State vs. Southern California or any other combination of SEC and Big Ten games you can imagine.
ESPN is paying for Florida State and Clemson football in the ACC media rights deal, and to a lesser extent, Miami and as many Notre Dame games as it can get. FSU and Clemson feel as though the rest of the ACC earns off their brands, and that’s a legitimate argument.
But Vanderbilt and the Mississippi schools (among others) earn off SEC blue bloods, and Purdue, Indiana and Rutgers (among others) earn off Big Ten blue bloods.
That’s a partnership.
While football is the fuel, there are other benefits of conference partnership (at the top of the list, scheduling for every other sport) that hold critical value to an efficient engine.
If and until college football decides to break away from the rest of college sports and become a quasi-professional league of 50-60 teams that can afford it, this is the conference affiliation setup moving forward.
Did you mean to repost the same link you had just posted? Or was it supposed to be a different one?
I dunno. I see it as the ACC not being all that concerned. The exit fee is no longer comically prohibitive, but it is still incredibly steep at $165 million. I think the SEC is something like $40 million, which is still only about half of what the ACC buyout will be when it falls to a flat fee of $75 million. Just because it's not the laughable half a billion that had been thrown out there doesn't mean it's not still a very daunting number. That number gets steeper when you throw in the revenue sharing with the athletes that's going into effect. Schools don't just have $100+ million to throw around (unless you're in Texas).
Is it conceivable that FSU and Clemson might leave the ACC at some point in the future? Sure. If SoCal could leave the Pac 10, anything is possible. My only contention all along is that these lawsuits were going nowhere and that Clemson and FSU were stuck in the ACC for the foreseeable future.
If their cases had any real merit and if they had anywhere else to go, they would not have settled. They settled because they obviously had no other option. ACC settled just to make this thing go away and to get on with business.
Not at all a big deterrent, with the additional revenue coming in for the top teams, the de-escalation of exit fees, practically ensures major moves within a 4 year window.
A positive development for those who wanted to leave the conference. If the ACC was truly sitting in a position of strength there would not have any reason to make concessions.
As to the counter argument some schools had no place to go, the B1G publicly stated that although interested in further expansion, they would wait until all legal disputes were resolved.
Okay, we agree the financial penalty went from laughably large to, let's just say "less" for now.
It's 160M today. If there's an announcement next year, and its slated for 2 years in the future, that drops to roughly 100M. A large number, no doubt. But the difference in the media deals, not the total, just the difference, would pay that in about 2 or 3 years, right?
My reasoning comes from this. Last year, if they got an offer to leave, they had a huge payment and lost all their media rights. Now? They have a smaller payment, (and only shrinking) and they get to keep their rights. On top of the uneven revenue.
Imho, this just made it a whole lot easier for them to leave.
On a side note, there is the whole argument of who "won". The ACC had this unbreakable agreement, yet they conceded the uneven revenue (not a huge deal), they lowered the buyout (kind of a big deal) and dropped the granting of rights when a team leaves the conference. (A huge deal IMO)
And what did the ACC get? The conference is still together, but they made breaking it up much easier. It doesn't seem like the conference came away a winner in this.
Easier but not really feasible.
I know it's not what anyone here wants to believe for some weird reason, but the ACC isn't going anywhere anytime soon. And neither are Clemson or FSU.
Last edited:
I just see 100M as very feasible, with the amounts of money that are being thrown around.
Jmo
Edit: As for going anywhere "soon"? I think when it happens, the debate will fall back to what people meant by "soon", which won't serve any real purpose. We'll, except post count!
For those wondering why the ACC acquiesced their "Ironclad" agreement to the GOR, and then suddenly came to the current agreement were obviously not aware of this current legal development.
FSU vs. ACC lawsuit: Florida Supreme Court denies ACC appeal in legal battle against FSU
https://sports.yahoo.com/article/fsu-vs-acc-lawsuit-florida-202655921.html
Last edited:
Well written post. Thanks.From burn the ships to bend the knee: Florida State, Clemson stuck with ACC - like it or not
From burn the ships to bend the knee, the ugly divorce that wasn't between Florida State, Clemson and the ACC is close to resolution.www.usatoday.com
After all the hyperbole and histrionics, all the wasted millions in legal fees, we now see the crux of the situation.
Florida State brought a knife to a gun fight.
Wait, it did less than that. It brought the fantasy of what could be. And Clemson followed.
