Florida State officially leaving ACC?

[NT80]

Florida State's legal fight with the ACC begins:

"One of Florida's top universities is facing the possibility of forfeiting more than half a billion dollars, and the ACC is refusing to hand over the agreements at the center of this astronomical financial penalty," Moody said in a statement. "They are unlawfully keeping these documents locked away in North Carolina. However, North Carolina and Florida state laws are clear that these agreements are public records and must be handed over immediately. Today, I am taking action to ensure FSU and the public are able to review these agreements."

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39242303/florida-ag-requests-documents-acc-related-fsu-lawsuit

[El Paso Eagle]

2 hours ago, rcade said:

The NCAA does not permit NIL deals to be tied to on-field performance in any way.

They also do not permit tampering. Call it what you want, it's pay-for-play

[greenminer]

4 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

They also do not permit tampering. Call it what you want, it's pay-for-play

If players can take the money and run w/o playing, it’s not pay for play.

[SMU2006]

On 12/22/2023 at 2:14 PM, rcade said:

FSU's lawsuit against the ACC is citing the "lack of football value" brought by SMU, Cal and Stanford, compared to the schools that other Power 4 conferences added.

I wouldn't be so sure that SMU joining the ACC is still an improvement for them. If FSU and the other big schools leave, the ACC could fall apart like the PAC-12. Then SMU is floating on a headboard in the Atlantic.

This might be dumbest post I've ever read.

Regardless of the public whining by FSU, they are going to be in the ACC for a very, very, very long time.  The legal argument is laughable with the actual filing having multiple spelling and grammatical errors.  it is a total clown show and being done exclusively for the purpose of throwing red meat to the butt hurt FSU fans over being shut out of the playoff.  And as far as SMU not bringing competitive value to the league we're the defending AAC champions and several 2024 preseason polls have SMU ranked between 21-25 positioning us as the 4th or 5th best football program in the ACC in year one.  So yeah.  Not really a great argument.

The ACC has a grant of rights that runs through 2036 as well as Notre Dame as a full voting member who needs the ACC to park all of the non-football sports.  Notre Dame was one of the strongest advocates for adding SMU/CAL/Stanford to the league.  The PAC 12 had no such long term stability and lacked a viable TV partner.  The two situations couldn't be more different.

Could FSU/Clemson/UNC eventually get out?  Yeah that is possible.  But we're talking 2033 or 2034 at the earliest.  That is a lifetime in the realignment timeline.  Who knows what the landscape will be by then.  But one thing is for sure.  Being in a conference with FAU, UAB, Rice, Tulsa, Charlotte, Temple, etc. was a slow walk to a certain death.  SMU grabbed the last G5 to P5 lifeboat before the inevitable breakaway (which is absolutely going to happen).

Edited January 5 by SMU2006

[Dannymacfan]

1 minute ago, SMU2006 said:

Regardless of the public whining by FSU, they are going to be in the ACC for a very, very, very long time.

Excuse me sir but are you a lawyer?  Cause if you aren't how tf do you know this to be a fact?

[SMU2006]

9 minutes ago, Dannymacfan said:

Excuse me sir but are you a lawyer?  Cause if you aren't how tf do you know this to be a fact?

B/c if they could get out they already would've done it.  There's a reason why they had an army of attorneys pour over the grant of rights last year and ultimately walked away and did absolutely nothing.  The deal is clear.  The financial implications for trying to break the grant of rights is likely a $2 billion dollar decision.  The league would own the rights to all of FSU's home games for the next 13 years in addition to the entirety of their TV revenue for the same time period.  It is financially catastrophic.  They know this.  The league knows this.  Every member institution knows this as well.  

Its important to view the FSU lawsuit when contrasted with the ACC suit that was filed the day prior in North Carolina.  You can tell this is something the ACC was anticipating with very clear language from the FSU administration when the grant of rights was extended to 2036 about how great it was for the league and that now quote from FSU university president  "this agreement provides long-term stability and ensures that no one can leave."  Good luck arguing in a court of law that you agree to a deal and then decide you want out b/c the deal didn't work out in your favor.  Precedent is very clear how that works out and it won't work for FSU either.

Barring the Saudis trying to buy their way into college football by bank rolling FSU to the SEC/Big 10 you will see the Seminoles with an ACC patch on their uniforms for the next decade.

Edited January 5 by SMU2006

[rcade]

11 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Could FSU/Clemson/UNC eventually get out?  Yeah that is possible.  But we're talking 2033 or 2034 at the earliest.

Nothing in the Power 5 happens in 10-year timeframes any more.

When FSU proves that the ACC has been taking care of itself over the interests of its biggest schools, the fight will be over. They will be able to leave under much better financial terms.

