Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

crazedstatw

Member
Aug 6, 2016
16
92
13
41
Lawyer here: I’ve read the FSU and Clemson complaints.

FSU’s complaint was crap and a fair judge would reject their case. Florida courts might rule in FSU’s favor anyway, but keep in mind ACC filed a case first against FSU on ACC’s home turf. If FSU wins in Florida but loses in case on ACC’s turf it probably doesn’t get FSU the legal clarity they need to join another conference.

Clemson’s complaint is pretty good and I think their case has a legit shot in any court. The issues are the same for both FSU and Clemson; but Clemson’s lawyers, unlike FSU’s lawyers, are good. Crucially, Clemson’s lawyers build an argument for why the grant of rights does not extend past the end of their conference membership based on the actual TEXT of the relevant contracts, which is by FAR the most important factor in any breach of contract case. Maybe FSU made the same or similar argument, but I don‘t think they did, and if they did it wasn’t clear, which is pretty much the same as not making the argument at all. Also, Clemson’s lawyers have successfully kept Clemson administrators from running their mouths stupidly outside court, unlike FSU trustees and others. That’s also helped Clemson’s case. Clemson looks like the victim here, not the villain.

Read Clemson’s complaint for yourself.
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,634
7,486
113
Lawyer here: I’ve read the FSU and Clemson complaints.

FSU’s complaint was crap and a fair judge would reject their case. Florida courts might rule in FSU’s favor anyway, but keep in mind ACC filed a case first against FSU on ACC’s home turf. If FSU wins in Florida but loses in case on ACC’s turf it probably doesn’t get FSU the legal clarity they need to join another conference.

Clemson’s complaint is pretty good and I think their case has a legit shot in any court. The issues are the same for both FSU and Clemson; but Clemson’s lawyers, unlike FSU’s lawyers, are good. Crucially, Clemson’s lawyers build an argument for why the grant of rights does not extend past the end of their conference membership based on the actual TEXT of the relevant contracts, which is by FAR the most important factor in any breach of contract case. Maybe FSU made the same or similar argument, but I don‘t think they did, and if they did it wasn’t clear, which is pretty much the same as not making the argument at all. Also, Clemson’s lawyers have successfully kept Clemson administrators from running their mouths stupidly outside court, unlike FSU trustees and others. That’s also helped Clemson’s case. Clemson looks like the victim here, not the villain.

Read Clemson’s complaint for yourself.
Did you read the part in FSUs suit that said they changed the GoR to give ESPN an out in 2025 but everyone else was still signed until the mid 2030s? This is what everyone is reporting about. I would think that would be a major issue. Supposedly they never voted or agreed to this change. But even so I would think that giving one side an opt out of a contract, it would work both ways.
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
26,793
24,889
113
Did you read the part in FSUs suit that said they changed the GoR to give ESPN an out in 2025 but everyone else was still signed until the mid 2030s? This is what everyone is reporting about. I would think that would be a major issue. Supposedly they never voted or agreed to this change. But even so I would think that giving one side an opt out of a contract, it would work both ways.

I would think that would be based on whether the GOR was signed at the beginning of the exploratory process or if it was signed based solely on the offer from ESPN. Essentially, did FSU and Clemson give their rights to the conference to explore TV partners, or did they grant those rights to the conference to close the ESPN deal.

But, the real interesting point to me is the lengths that the ACC has gone to keep this contract from public view. I can’t imagine courts having a favorable view of public institutions being in contracts that are secret to even the current members of the institution.
 

HouClone

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2011
2,818
2,188
113
Houston
I am generally torn. Having a decent ACC will help in the power struggle against the Big 10 and SEC. With ACC out of the way, the Big 10 and SEC will just consider the Big 12 as a speck of dirt to fling off eventually.
Plus, if the ACC brands leave, the gap to the Big 10 and SEC would get even larger, if that is possible.

Saying the above, if the ACC brands stay intact, and they are able to renegotiate their ESPN contract to a better deal than they have now, they are going to be in the poach mode looking at the Big 12. Thus, I say we get what we can and want from the ACC leftovers and let the chips fall.