If you’re shocked by the latest twist in the ACC vs. Florida State and Clemson lawsuits that’s now in the makeup phase of the program, you clearly haven’t been following along. It was nearly three months ago that Florida State athletic director Mike Alford told USA TODAY Sports, “We never said we wanted to leave the ACC” — after his university spent months, and millions in legal fees, doing just that.
It was last summer when multiple people from the Big Ten told USA TODAY Sports that the league never had direct or indirect talks with Florida State, and wasn’t interested in adding the Seminoles, which the league deemed a “bad partner” that was trying to break up the ACC in search of greener financial pastures.
While we can argue the merits of Florida State and Clemson’s reasons for trying to escape the ACC – and I agree with a few – there is no argument about the foundation of the case.
Florida State and Clemson had no leverage.
Had. No. Leverage.
Florida State’s grand plan was to get out of the ACC, and then become an attractive candidate for the Big Ten. Who among us wouldn’t want the blue blood football program, and sudden mercenary, for hire?
That’s right, FSU – and Clemson, to a lesser extent because it wasn’t publicly grandstanding – decided to risk its A-rating media properties brand on a whim and a hope.
Then kept doubling down.
It is here where we introduce Hernan Cortes, the famous Spanish conquistador, who in 1519 ordered his ships to be burned after landing in Mexico to prevent retreat and motivate his crew to succeed in the new land.
Florida State burned the ships knowing it didn’t have back channel negotiations with the Big Ten, or any semblance of a landing place if it were successful in its lawsuit against the ACC.
The Seminoles did it all knowing it signed the ironclad Grant of Rights agreement with the ACC not once (in 2013), but twice (again in 2016). Did it knowing ESPN would never, ever walk away from, or alter, a favorable media rights deal with the ACC through 2036.
Florida State did it knowing the ACC knew it held all the cards – and by all the cards, I mean all the cards – and wasn’t negotiating with a rogue member.
Only after it was clear last summer that FSU had no landing spot if it left the ACC, and that capital investment wasn’t the answer, did the school arrive at the negotiating table with the ACC — burned ships smoldering in the background.
FSU and Clemson have legit arguments in this fight. Without them, there is no ACC football. Who in their right mind wants to watch Wake Forest and Syracuse go it for four quarters on a perfectly good Saturday afternoon?
Especially when Tennessee vs. Florida is on another network. Or Michigan vs. Penn State, or Georgia vs. LSU or Ohio State vs. Southern California or any other combination of SEC and Big Ten games you can imagine.
ESPN is paying for Florida State and Clemson football in the ACC media rights deal, and to a lesser extent, Miami and as many Notre Dame games as it can get. FSU and Clemson feel as though the rest of the ACC earns off their brands, and that’s a legitimate argument.
But Vanderbilt and the Mississippi schools (among others) earn off SEC blue bloods, and Purdue, Indiana and Rutgers (among others) earn off Big Ten blue bloods.
That’s a partnership.
While football is the fuel, there are other benefits of conference partnership (at the top of the list, scheduling for every other sport) that hold critical value to an efficient engine.
If and until college football decides to break away from the rest of college sports and become a quasi-professional league of 50-60 teams that can afford it, this is the conference affiliation setup moving forward.
I don't see the great value either FSU or Clemson brings to the ACC regarding tv audiences unless they are playing each other. That said, FSU is a total dumpster fire now, I'm not sure how much value they have as a tv draw period. Miami may be the bigger draw for the ACC in the state of Florida now.
I don't see Clemson vs Duke or FSU vs Wake Forest as very compelling tv fodder.
I don't see Clemson vs Duke or FSU vs Wake Forest as very compelling tv fodder.
In any event, Clemson and FSU are not going anywhere anytime soon and the ACC will live on, which was plainly obvious all along. There was never a real threat. At least until after 2030 when TV contracts start to expire. By that time, we will probably be pretty close to the super conference anyway, if not already in the works.
There are entire studies of this stuff that I have no interest in wading through. But those studies will be how they end up splitting the revenue.
To your point, the way I think about it is, more people will watch Clemson/FSU vs Duke, than wake vs Duke. That delta will be sold as those two bringing eyeballs other teams aren't bringing.