If SMU has the financial means to forego 10 years of TV revenue to join the ACC, FSU has the means to get out of the ACC. Cal and Stanford accepting 30% of conference revenue and SMU accepting no revenue strengthens FSU's legal case. Those three schools are obviously not an improvement to the ACC, or else they would be getting full shares. They were only brought in to help the ACC avoid contract terms that are triggered if it falls below 15 members.

ESPN has to decide in February 2025 whether to end the ACC TV deal or extend it to 2036. The ACC has one year to prove it isn't going to be the next PAC-12. For all we know ESPN would rather have a Power 3 of superconferences and a decimated ACC that can only get G5-level TV money going forward.

[rcade]

33 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

B/c if they could get out they already would've done it.  There's a reason why they had an army of attorneys pour over the grant of rights last year and ultimately walked away and did absolutely nothing.

FSU didn't walk away. A year ago they began preparing their attack on the grant of rights and that effort culminated in suing the ACC last month. They were always going to sue. The CFP snub just accelerated the process.

[SMU2006]

26 minutes ago, rcade said:

FSU didn't walk away. A year ago they began preparing their attack on the grant of rights and that effort culminated in suing the ACC last month. They were always going to sue. The CFP snub just accelerated the process.

Nope.  All of this is pure saber rattling by FSU.  They know the financial implications of breaking the grant of rights and they're stuck for the next decade.  If I had to put odds on it they probably will be in the ACC through 2035.  

FSU endowment is less than a billion (current market value around $710m, second lowest in the ACC).  They are not going to create financial sepukku just so they can sign away their TV rights and home games to the ACC for the next 13 years.  Just isn't going to happen.

Edited January 5 by SMU2006

[SMU2006]

33 minutes ago, rcade said:

Nothing in the Power 5 happens in 10-year timeframes any more.

When FSU proves that the ACC has been taking care of itself over the interests of its biggest schools, the fight will be over. They will be able to leave under much better financial terms.

If SMU has the financial means to forego 10 years of TV revenue to join the ACC, FSU has the means to get out of the ACC. Cal and Stanford accepting 30% of conference revenue and SMU accepting no revenue strengthens FSU's legal case. Those three schools are obviously not an improvement to the ACC, or else they would be getting full shares. They were only brought in to help the ACC avoid contract terms that are triggered if it falls below 15 members.

ESPN has to decide in February 2025 whether to end the ACC TV deal or extend it to 2036. The ACC has one year to prove it isn't going to be the next PAC-12. For all we know ESPN would rather have a Power 3 of superconferences and a decimated ACC that can only get G5-level TV money going forward.

Yes I'm sure ESPN wants to have the ACC destroyed so that it can lose valuable properties to FOX as well as lose thousands of hours worth of live programming.....

Easiest decision ESPN will ever make is to exercise the extension (especially at the current deal which is highly favorable to the network).  

[rcade]

10 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Nope.  All of this is pure saber rattling by FSU.  They know the financial implications of breaking the grant of rights and they're stuck for the next decade.  If I had to put odds on it they probably will be in the ACC through 2035.

You sound like the people who were convinced Texas and Oklahoma would never pay to bolt for the SEC.

When this all shakes out it won't be financially catastrophic for FSU to leave. It'll be much closer to the $50 million Texas and Oklahoma paid than the outlandish grant of rights penalty.

I can understand why an SMU fan would be in the bargaining stage of grief over the ACC. Of course the conference is going to stay intact until 2035! It has to because that's how long it'll be until your school gets full TV revenue! If it falls apart you will have paid a king's ransom to go from G5 TV revenue back to G5 TV revenue.

What's going on now between the ACC and FSU -- and by extension Clemson and North Carolina -- isn't actually a court case one side will win and one side will lose. It's a negotiation over the exit fee.

[rcade]

31 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Yes I'm sure ESPN wants to have the ACC destroyed so that it can lose valuable properties to FOX as well as lose thousands of hours worth of live programming.....

Has ESPN lost more programming than it has gained so far in realignment? It looks to me like the superconferences have enriched both ESPN and Fox Sports by putting the most valuable teams from other conferences into the Power 2. The teams with less value get shunted into worse TV deals.

[SMU2006]

13 minutes ago, rcade said:

You sound like the people who were convinced Texas and Oklahoma would never pay to bolt for the SEC.

When this all shakes out it won't be financially catastrophic for FSU to leave. It'll be much closer to the $50 million Texas and Oklahoma paid than the outlandish grant of rights penalty.

I can understand why an SMU fan would be in the bargaining stage of grief over the ACC. Of course the conference is going to stay intact until 2035! It has to because that's how long it'll be until your school gets full TV revenue! If it falls apart you will have paid a king's ransom to go from G5 TV revenue back to G5 TV revenue.

