NCAA reorg imminent

[Farfromgeneva]

Latest from ESPN's Pete Thamel (who is pretty reliable on this stuff):

Sources: The Big Ten’s presidents met early Thursday morning and authorized Commissioner Tony Petitti to explore expansion and bring them back more information on Oregon and Washington as potential Big Ten members.

Hmm.

No mention of FSU. Or Clemson. Or any other ACC school. What????

Didn't Doc assure us that lawyers for the Mag 7 could shred the ACC GOR? Why would the Magnificents just stand by while other freely hop on the gravy train. I mean, why stay when you are (according to Doc) free to leave?

Like the broken clock, Doc will eventually be right about this. That day is still years away.

Getting inside ten years remaining is probably the magic number for people to start acting which is like 3 more years.

[DocBarrister]

Latest from ESPN's Pete Thamel (who is pretty reliable on this stuff):

Sources: The Big Ten’s presidents met early Thursday morning and authorized Commissioner Tony Petitti to explore expansion and bring them back more information on Oregon and Washington as potential Big Ten members.

Hmm.

No mention of FSU. Or Clemson. Or any other ACC school. What????

Didn't Doc assure us that lawyers for the Mag 7 could shred the ACC GOR? Why would the Magnificents just stand by while other freely hop on the gravy train. I mean, why stay when you are (according to Doc) free to leave?

Like the broken clock, Doc will eventually be right about this. That day is still years away.

Please … you’re making stuff up about my past statements. Just stop the nonsense.

Some here claim the GOR was unbreakable. That remains completely untested in a court of law. FSU, at least, seems willing to test the GOR.

If you have an issue with the “Magnificent Seven,” take it up with them. Interestingly, the AD of one of the Seven (UNC) was highly critical today of FSU, saying FSU could pay the exit fee and abide by the GOR if they wanted to leave … echoing what many of you have said here.

But the most important comment of the UNC AD? He refused to rule out the possibility of UNC, a founding member, leaving the ACC. Quite telling of his real thoughts on the viability of the ACC:

Cunningham pointed to last year's nine national championships when calling the ACC an "outstanding league." He also asserted that maintaining multiple competitive power conferences is better for college sports.

However, Cunningham cited "too many hypotheticals" when asked if North Carolina would stay in the ACC as long as the conference exists.

https://thespun.com/.amp/more/top-stori ... of-leaving

Any of you who believe the ACC can simply maintain the status quo until 2036 … well, you’re delusional.

DocBarrister

[Farfromgeneva]

Nobody believes or has made the argument the ACC will stand pat and be all good. No one. It’s like some people are arguing with themselves. It’s all the conjecture, speculation and assumption fo facts that don’t exist as underpinning entire arguments that are being challenged.

[pcowlax]

This sounds about right. FSU is free to leave…for $120 million and loss of rights until 2036. Not liking a deal you signed is neither a moral nor legal reason to be released from it. Agree with others, as the years go by, the cost to buy out of GOR will fall and that will have to be their path forward if they want out. And the others schools getting left behind will try to make it as financially painful as possible.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... -president

[Essexfenwick]

This sounds about right. FSU is free to leave…for $120 million and loss of rights until 2036. Not liking a deal you signed is neither a moral nor legal reason to be released from it. Agree with others, as the years go by, the cost to buy out of GOR will fall and that will have to be their path forward if they want out. And the others schools getting left behind will try to make it as financially painful as possible.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... -president

FSU has no place to go. The B1G and SEC don’t want or need to be involved in the legal drama or let their members have freedom to ignore their contract. FSU signed a contract and have no landing spot. Their childishness is hilarious.

[wgdsr]

arizona was supposedly voted on by the big 12 today, they may be in the league already.
wash and oregon have already been fiscally vetted by the b1g (again), quickly likely because they already have been.

after that, it's corner schools utah and asu to the big 12, and the pac is down to 4 squads.

edit to add: both usc and oregon (pro-forma) give the b1g 2 more womens's lax teams. not probable but possible that being attached to a league means d1 men's lacrosse takes a bump in maybe happening down the line at those spots.

[ggait]

Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, ASU, Utah. That's a lot of schools moving.

FSU? Crickets.

Clemson? Crickets.

Magnificent 7? Crickets.