The real winner in the whole thing is probably UNC. They are the overall premier brand from the ACC, and the Big 10 would snatch them up in about 1 second and would likely even be willing to cover, at least partially, if not entirely, their exit fee in order to secure the brand. Perfect fit academically and brings an absolutely monstrous brand to the conference. How many other teams in all of sports are immediately identifiable to any sports fan anywhere in the country simply by one color? Everyone everywhere from coast to coast knows Tar Heel blue.
Clemson and FSU might be the most valuable to the ACC at this point in time, but they are harder sells than UNC. Neither are AAU schools or otherwise up to Big 10 academic standards. UNC has been in the AAU since 1922. Neither opens up new markets to the SEC.
Last edited:
But they are locked into an "ironclad" agreement till 2036, right?
I agree with you that they are probably the big winners. FSU/Clemson opened the door, and may not be the first ones to even walk through.
The agreement is ironclad in that it can't be broken, but that doesn't mean nobody can leave. The GOR being ironclad didn't mean FSU or Clemson couldn't leave. They could have left whenever they wanted. They would have just been bound by the terms of the agreement, which they tacitly conceded was ironclad by accepting this compromise. So, yes, the GOR proved absolutely ironclad in that sense. It was never broken and served it's purpose exactly as intended, which was keeping the conference intact. Ironclad does not mean the agreement can't be changed with a mutual agreement between all parties.
So, yes, UNC or any other team will be bound by the ironclad agreement to pay the necessary exit fee to leave, if/when they choose to do so. Just as with the previous GOR, any team is only "locked in" insofar as they unwilling to pay any penalties. The GOR never flatly prohibited anyone from leaving and neither does the new agreement.
As I noted above, things get more fluid after 2030 when tv contracts start to expire. UNC is in the enviable position that I believe the Big 10 would be willing to cover some or all of their exit fee in order to secure the brand. FSU and Clemson have no such advantage. On top of still having a very steep exit fee of $75 million (again, for reference the SEC's is around $40 million), neither FSU or Clemson seemingly have a logical landing spot.
There was compromise between FSU and the ACC. The settlement does in fact meet (kind of) in the middle.
As for Clemson, the settlement gives them considerably more than they were even asking for in their lawsuit.
FSU's suit wanted to declare the exit fee including the full value of their media rights through 2036 to be a punitive and unenforceable fee for exiting the conference... basically saying they can leave and owe nothing. No one thought that would happen, but that was their starting point in the "negotiation" so to speak.
Clemson's suit wanted the court to state that any media rights belonged to the school if the school was no longer in the conference. Meaning essentially that the school would only have to pay the exit fee to leave, but not buy back their media rights. The exit fee was 3 years of the conferences operating expenses, or around $165M.
So both schools got what they wanted. FSU got a negotiated settlement. Clemson got the confirmation it sought, with the added bonus of a decreasing exit fee over time.
The ACC received assurance of stability over the next few years, and eliminated the threat of having to reveal the details of its "confidential" contract and negotiations with ESPN, which FSU claimed may have been illegal as it occurred without consent of the members.
So it appears that the ACC will stay in-tact through around 2030, when there will undoubtably be a seismic shift in college athletics. That year, both the Big Ten's and Big 12's television contracts are set to expire, as well as the television contracts for the CFP and the NCAA men's basketball tournament. If there is going to be a super-conference tier for college football and/or possibly basketball, that is when logic suggests it will occur.
As for Clemson, the settlement gives them considerably more than they were even asking for in their lawsuit.
FSU's suit wanted to declare the exit fee including the full value of their media rights through 2036 to be a punitive and unenforceable fee for exiting the conference... basically saying they can leave and owe nothing. No one thought that would happen, but that was their starting point in the "negotiation" so to speak.
Clemson's suit wanted the court to state that any media rights belonged to the school if the school was no longer in the conference. Meaning essentially that the school would only have to pay the exit fee to leave, but not buy back their media rights. The exit fee was 3 years of the conferences operating expenses, or around $165M.
So both schools got what they wanted. FSU got a negotiated settlement. Clemson got the confirmation it sought, with the added bonus of a decreasing exit fee over time.
The ACC received assurance of stability over the next few years, and eliminated the threat of having to reveal the details of its "confidential" contract and negotiations with ESPN, which FSU claimed may have been illegal as it occurred without consent of the members.
So it appears that the ACC will stay in-tact through around 2030, when there will undoubtably be a seismic shift in college athletics. That year, both the Big Ten's and Big 12's television contracts are set to expire, as well as the television contracts for the CFP and the NCAA men's basketball tournament. If there is going to be a super-conference tier for college football and/or possibly basketball, that is when logic suggests it will occur.