From reading some of the potential ACC leftover forums (Pittsburgh, VA Tech, Syracuse, Louisville), the vast majority aren't pleased one bit of potentially going to the Big 12. It isn't nearly as bad as the Utah backlash though.
 

crazedstatw

Member
Aug 6, 2016
16
92
13
41
Did you read the part in FSUs suit that said they changed the GoR to give ESPN an out in 2025 but everyone else was still signed until the mid 2030s? This is what everyone is reporting about. I would think that would be a major issue. Supposedly they never voted or agreed to this change. But even so I would think that giving one side an opt out of a contract, it would work both ways.
Yeah, my response to that is so what. To be clear, it wasn’t the GoR that changed, it was the ESPN-ACC contract. Contracts provide 1 sided termination rights all the time. And even if FSU never voted on the new contract, a member vote is probably not required under ACC governance rules, which FSU did agree to accept. Plus, FSU never objected at the time the ACC signed the new contract and subsequently ratified the contract by accepting its benefits.
 

crazedstatw

Member
Aug 6, 2016
16
92
13
41
One other thing: if ESPN actually exercises the 2025 termination right, all bets are off. I am not commenting on what anyone’s rights would be in that scenario. But ESPN won’t. They’ve locked up ACC content until 2036 at below market rates.
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
26,793
24,889
113
I am generally torn. Having a decent ACC will help in the power struggle against the Big 10 and SEC. With ACC out of the way, the Big 10 and SEC will just consider the Big 12 as a speck of dirt to fling off eventually.
Plus, if the ACC brands leave, the gap to the Big 10 and SEC would get even larger, if that is possible.

Saying the above, if the ACC brands stay intact, and they are able to renegotiate their ESPN contract to a better deal than they have now, they are going to be in the poach mode looking at the Big 12. Thus, I say we get what we can and want from the ACC leftovers and let the chips fall.

From reading some of the potential ACC leftover forums (Pittsburgh, VA Tech, Syracuse, Louisville), the vast majority aren't pleased one bit of potentially going to the Big 12. It isn't nearly as bad as the Utah backlash though.

Rather than absorbing the ACC leftovers, I think we would be better off spinning off the Eastern Big12 teams to the ACC to keep them solvent. Merge the conferences in terms of administration and under one TV deal but keep them separate in terms of competition.

But I’m not sure what to do with the new additions to the ACC. They don’t seem to belong.
 

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
9,131
7,731
113
Dubuque
100%. It’s just hard to argue that a contract represented by thousands of billable hours of lawyers and multiple law firms, is unlawful. If GOR contracts are unlawful, then what happens to the others that are in use. They are the only thing truly binding these conferences together.
A lot of media sources are now claiming that ESPN can void their deal with the ACC much earlier than 2036. I have read as early as 2027.

Could this be part of Clemson and FSU's lawsuit? When they signed the GOR extension, did the ACC notify them of ESPN's exit clause.

Or is FSU and Clemson's posturing designed to encourage ESPN to opt out of their GOR deal.

Also, it would be interesting to know ESPN's operating expenses to run the ACCN outside media rights fees. Would ESPN save money by absorbing desirable into their SECN or ESPN+ (Big12) platforms.

Especially, if ACC schools will follow Oregon & Washington's lead and be willing to join the SEC at a deep discount until the next SEC media rights deal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MugNight

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
9,131
7,731
113
Dubuque
Rather than absorbing the ACC leftovers, I think we would be better off spinning off the Eastern Big12 teams to the ACC to keep them solvent. Merge the conferences in terms of administration and under one TV deal but keep them separate in terms of competition.

But I’m not sure what to do with the new additions to the ACC. They don’t seem to belong.
I feel like bigger is better for the Big12. Especially if we see the Big10 and SEC expand to 20+ teams.