Maybe that ACC GOR is a wee bit stronger/longer than Doc maintains? Just a thought.

[Essexfenwick]

Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, ASU, Utah. That's a lot of schools moving.

FSU? Crickets.

Clemson? Crickets.

Magnificent 7? Crickets.

Maybe that ACC GOR is a wee bit stronger/longer than Doc maintains? Just a thought.

The “Magnificent 7” is hilarious. Like a Ollies Bargain Outlet calling itself “Armani’s Sumptuous Opulent Boutique”

[steel_hop]

I get it … you want the ACC to stay intact. There’s probably an emotional component to that since you are an ACC fan.

Why do you seem to want to blow it up? Most people don't really seem to care beyond proving you don't know what you are talking about (like most lax things). But you really seem to have a hard on for the ACC blowing up. Why do you care that much to the point you have probably 50% of the posts on this topic of 35+ pages of NCAA reorganization.

[Farfromgeneva]

I get it … you want the ACC to stay intact. There’s probably an emotional component to that since you are an ACC fan.

Why do you seem to want to blow it up? Most people don't really seem to care beyond proving you don't know what you are talking about (like most lax things). But you really seem to have a hard on for the ACC blowing up. Why do you care that much to the point you have probably 50% of the posts on this topic of 35+ pages of NCAA reorganization.

Insecurities about Hops position in D1 lacrosse as the college Athletics landscape changes is my guess.

[viho]

I get it … you want the ACC to stay intact. There’s probably an emotional component to that since you are an ACC fan.

Why do you seem to want to blow it up? Most people don't really seem to care beyond proving you don't know what you are talking about (like most lax things). But you really seem to have a hard on for the ACC blowing up. Why do you care that much to the point you have probably 50% of the posts on this topic of 35+ pages of NCAA reorganization.

I like what the ACC list of members have to offer. The league has itself to blame for subpar performance in basketball and football but that can change. Stay the course, double down and the ACC can thrive.

[wgdsr]

seminoles tapping jpm and sixth street to find cash:
https://www.sportico.com/business/finan ... 234733152/

[Farfromgeneva]

seminoles tapping jpm and sixth street to find cash:
https://www.sportico.com/business/finan ... 234733152/

Sixth Street would be the investor-basically a royalty deal which had been popular in the music industry w low rates the last decade as well as changes in music distribution. Challenge is the discount rate is 2-3x what it would’ve been a few years back and they'd only tally value potential cash flows in the next 20-25yrs (even Macquarie did that when they invested in the Chicago SkyWay bridge PPIP back in the mid 2000s). So even discounting $125mm/yr would bring them what? $1bn or so. They’d have to pay off all debts involving infrastructure and pay rent for facilities to the university. There’s a way to get any deal done but they may not like the costs and consequences of such a deal and it would be an abrogation of the trustees to sell it off unless they sold 100% of it and became simply a host. But then that dilutes the brand value unless you believe the PLL model would work for college football eventually.

[steel_hop]

(even Macquarie did that when they invested in the Chicago SkyWay bridge PPIP back in the mid 2000s).

Which is a huge financial boondoogle. It was paid off in less than a decade and no, I believe the PIF owns it for the next 60ish years. Anyone with half a brain (well we are talking about FSU trustees) can see this would be an awful deal. But, I guess the old let's cut off our nose to spite our face is playing out right now.

Though if PE gets involved, you can be sure they will start cutting to the bone. The days of 8 layers of administration in the AD department will be long gone.

[DocBarrister]

Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, ASU, Utah. That's a lot of schools moving.

FSU? Crickets.

Clemson? Crickets.

Magnificent 7? Crickets.

Maybe that ACC GOR is a wee bit stronger/longer than Doc maintains? Just a thought.

The GOR is not going to keep the ACC together. That’s a pretty lousy basis for keeping a conference together in any case. I know some of you are fans of certain ACC schools (like Syracuse) and are afraid of what might happen to your favorite schools if the ACC collapses. Your personal attacks against me are really a reflection of that fear. I get it.

But that doesn’t change the reality that the ACC is in serious trouble.

A number of articles have discussed various ways around the GOR, including a direct challenge on enforceability to dissolution of the ACC altogether under North Carolina law for nonprofit organizations (some interpret North Carolina law requiring just a majority vote to dissolve the ACC).

But the question remains … why advocate for the continued existence of an athletic conference if the only thing keeping it together is a GOR?

Lawsuits may eventually be filed by the ACC and its various members, but I think eventually there will be a negotiated settlement that will allow members to leave without having to pay the full onerous price required under the current agreement.

Whether the ACC itself survives is another matter entirely. If the ACC does what some of you here advocate and tries to stick with the GOR, then I think the ACC is doomed. The Big12 is an exemplar of a conference that is transforming itself aggressively to survive. The ACC? Not so much.

I was heartened to read the rumors yesterday that the ACC is at least exploring a merger with PAC-12 schools. Not sure if those rumors are accurate (they probably are not), but I certainly support the idea.

You see, I want the ACC to survive, too. But just because I want to see the ACC survive doesn’t mean I am in denial about the conference’s dire situation. Commissioner Phillips is, as I have frequently said, an upstanding guy. But he’s more of a tinkerer and manager than a leader with a bold vision for the ACC. His recent proposals to enhance the ACC’s revenue (improved production quality by ESPN, hiring a new PR firm, etc.) were pathetic. I hope Phillips is indeed exploring big ideas like a merger with remnants of the PAC-12, but I am dubious considering his actions to date.

While some of you pathetically cling to the GOR like some sort of life raft, Commissioner Phillips had better not be doing the same.

Those of us who are not in denial and want to see the ACC survive (and thrive) know that something bolder is needed than a GOR and the mutually-assured-destruction pact that is the current media agreement with ESPN.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

I get it … you want the ACC to stay intact. There’s probably an emotional component to that since you are an ACC fan.

Why do you seem to want to blow it up? Most people don't really seem to care beyond proving you don't know what you are talking about (like most lax things). But you really seem to have a hard on for the ACC blowing up. Why do you care that much to the point you have probably 50% of the posts on this topic of 35+ pages of NCAA reorganization.

Insecurities about Hops position in D1 lacrosse as the college Athletics landscape changes is my guess.

Johns Hopkins doesn’t need $75 million a year to fund a major football program. Hopkins has its own deal with ESPN and is part of B1G lacrosse. Hopkins is like Notre Dame in football … a relatively large national fan base that, frankly, most Division I lacrosse programs lack.

Doesn’t mean all the turbulence won’t impact the program. Just means Hopkins has less exposure than many of its Division I rivals.

DocBarrister

[ggait]

I don’t come here to express a hope that the acc stays together.

I only come here to point out over and over how wrong doc consistently is. I can’t help myself.

PAC 12 not quite dead yet. Part of the stay pitch is some kind of alliance with the ACC according to reports today.

[wgdsr]

(even Macquarie did that when they invested in the Chicago SkyWay bridge PPIP back in the mid 2000s).

Which is a huge financial boondoogle. It was paid off in less than a decade and no, I believe the PIF owns it for the next 60ish years. Anyone with half a brain (well we are talking about FSU trustees) can see this would be an awful deal. But, I guess the old let's cut off our nose to spite our face is playing out right now.

Though if PE gets involved, you can be sure they will start cutting to the bone. The days of 8 layers of administration in the AD department will be long gone.

bringing in a middleman to share rev/profit or even a monster loan to pay interest (i wouldn't put it past fsu to raid their endowment kitty, but i understand it may be < $1b) vs. financial sharks doesn't seem wise from the outside, but it's fsu and they are panicking. or so it seems.

miami pretty quiet. maybe fsu should try (they won't) tapping a couple whales harder a la the hurricanes.
or... go to fla legislature and bump student fees a grand +.
or... put a better product consistently on the field and fill the stadium. maybe pull in somma that cfp $$ (which i believe is gonna be much larger than people realize).

or... blackmail the league and don't take responsibility for one's own actions. get on with it already and pull out, let's see hoo has the best white shoes.

[DocBarrister]

I cannot believe this is true. Failing to include a choice-of-law provision in the ACC’s GOR is a junior associate-level mistake. Practically legal malpractice. Just cannot believe this is the case.

If true, this means: 1) FSU can file a lawsuit in Florida state court to challenge the enforceability of the GOR and exit fee under Florida state law; 2) DeSantis’s Florida legislature can pass a law that would immunize FSU (a public Florida state institution) from any liability from a breach of the GOR and exit fee; and 3) FSU could then simply leave the ACC without paying a dime.

Report: Path exists for Florida State ACC exit due to omission in Grant of Rights

As Florida State keeps clamoring for more money and has now signaled their desire to leave the Atlantic Coast Conference if possible, a question remains if they can get out of the conference Grant of Rights, long deemed close to unbreakable. However, high-profile sports lawyer Tom Mars proposed a radical, scorched-earth option for the Seminoles.

Mars tweeted on Friday that the ACC Grant of Rights does not contain a “choice of law” provision, which would theoretically allow Florida law to apply to a dispute over Florida State. A “choice of law” provision would normally spell out the jurisdiction for legal disputes and which state laws governing a contract among multiple parties in different jurisdictions — they’re a fairly common provision.

Without that governing provision, the Florida state legislature could get involved in a matter before the Florida courts and shield the school from liability.

“Assuming Florida law would apply to a dispute with FSU, the Florida legislature could arguably do what Texas did to Mike Leach and make FSU immune from liability for breach of contract,” Mars said.

https://www.on3.com/college/florida-sta ... of-rights/

One of the reasons that a suit filed by FSU could be transferred out of a Florida state or federal court is a choice of forum provision that specifies where any disputes are adjudicated. I was also curious whether there was any mandatory arbitration clause. Those types of contract terms can be challenged of course. I also thought there at least would be a choice of law provision that would specify which state’s law applied to the contract(s) (no matter where the lawsuit forum actually was). This article suggests that neither forum nor choice of law were specified in the GOR.

Again, I have a hard time believing this report to be true because it would be such a bad, amateurish mistake.

However, if it is true, then I can understand why FSU would have no concern about the GOR (and maybe exit fee). Friendly legislators in Florida can simply immunize FSU from liability and the Seminoles could leave the ACC without paying a dime.

DocBarrister

[wgdsr]

I cannot believe this is true. Failing to include a choice-of-law provision in the ACC’s GOR is a junior associate-level mistake. Practically legal malpractice. Just cannot believe this is the case.

If true, this means: 1) FSU can file a lawsuit in Florida state court to challenge the enforceability of the GOR and exit fee under Florida state law; 2) DeSantis’s Florida legislature can pass a law that would immunize FSU (a public Florida state institution) from any liability from a breach of the GOR and exit fee; and 3) FSU could then simply leave the ACC without paying a dime.

Report: Path exists for Florida State ACC exit due to omission in Grant of Rights

As Florida State keeps clamoring for more money and has now signaled their desire to leave the Atlantic Coast Conference if possible, a question remains if they can get out of the conference Grant of Rights, long deemed close to unbreakable. However, high-profile sports lawyer Tom Mars proposed a radical, scorched-earth option for the Seminoles.

Mars tweeted on Friday that the ACC Grant of Rights does not contain a “choice of law” provision, which would theoretically allow Florida law to apply to a dispute over Florida State. A “choice of law” provision would normally spell out the jurisdiction for legal disputes and which state laws governing a contract among multiple parties in different jurisdictions — they’re a fairly common provision.

Without that governing provision, the Florida state legislature could get involved in a matter before the Florida courts and shield the school from liability.

“Assuming Florida law would apply to a dispute with FSU, the Florida legislature could arguably do what Texas did to Mike Leach and make FSU immune from liability for breach of contract,” Mars said.

https://www.on3.com/college/florida-sta ... of-rights/

One of the reasons that a suit filed by FSU could be transferred out of a Florida state or federal court is a choice of forum provision that specifies where any disputes are adjudicated. I was also curious whether there was any mandatory arbitration clause. Those types of contract terms can be challenged of course. I also thought there at least would be a choice of law provision that would specify which state’s law applied to the contract(s) (no matter where the lawsuit forum actually was). This article suggests that neither forum nor choice of law were specified in the GOR.

Again, I have a hard time believing this report to be true because it would be such a bad, amateurish mistake.

However, if it is true, then I can understand why FSU would have no concern about the GOR (and maybe exit fee). Friendly legislators in Florida can simply immunize FSU from liability and the Seminoles could leave the ACC without paying a dime.

DocBarrister

for the 1st time in awhile, i agree with you. i don't believe it either.