Last edited:
Who wrote the GOR? Why didn't FSU/Clemson talk to that person(s) as they would probably know where the weaknesses are.
We're arguing semantics at this point. But I just don't see it as "ironclad" when a lawsuit just threw out the granting of rights.
The massive punitive bill for leaving just got gutted.
There is no more granting of rights if a school leaves the conference. So arguing the "grant of rights" is ironclad when it just disappeared is odd to me.
But to claim that when FSU or any other school leaves, they'll have to pay the buyout? Yes, they will. Unless they open another suit and get the buyout reduced again.
One can only presume that it was crafted with mutual agreement by all schools with every school having lawyers comb through the agreement in excruciating detail. That's what made it hard to challenge. This was not some agreement which was clandestinely crafted by the ACC and then thrust upon the schools. They knew every detail and agreed to it. EAGERLY even. And they agreed to it a SECOND time.
No lawsuit threw anything out.
Again, just because an agreement is changed, does mean the original agreement was not ironclad. The ACC was simply willing to make a compromise to keep FSU and Clemson happy but really just to get this cloud of unrest to go away before the new season starts. The ACC could have kept the GOR in place and kept on with this legal battle for years (which would have certainly been the case) but that was not advantageous to them. FSU and Clemson could have rejected the agreement if they thought they really had a chance of getting the GOR nullified, but they obviously did not. In the end, neither party wanted a projected legal battle which is why we are where we are.
I think (and I could be mistaken) that the SECOND time was the one in question by FSU. It was definitely less clear, and the ACC settled by basically scraping the idea that the conference maintained a school's media rights if the school exited the conference.
Exactly.
Some or should I say many are automatically assuming FSU/CLemson will be the first to leave. Many on here are going to very surprised as to the initial schools leaving.
Except Maryland. Did they ever sign the initial GOR? I think they balked and there was some sort of "settlement" between College Park, the ACC, and the B1G.
Should UnCarolina (UNC= University of Northern Colorado) leave the ACC, what kind of uproar can be expected from Murphy to Manteo?
You would think a lot, but tradition counts for about zero these days. You saw how easy it was for Oregon to kick Oregon State the curb and leave them homeless. They had been partnered as one of 4 charter members in the various iterations of the Pac12 since 1915. There was thinking that Oregon wouldn't leave Oregon State "behind" but they did without a second thought. There are some in our fan base who would be ok giving up the Clemson game.
The lawsuit didn't throw anything out, the lawsuit just got the ACC to concede the gor and the value of the buyout, and unequal revenue.
That seems like we're arguing over semantics.
The ACC conceded the biggest weapon they had, the gor, they conceded tens of millions in buyout amounts, and gave weighted revenue, all in response to a lawsuit that had no merit and wasn't going anywhere? I guess if we think the people that run the ACC are that stupid. And looking at their contract work recently, they may be.
As for "ironclad", again semantics, but i was going by the definition of "un breakable", or at least "incredibly hard to change". And FSU just did that with a supposedly meritless lawsuit, and made it look easy.
This is the part that gets me. The ACC retaining their media rights of schools leaving was THE main roadblock. It was the teeth of the entire GOR. It's literally why it's called GOR (grant of rights).
And the ACC just gave it away.
18IsTheMan you know absolutely nothing about this. The GOR pertains to solely the media rights of the members and the GOR have been wiped away. Best summed up by Larry Williams below....
It's our nature to identify winners and losers from any battle. And it strains credulity to suggest that Clemson and Florida State aren't the clear winners here.
Because if the ACC had any real leverage, there's no way in hell that the conference agrees to just wipe away the Grant of Rights that was supposedly unbreakable and guarded like nuclear codes at the conference offices -- not to mention agreeing to disproportionate revenue sharing that undoubtedly makes a lot of other schools unhappy.
It's our nature to identify winners and losers from any battle. And it strains credulity to suggest that Clemson and Florida State aren't the clear winners here.
Because if the ACC had any real leverage, there's no way in hell that the conference agrees to just wipe away the Grant of Rights that was supposedly unbreakable and guarded like nuclear codes at the conference offices -- not to mention agreeing to disproportionate revenue sharing that undoubtedly makes a lot of other schools unhappy.
Wasn't it's purpose to hold the conference together till 2036? Why give it up if it was working?