Hopefully, a bigger Big12 will mean more teams in a 12 or 14 team CFP and allow the Big12 to prove on the field we are the Big10/SEC's peer in CFB. And maybe their better in MBB/WBB.
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
26,793
24,889
113
I feel like bigger is better for the Big12. Especially if we see the Big10 and SEC expand to 20+ teams.

Hopefully, a bigger Big12 will mean more teams in a 12 or 14 team CFP and allow the Big12 to prove on the field we are the Big10/SEC's peer in CFB. And maybe their better in MBB/WBB.

I guess what I’m thinking would be a combined administration but keep the separate conferences in name. This is partially because I find a 14 or 16 member conference too big. So we can get 24 or so members divided among the Big12 and ACC with geographic sense. One commissioner, one TV deal, but separate voting rights for CFP. Interleague play contracts for football and basketball.

The benefit for this over one large league is the separate champions for playoff and tournament qualifiers. And a 12 team league based on geography makes scheduling and travel easier.
 

SolterraCyclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
2,397
3,307
113
38
I am generally torn. Having a decent ACC will help in the power struggle against the Big 10 and SEC. With ACC out of the way, the Big 10 and SEC will just consider the Big 12 as a speck of dirt to fling off eventually.
Plus, if the ACC brands leave, the gap to the Big 10 and SEC would get even larger, if that is possible.

Saying the above, if the ACC brands stay intact, and they are able to renegotiate their ESPN contract to a better deal than they have now, they are going to be in the poach mode looking at the Big 12. Thus, I say we get what we can and want from the ACC leftovers and let the chips fall.

From reading some of the potential ACC leftover forums (Pittsburgh, VA Tech, Syracuse, Louisville), the vast majority aren't pleased one bit of potentially going to the Big 12. It isn't nearly as bad as the Utah backlash though.
The ACC leftovers aren’t happy because they’re not quite at the end game yet.

As the Big East was imploding in 2003, not a single Big 12 fan would have thought, I’d like to be in a conference with Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston. But when death knocked at our door, hell yeah we wanted them.

Oregon St/Wazzu fans probably didn’t want to go to the Big 12 in summer of 2021, but they’d jump in a heartbeat now. Those ACC leftovers will be plenty happy to join the Big 12 when the other option is Wazzu/OSU, once the time comes.
 

HouClone

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2011
2,818
2,188
113
Houston
If Clemson is able to get out of their GOR based on their arguments, is there a risk with anybody trying to get out of the Big 12 GOR? FSU's GOR arguments were different, but Clemson is basically saying the GOR is too strict legally.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,611
10,101
113
38
M
If Clemson is able to get out of their GOR based on their arguments, is there a risk with anybody trying to get out of the Big 12 GOR? FSU's GOR arguments were different, but Clemson is basically saying the GOR is too strict legally.
Thats why this isn’t going anywhere, backing out of a contract your signed because years later it’s too strict isn’t gonna play out well in court. Then there will be a long appeals process regardless of what happens and probably counter lawsuits.

Also I would really hope that Clemson and FSU are positive they have invites coming, I know the big ten presidents won’t take FSU with all their state issues and Clemson is trending downward fast.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,793
6,989
113
63
M

Thats why this isn’t going anywhere, backing out of a contract your signed because years later it’s too strict isn’t gonna play out well in court. Then there will be a long appeals process regardless of what happens and probably counter lawsuits.

Also I would really hope that Clemson and FSU are positive they have invites coming, I know the big ten presidents won’t take FSU with all their state issues and Clemson is trending downward fast.
The B10 will want to get into the Florida market, if they bulk at FSU then they will want Miami, so they will be taking a school from Florida. Same for taking Clemson and getting into the state of S. Carolina, they want to be able to charge both of the those states the higher fees to receive BTN than what they can charge now.

Neither school is the league's first choice, I still believe the B10 want UNC and UV, but if they take four, FSU/Miami and Clemson will be on the table. The question is for both schools if they can get out of the GOR do they want the SEC and the more regional games or going cross country with the B10?
 