What's going on now between the ACC and FSU -- and by extension Clemson and North Carolina -- isn't actually a court case one side will win and one side will lose. It's a negotiation over the exit fee.

Texas and OU paid to leave to go to the SEC for a grand total of ONE YEAR prior to the existing Big 12 GoR in 2025.  One year. Those programs are also much more well-heeled than FSU.

So if it was a huge financial decision for Texas and OU to leave one year early what do you think the dollar figure will look like for FSU to leave 12 years early?

[SMU2006]

15 minutes ago, rcade said:

You sound like the people who were convinced Texas and Oklahoma would never pay to bolt for the SEC.

When this all shakes out it won't be financially catastrophic for FSU to leave. It'll be much closer to the $50 million Texas and Oklahoma paid than the outlandish grant of rights penalty.

I can understand why an SMU fan would be in the bargaining stage of grief over the ACC. Of course the conference is going to stay intact until 2035! It has to because that's how long it'll be until your school gets full TV revenue! If it falls apart you will have paid a king's ransom to go from G5 TV revenue back to G5 TV revenue.

What's going on now between the ACC and FSU -- and by extension Clemson and North Carolina -- isn't actually a court case one side will win and one side will lose. It's a negotiation over the exit fee.

So many logical errors here but I'll start with an easy one.  SMU (as well as CAL and Stanford) are already assured that if the league loses any current member institutions (even one) they become full members receiving a full revenue share.  Second, why do you think we haven't heard a peep from Clemson or UNC?  They know the game here too.  This is, in all likelihood, a multi-billion dollar decision.  It isn't just an exit fee as you incorrectly categorize it.  It is giving up the rights to your home games and conference TV revenue for 12 years.  That money automatically kicks back to the ACC.  

The ACC holds all the leverage in this situation.  FSU willingly signed the agreement (alongside very other ACC member) to grant their rights to the conference through 2036.  The document was written in such a way that it would be financially disastrous to try to break it.  

It is what it is Noles.  See ya in Ford Stadium next fall!

[Wag Tag]

24 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

So many logical errors here but I'll start with an easy one.  SMU (as well as CAL and Stanford) are already assured that if the league loses any current member institutions (even one) they become full members receiving a full revenue share.  Second, why do you think we haven't heard a peep from Clemson or UNC?  They know the game here too.  This is, in all likelihood, a multi-billion dollar decision.  It isn't just an exit fee as you incorrectly categorize it.  It is giving up the rights to your home games and conference TV revenue for 12 years.  That money automatically kicks back to the ACC.  

The ACC holds all the leverage in this situation.  FSU willingly signed the agreement (alongside very other ACC member) to grant their rights to the conference through 2036.  The document was written in such a way that it would be financially disastrous to try to break it.  

It is what it is Noles.  See ya in Ford Stadium next fall!

There is no doubt that the AAC value has been reduced, and maybe greatly, based on no invite. ESPN could care less on who is getting how much of a share. They only care about how many fans are watching. If the new model is to attract  the casual fan that has no relations with the school, then the 3 the ACC added is a step back. What is the responsibility legally that the ACC has to its members that has devalued the asset and their institutions. This to me could maybe be a basis. 

[rcade]

22 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Second, why do you think we haven't heard a peep from Clemson or UNC?

Because they can benefit from what FSU is doing without their participation. Until that changes they will keep their powder dry. The Florida attorney general has made a public records request to the ACC for all of its financial, business and membership records related to FSU, including the grant of rights agreement and all contracts and communications with ESPN. Given Florida sunshine laws that's likely to happen, and Clemson and UNC among others will be happy to see those documents.

Clemson, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia and Virginia Tech all met with FSU last spring to discuss breaking the grant of rights because of the growing TV revenue gap between the ACC and other conferences. These seven schools consider the current situation untenable.

As a fan I wish the PAC-12 had not been killed and ACC could remain intact, even with SMU as a kid-brother member. I've enjoyed a lot of ACC football living in Florida.

There are no examples of a top school in a Power conference declaring their desire to leave and not finding their way out within a few years.

[SMU2006]

7 minutes ago, rcade said:

Because they can benefit from what FSU is doing without their participation. Until that changes they will keep their powder dry. The Florida attorney general has made a public records request to the ACC for all of its financial, business and membership records related to FSU, including the grant of rights agreement and all contracts and communications with ESPN. Given Florida sunshine laws that's likely to happen, and Clemson and UNC among others will be happy to see those documents.

Clemson, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia and Virginia Tech all met with FSU last spring to discuss breaking the grant of rights because of the growing TV revenue gap between the ACC and other conferences. These seven schools consider the current situation untenable.

As a fan I wish the PAC-12 had not been killed and ACC could remain intact, even with SMU as a kid-brother member. I've enjoyed a lot of ACC football living in Florida.

There are no examples of a top school in a Power conference declaring their desire to leave and not finding their way out within a few years.

There is also no equivalent to the ACC grant of rights among the Power 5.  It was lauded at the time as being a historic achievement in conference stability.  No other conference has anything even close to the ACC's deal through 2036 with as many financially punitive ramifications for breaking it.

 

There is no comparison that even comes close.

[SMU2006]

14 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

There is no doubt that the AAC value has been reduced, and maybe greatly, based on no invite. ESPN could care less on who is getting how much of a share. They only care about how many fans are watching. If the new model is to attract  the casual fan that has no relations with the school, then the 3 the ACC added is a step back. What is the responsibility legally that the ACC has to its members that has devalued the asset and their institutions. This to me could maybe be a basis. 

LOL.  A super majority of members voted CAL/Stanford/SMU into the league.  Expansion also provides significantly more money for the legacy members in addition to the creation of a performance pool.

Have fun making that legal argument that the membership actively acted against its own interests.

Edited January 5 by SMU2006

[DentonLurker]

At the end of the day, if this turns into ACC vs. State of Florida, I'm putting my money on the State of Florida. My guess is this thing ends up settling for a lot less than the current buyout. Even Texas basically says you can't sue me. Look at what happened with Texas Tech and Mike Leach.

It's also worth noting that the P5 is history. I'll be surprised if the new "division" includes the likes of SMU. SMU will be right back in the "G5" like the rest of us.

[SMU2006]

2 minutes ago, DentonLurker said:

At the end of the day, if this turns into ACC vs. State of Florida, I'm putting my money on the State of Florida. My guess is this thing ends up settling for a lot less than the current buyout. Even Texas basically says you can't sue me. Look at what happened with Texas Tech and Mike Leach.

It's also worth noting that the P5 is history. I'll be surprised if the new "division" includes the likes of SMU. SMU will be right back in the "G5" like the rest of us.

The ACC suit in NC was filed first.  In almost every instance suit filed first takes precedent.  The FL case will die on the vine.  ACC has four member institutions in NC and is based in Charlotte.  FL case will be an afterthought.

[SMU2006]

3 minutes ago, DentonLurker said:

At the end of the day, if this turns into ACC vs. State of Florida, I'm putting my money on the State of Florida. My guess is this thing ends up settling for a lot less than the current buyout. Even Texas basically says you can't sue me. Look at what happened with Texas Tech and Mike Leach.

It's also worth noting that the P5 is history. I'll be surprised if the new "division" includes the likes of SMU. SMU will be right back in the "G5" like the rest of us.

The P5 is history yes.  Its really a P2 with the Big 12 and ACC a step below.  Ultimately there will be a separation by the members of these conferences from the G5.  It is inevitable. Rest of the conferences (including the AAC) will be siphoned off and will comprise the new Division 2.

[Wag Tag]

45 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

LOL.  A super majority of members voted CAL/Stanford/SMU into the league.  Expansion also provides significantly more money for the legacy members in addition to the creation of a performance pool.

Have fun making that legal argument that the membership actively acted against its own interests.

A lot can happen in discovery with emails and depositions. Was it presented knowing it would devalue and did the ACC lobby for the schools knowing it would devalue. I want to see the ACC keep their members, if not the trickle down effect will negatively impact the AAC. Both conferences just need to understand they will never get to play for a National Championship.

Edited January 5 by Wag Tag

[NT80]

3 hours ago, SMU2006 said:

Barring the Saudis trying to buy their way into college football by bank rolling FSU to the SEC/Big 10 you will see the Seminoles with an ACC patch on their uniforms for the next decade.

Kinda like $mut buying their way into the ACC?    FSU is not poor.

[NT80]

34 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

LOL.  A super majority of members voted CAL/Stanford/SMU into the league.  Expansion also provides significantly more money for the legacy members in addition to the creation of a performance pool.

Have fun making that legal argument that the membership actively acted against its own interests.

You wouldn't be here debating it if you didn't have concerns.  FSU is soon gone.  Then Clemson, UNC, etc....

[untphd]

50 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

The P5 is history yes.  Its really a P2 with the Big 12 and ACC a step below.  Ultimately there will be a separation by the members of these conferences from the G5.  It is inevitable. Rest of the conferences (including the AAC) will be siphoned off and will comprise the new Division 2.

Man , one post,, two posts and on and on and on. Richard Crainium keeps coming back.