HouClone

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2011
2,818
2,188
113
Houston
Clemson and FSU are obviously hoping for a SEC / Big 10 invite if they are successful. If not, their next option is to keep the ACC intact but to renegotiate the contract. That would be bad for the Big 12 as they would then start to poach and weaken the Big 12. Last option, one they likely think is their nuclear one, is to join the Big 12. We probably would take them even if a rental.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,611
10,101
113
38
The B10 will want to get into the Florida market, if they bulk at FSU then they will want Miami, so they will be taking a school from Florida. Same for taking Clemson and getting into the state of S. Carolina, they want to be able to charge both of the those states the higher fees to receive BTN than what they can charge now.

Neither school is the league's first choice, I still believe the B10 want UNC and UV, but if they take four, FSU/Miami and Clemson will be on the table. The question is for both schools if they can get out of the GOR do they want the SEC and the more regional games or going cross country with the B10?
It’s also possible that both conferences say no to expansion, not extremely likely because the big ten does want UNC but the schools leading the charge don’t have a guaranteed landing spot. If this takes a couple years the big ten might be so annoyed with the real life travel implications that they don’t want to add Florida. Clemson has never really been a strong contender for the big ten.
 

exCyDing

Well-Known Member
Nov 29, 2017
5,608
10,102
113
If Clemson is able to get out of their GOR based on their arguments, is there a risk with anybody trying to get out of the Big 12 GOR? FSU's GOR arguments were different, but Clemson is basically saying the GOR is too strict legally.
Nobody’s going to try to get out if the B12 unless they have somewhere to go. Last round of realignment made it pretty clear the B10 and SEC probably aren’t options, who would jump to the ACC right now, and everything else is what we’re all trying to avoid.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,793
6,989
113
63
It’s also possible that both conferences say no to expansion, not extremely likely because the big ten does want UNC but the schools leading the charge don’t have a guaranteed landing spot. If this takes a couple years the big ten might be so annoyed with the real life travel implications that they don’t want to add Florida. Clemson has never really been a strong contender for the big ten.
The B10 like they have repeatedly done in the past is working from the shadows, letting Clemson and FSU take the heat and then if they get free come swoping in the pick over the carcass of the ACC.

I would bet they and the SEC have already agreed which schools are going to which conference if the GOR of the ACC can be broken.
 
  • Creative
Reactions: FriendlySpartan

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
9,131
7,731
113
Dubuque
I guess what I’m thinking would be a combined administration but keep the separate conferences in name. This is partially because I find a 14 or 16 member conference too big. So we can get 24 or so members divided among the Big12 and ACC with geographic sense. One commissioner, one TV deal, but separate voting rights for CFP. Interleague play contracts for football and basketball.

The benefit for this over one large league is the separate champions for playoff and tournament qualifiers. And a 12 team league based on geography makes scheduling and travel easier.
I agree that conferences are becoming too large. And having 1 champion is limiting in football and hoops.

I feel these behemoth Conferences will revert to divisions based predominately on geography. Being one of the 3 or 4 division champs within a conference is nice bragging rights. But the prestige games will be in the football playoffs, just like March Madness.
 

ISU_Guy

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2021
5,107
4,093
113
47
Des Moines
These teams are going to remember how fun it was to actually win a league with 10-14 teams in it. you get close to a true champion. Now they will win the league if they are lucky once in a blue moon. so maybe the new division champs will be the new conference champs norm.

I think a world where Notre Dame and the top few teams from the ACC end up in the BIG and SEC is going to mean serious trouble for us.

what would be very bad is if they take the top teams from the ACC/ND and then a couple years later start their own league and subtract the non power teams. but i also don't see the BIG removing 10 of their schools, which is going to make this a joke if Rutgers,NW, Maryland, etc is in the P2 separate league.

so to conclude they are nothing but money whores. i can tell you that there are going to be a lot regrets with this as time goes by. The pac 12 is really going to feel it next year when this conference is trashed.

there is going to be a lot of books written about this time we are in 50-100 years ago when the internet, AI and conference realignment changed everything moving forward...lol
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron