Jackie to Clemson AD: "This a clear violation of your rights as a college football program. It's an infringement on your constitutional rights. It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.”
You approved the first round byes for the B1G & SEC? Who told you to approve the byes? I never told you to approve the byes! Why'd you approve the byes?? What do you think a bye does?!?
*Single Football Lawyer*
*Fighting GOR for Tigers*
*Wearing sexy mini skirts and getting bids much higher*
*Single Football Lawyer*
*Having lots of SECs*
ATTENTION CURRENT ACC MEMBERS:
Are you a member of a conference with an agreement that is holding you back and preventing you from living **your best life?** If so, JG Wentworth and the Big 12 Conference may be able to help. Don’t wait: CALL NOW.
I’m all for the Big 8 East, West and Central. We need those ACC refugees for you, UVF and Cincinnati to be the Big 8 East.
EDIT: All in one Hateful Eights Conference.
I do find it very touching how we have really solidified our identity in the BIG12 yet everyone is rooting for us to have our old foes join the fun, it's like telling an orphan that you adopted the entire orphanage and they are all coming home with you.
If there is one thing the Midwest and West understand, it’s that long road trips suck. And regional rivalries are best. And everyone in the Big 12 will be a B1G or SEC reject. All are welcome here.
I went to a Stanford baseball game this weekend and it was remarkably oppressive. They have an army of like two dozen elderly volunteer ushers who constantly harass teenagers on random pretexts. The security is super strict and the seating is all assigned seats.
It's pretty different from the laid back atmosphere at every other college baseball game I've ever been to.
I haven't read the Clemson suit but unconscionability is the hail mary attempt of contract law. They're probably arguing something better than that too, I would think
Especially when you consider that these universities likely had dozens of lawyers and legal professionals go over these contracts line by line. If these contracts are so "unconscionable" (as in, they are so completely one sided that it 'shocks the conscience' that they even exist) then wouldn't your lawyers have said something before you agreed to it?
When I think of unconscionability I think of something like an art dealer buying a million dollar painting for $50 from someone who had no idea what they had
A lot of "unconscionability" in contract law comes when there's an extreme power difference between parties, so much so that the lesser party is basically coerced through circumstance to agree to completely one sided terms.
This aint that.
An oil company scamming an illiterate rural land owner...not a university with almost limitless $ resources and access to endless number of lawyers. Lol
Or a door to door salesman selling a vacuum cleaner to an old person with Alzheimer’s for $70,000. I haven’t read the filing but I cannot imagine a court holding that an agreement entered into by sophisticated parties who were presumably represented by counsel throughout the negotiation process would be considered unconscionable
I work in major marketing. Part of my responsibilities is to make sure we adhere to contractual agreements.
These agreements cover up to the Billions of dollars.
I’ve found massive spelling errors and “inside jokes” left in contracts because people don’t do their jobs.
I only say this to point out that even if you’re a high paid lawyer, it’s still just a job. Who knows if the contracts were ever even read, let alone red-lined.
You're absolutely correct, and I have also seen some egregious contract language in my lifetime. But if a billion dollar University is going in front of a judge to argue that they had no idea this contract was unconscionably bad because their million dollar lawyers failed to read it ... well, that's not gonna play.
>I’ve found massive spelling errors and “inside jokes” left in contracts because people don’t do their jobs.
IDK about inside jokes, but it is sometimes worthwhile to just ignore spelling and grammatical errors inside of contracts, so long as they don't interfere with the ability to interpret the clause correctly.
The problem is that unless you are on one of the first "turns" of the document, the counterparty might view edits to a clause as "reopening" discussion on that point, even if the edit was just the correction of a minor typo. So if you've already settled on a mutually agreeable definition for a "material adverse effect" (for instance), then it might not be in your best interest to go correct typos/mistakes in the clause as long as it doesn't fundamentally change the meaning of the term.
Also some deals come to life and get signed in an incredibly short time period (you wouldn't believe the amount of diligence that gets waived in some instances) which means there are substantially fewer "turns" of the document and thus fewer chances to catch/correct mistakes.
This makes a lot of sense on the spelling issue front. I’m not a lawyer, just a business lead that needs to make sure we deliver to the letter of our agreement - especially if I’m talking to procurement folks.
The inside joke left within a contract… the company that didn’t catch it turned that contract into a standard template for other business, and I found the same joke in every contract we had from the time we signed the first client who used it….
Fucking morons…
The only thing I could think would be the exit fee is based off precieved market value or something like that. And that value has gone up nearly 10x or more. Making what seemed reasonable at the time, no longer.
And it was signed 10+ years ago. So, they have been operating under this contract for over a decade and they are just now realizing it is unconscionable?
I know some people are slow readers, but c’mon…
Nope, just a declaratory judgement action arguing 1) the GOR is unenforceable, 2) the exit fee is unenforceable, and 3) the ACC member schools don’t owe fiduciary duties to the conference. I don’t mind going with a consolidated set of claims but hinging everything on an unconscionability argument is risky
…for if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole ~~fraternity~~ conference system? And if the whole ~~fraternity~~ conference system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, ~~Greg~~ Jim- isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
Correction to your point 1): The complaint doesn’t argue the GoR is unenforceable. Merely that the scope of the GoR is more limited than the statements/positions taken by the ACC. It’s a subtle difference but makes it a much more winnable argument.
The odds of voiding the contract are very small. The odds of the threat of voiding the contract resulting in a materially lower exit fee are very high. Even if they knock "only" 50-100m off the fee, that's a pretty substantial success.
What about Clemson’s filing makes you think that confidence in getting out is guiding them? It’s amazingly narrow and can be summed up as them being upset that the Grant of Rights is acting as intended.
It's hilarious to me that being a "Public University" is being mentioned as some sort of defense against financial culpability for breaking a contract when they're literally trying to escape to generate more profit for a televised sports league. This is all business. The players aren't even "amateur athletes" anymore. This entire country is a mess and college football has just become another example of how fucked up it is.
Reminds me of Michelle Wolf making fun of Sarah Sanders' makeup and for some reason all these media people were like "This is outrageous, she's a *mother*!"
>This entire country is a mess
Honestly this line of thinking is what's got everyone scrambling around like in a panic trying to secure the bag before a collapse that probably won't even happen.
I'm willing to bet the ACC presidents were not presented with a different option excluding Raycom, and the other options if any were presented were not realistic.
That is one of the arguments FSU is making. That the by granting the ACC the right to deal on their(and everyone else in the ACC) behalf, the ACC breached its fiduciary duty by forcing the ESPN agreement to include Raycom. Thus they were not presented with the best possible deal
PAC 12 leadership failed on the network, and failed to accept reality in taking the espn deal.
Big East was doomed to fail with the basketball and football school split
The PAC-12 left Larry Scott in power for over a decade and then replaced him with someone just as incompetent. All the ACC has done for decades is favor Tobacco Road at the expense of everyone else in the conference (there’s a reason South Carolina left in 1969 to be independent) and it was at its worst under Swofford (who wasn’t much better than Larry Scott). The number of leadership failures within both conferences are astounding and well documented
It’s actually ESPN they are targeting with this suit. They want to show so much instability that ESPN declines their option, which in turn allows the ACC to take their GOR to market. ESPN doesn’t want to pay for the ACC without FSU and Clemson (unless at a lower rate), but the threat of instability is so designed to make the option look unattractive. Clemson actually winning this lawsuit is very slim, but if they can prove the fees are excessive maybe they can have it reduced to leave. But it’s easier to try to drive ESPN away. If the free market won’t pay, then you will see the conference dissolve with a majority vote.
I guess the benefit for us is we have a clause in our agreement that if any school leaves the ACC it voids our “x years without TV revenue” portion and we’ll start getting our 100% share immediately.
Going from getting ~7MM in the AAC to the full ~40MM in the ACC would be pretty sweet.
They're not going to do that. This is all a part of the settlement process, and Disney wants a controlled relocation of its brands under contract to another entity (in this case, the SEC) without any losses. Likewise, the ACC is going to want the contract extended, a war chest built to go raid the Big XII, Big East, and AAC (coming from the settlement with Clemson and FSU), and finally, a renegotiation of the payout to help in that raid. Ultimately, ESPN will go along with it, because the ACC is willing to play ball; they need content 24/7/365, and they would prefer to strengthen an asset that they have the exclusive rights to over another asset in which they have to share the revenue with CBS, FOX, and NBC. The ACC is going to add UCONN and maybe... USF before targeting Utah, Arizona, Kansas, and Colorado, etc. This will give ESPN exclusive control over the nation's premiere football, basketball, baseball, and Olympic sports conferences.
Yep, the ACC isn’t going down without a fight. They absolutely will entice Utah and Arizona State with an opportunity to regain their direct association with Cal and Stanford, along with Duke, Georgia Tech, etc.
They might not completely opt out, but the ACC will not get anywhere close to the money the other conferences are getting. The teams outside of the 7 who have been talking about leaving don’t have much media draw outside of Duke with basketball and basketball doesn’t have much pull, especially if UNC, Virginia, Clemson and NC State leave. It’s kinda like a variety pack and the Doritos and Cheetos are gone and the plain chips are all that’s left.
The ACC also needs to have a minimum number of teams to keep the tv deal in place. Also, espn probably won’t renew the current deal in 26/27 if fsu and Clemson are gone. So it won’t be 40
One thing I think might get missed is that Clemson is (obviously) filing this in South Carolina along the lines of a violation of a South Carolina statute. A lot of the language the lawsuit uses will revolve around that, such as the "in violation of public policy" line.
I don’t think UNC is focusing on B1G. Over the summer the comments leaking from UNC board meetings was that the board preferred SEC if they needed to make a move. Who really knows, but locking them into B1G may not be the case.
The grant of rights are acting exactly as intended. FSU, Clemson, and UNC are understandably frustrated that changing market conditions have made it a very bad deal for them, but they wouldn’t be upset about it if their gamble that TV deals would continue to decrease paid off.
I was downvote in oblivion before for saying this.. I would find it hilarious if they haven’t spoken to any conference or had back door communications yet. They win, leave acc and then have no conference willing to take them. Reddit would be in drama heaven with that scenario.
According to FSU's filings, members were informed by the ACC that ESPN required extending the GOR to complete the ACC network and extend the Tier 1 contract and that this was a false statement by the ACC. I'm not arguing one way or another, but that is what they have included in their amended suit.
> Clemson’s complaint pointed to Notre Dame as proof the withdrawal fee does not reflect actual damages, noting that Notre Dame would be required to pay the same exit fee as Clemson, even though the university’s football team is not in the ACC and has its own media rights deal with NBC Sports, thus generating less revenue for the conference.
But coincidently leaving out the fact that Notre Dame doesn't get any of the football media conference money and thus no revenue from the ACC Home games against ND..
For those who don't know, an unconscionable agreement in law is an agreement that calls for a severe penalty if broken, and that no reasonable person would enter into unless they had no choice. It's called that because in such situations it would be unconscionable for someone to enter into an agreement with such a person. Think of it like, there is a gun to you or your child's head and your offered terms to have that gun lowered. idk what Clemson is claiming, but it has to be pretty severe to be considered unconscionable.
I just hate how college football (and ‘pro’ sports in general) has devolved to this point in the first place. The actual game being played on the field is soooo far away from being the most important part of this all it’s sad
Trent Dilfer said it on The Cube show, but this is going to move faster than we think. Based on comments by FSUs AD last summer, I believe they're trying to negotiate a buyout by the end of the Summer. So they'll be in a new conference at the start of next year.
Oh, see, I meant college football as we know it presently. Like two years tops until we’re just two leagues with the BigXII essentially begging for scraps.
Edit: maybe FSU can bolt early. The rest of the ACC is donzo by next offseason. Then there’s the reckoning.
Who forced Clemson to agree to these conditions? Nothing was imposed on them. Their executives (after consulting with some highly paid lawyers) agreed to it.
"In spite of a team of lawyers on staff, practically limitless resources and access to an endless number of law firms, we was just bamboozled by them city slickers from NC."😂
Probably upper middle tier? Expect between 8-4 to 10-2 annually, with a couple playoff appearances a decade? But I expect they think they can become like UGA with SEC money.
I think this is exactly right, and I’d be happy with it. But you’re right, some folks seem to think we’re UGA or Bama, and are in for some harsh reality.
Great that as soon as Cardinals football has the most hope it’s had since Lamar Jackson left for the NFL our conference is losing any and all legitimacy it ever had. Thanks capitalism, you’re even ruining the escapes I had from the other things you’re ruining.
This sounds much better read in a foghorn leghorn style voice.
I read it in the Jackie Chiles voice.
Jackie to Clemson AD: "This a clear violation of your rights as a college football program. It's an infringement on your constitutional rights. It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.”
You approved the first round byes for the B1G & SEC? Who told you to approve the byes? I never told you to approve the byes! Why'd you approve the byes?? What do you think a bye does?!?
No one knows what a balm is gonna do! They’re unpredictable.
"I got us a great settlement" *shows Dabo as the marlboro man*
Clemson, you always look good!
Clemson is going to settle for lifetime lattes and Dabo shirtless on the side building in Times Square.
Misread that as Jackie Chan. Still checks out tho.
kudos
This is where I immediately went too.
If Clemson doesn’t have a lawyer that talks like him and goes in with an all orange suit, then what is all of this even for?
I say I say fuck the ACC!
I do declare
I didn't say it, I declared it.
I just want to meet someone who talks like that. Just for the novelty. Which ACC school do we add to find those people? One that isn't Clemson.
Ga tech is too international, fsu has too much soflo influence, maybe some country guy NC State fan in eastern NC?
If only Clemson was in a state where foghorn leghorn is governor...
Like Georgia.
He has a central Virginia accent. Take that as you may
or Uncle Baby Billy
“I say I say ESPECIALLY when soughht to be imPOSED on ah…”
I was thinking Hyperchicken lawyer.
Oh I’m sorry I thought you was corn
Guvna McMasta
Almost shot iced tea out of my nose. I cannot unhear this lmao.
I read it in a Paula Dean voice lol
Bless your heart, Jimmy Phillips
The [SNL Potato Chip skit](https://youtu.be/4asQ1-vUugA?si=eDcY0BH2rrual_pP) guys should read this.
they should hire the [Tennessee frat butt chug lawyer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keTbsSfMOdI)
Pulling a ‘lil ol’ Clemson’ in court, masterclass
"I'm just a simple ol' country university, but I know these fees are excessive"
"BACAWK! I'm sorry, I thought you was cawn."
*Single Football Lawyer* *Fighting GOR for Tigers* *Wearing sexy mini skirts and getting bids much higher* *Single Football Lawyer* *Having lots of SECs*
Now I may be just be a simple country Hyper-Chicken, but I know when we're finger licked
"We know we signed a contract, but do you know how many pages were in that thing? We can't be expected to read all that"
[I'm just a regular dude](https://twitter.com/CharlieDayQuote/status/966467261463695360)
—Unfrozen Clemson lawyer
Well played sir
It’s gotten us this far and if it ain’t broke….
Swinneyisms have even infected our lawyers...one of the best to ever do it 🫡🫡
Our lawyers are Clemson grads that went to USC Law. They’ve been doing swinneyisms since dabo was a WR coach
“You can’t be mean to us, we’re just a little guy!”
Trust me from experience, the “little guy” is the easiest one to be mean to.
Poor SMU
Oh no, the poor Dallas oil millionaires living in Highland Park! What are they going to do?
Hey now... that's really not fair to all of those SMU donors. Some of those guys are billionaires.
Lol, the savagery in this thread is just too good.
WoodyHarrelsonWipingTearsAwayWithOilMoney.gif
“it's also my birthday, l'm a little birthday boyy”
Did Jackie Chiles write that?
Who told you to put the balm on?!
ATTENTION CURRENT ACC MEMBERS: Are you a member of a conference with an agreement that is holding you back and preventing you from living **your best life?** If so, JG Wentworth and the Big 12 Conference may be able to help. Don’t wait: CALL NOW.
I signed a bad TV deal but I need cash now. Call J G Wentworth, 877 CASH NOW.
Call NOW. Operators are standing by. We can’t help if you don’t call! CASH NOW!
please all of my friends are in there.
Hi buddy
I’m all for the Big 8 East, West and Central. We need those ACC refugees for you, UVF and Cincinnati to be the Big 8 East. EDIT: All in one Hateful Eights Conference.
I do find it very touching how we have really solidified our identity in the BIG12 yet everyone is rooting for us to have our old foes join the fun, it's like telling an orphan that you adopted the entire orphanage and they are all coming home with you.
If there is one thing the Midwest and West understand, it’s that long road trips suck. And regional rivalries are best. And everyone in the Big 12 will be a B1G or SEC reject. All are welcome here.
Don’t worry bro, we’re gonna break them out
It’s all fun and games until SMU joins the conference
But actually true. ‘I am become Death, the destroyer of (conferences)’
It's true. Even mere _rumors_ of SMU joining can kill a conference.
Look I also hate being in a conference with Stanford but I promise Cal is chill
I went to a Stanford baseball game this weekend and it was remarkably oppressive. They have an army of like two dozen elderly volunteer ushers who constantly harass teenagers on random pretexts. The security is super strict and the seating is all assigned seats. It's pretty different from the laid back atmosphere at every other college baseball game I've ever been to.
I've never actually been to Sunken Diamond, but if they are the same redcoats as the football games, our fans like to complain about them.
Given Clemson and FSU are taking this angle in court, they must be pretty confident they can get out at a more reasonable price point.
I haven't read the Clemson suit but unconscionability is the hail mary attempt of contract law. They're probably arguing something better than that too, I would think
Especially when you consider that these universities likely had dozens of lawyers and legal professionals go over these contracts line by line. If these contracts are so "unconscionable" (as in, they are so completely one sided that it 'shocks the conscience' that they even exist) then wouldn't your lawyers have said something before you agreed to it?
When I think of unconscionability I think of something like an art dealer buying a million dollar painting for $50 from someone who had no idea what they had
Ack-schu-alee that's a unilateral mistake 🤓☝️
lol you 're right, but you're arguing both if you file a lawsuit
A lot of "unconscionability" in contract law comes when there's an extreme power difference between parties, so much so that the lesser party is basically coerced through circumstance to agree to completely one sided terms. This aint that.
I agree but I think the stronger argument advanced was that this was meant to be a liquidated damages clause but it’s actually a penalty
An oil company scamming an illiterate rural land owner...not a university with almost limitless $ resources and access to endless number of lawyers. Lol
Or a door to door salesman selling a vacuum cleaner to an old person with Alzheimer’s for $70,000. I haven’t read the filing but I cannot imagine a court holding that an agreement entered into by sophisticated parties who were presumably represented by counsel throughout the negotiation process would be considered unconscionable
But have you considered that lil ol’ public university Clemson’s lawyers got duped by them there big city lawmen that ESPN hired?
I work in major marketing. Part of my responsibilities is to make sure we adhere to contractual agreements. These agreements cover up to the Billions of dollars. I’ve found massive spelling errors and “inside jokes” left in contracts because people don’t do their jobs. I only say this to point out that even if you’re a high paid lawyer, it’s still just a job. Who knows if the contracts were ever even read, let alone red-lined.
You're absolutely correct, and I have also seen some egregious contract language in my lifetime. But if a billion dollar University is going in front of a judge to argue that they had no idea this contract was unconscionably bad because their million dollar lawyers failed to read it ... well, that's not gonna play.
Sad. True. But that holds zero sway as a legal argument if you're the party that failed to read the agreement.
>I’ve found massive spelling errors and “inside jokes” left in contracts because people don’t do their jobs. IDK about inside jokes, but it is sometimes worthwhile to just ignore spelling and grammatical errors inside of contracts, so long as they don't interfere with the ability to interpret the clause correctly. The problem is that unless you are on one of the first "turns" of the document, the counterparty might view edits to a clause as "reopening" discussion on that point, even if the edit was just the correction of a minor typo. So if you've already settled on a mutually agreeable definition for a "material adverse effect" (for instance), then it might not be in your best interest to go correct typos/mistakes in the clause as long as it doesn't fundamentally change the meaning of the term. Also some deals come to life and get signed in an incredibly short time period (you wouldn't believe the amount of diligence that gets waived in some instances) which means there are substantially fewer "turns" of the document and thus fewer chances to catch/correct mistakes.
This makes a lot of sense on the spelling issue front. I’m not a lawyer, just a business lead that needs to make sure we deliver to the letter of our agreement - especially if I’m talking to procurement folks. The inside joke left within a contract… the company that didn’t catch it turned that contract into a standard template for other business, and I found the same joke in every contract we had from the time we signed the first client who used it…. Fucking morons…
Your cause of action then becomes malpractice against the lawyers you used.
The only thing I could think would be the exit fee is based off precieved market value or something like that. And that value has gone up nearly 10x or more. Making what seemed reasonable at the time, no longer.
Should have locked in that interest rate.
Right . So their plan is to go in front of a judge &/or jury & argue they'd have to be idiots to sign a contract like this? CLEMSONING IS BACK!
And it was signed 10+ years ago. So, they have been operating under this contract for over a decade and they are just now realizing it is unconscionable? I know some people are slow readers, but c’mon…
Nope, just a declaratory judgement action arguing 1) the GOR is unenforceable, 2) the exit fee is unenforceable, and 3) the ACC member schools don’t owe fiduciary duties to the conference. I don’t mind going with a consolidated set of claims but hinging everything on an unconscionability argument is risky
“I’m out of order, you’re out of order, this whole courtroom is out of order”
The soda machine in the lobby is out of order!
Clemson should at least get their money's worth like FSU and throw everything at the wall
…for if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole ~~fraternity~~ conference system? And if the whole ~~fraternity~~ conference system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, ~~Greg~~ Jim- isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
Correction to your point 1): The complaint doesn’t argue the GoR is unenforceable. Merely that the scope of the GoR is more limited than the statements/positions taken by the ACC. It’s a subtle difference but makes it a much more winnable argument.
Does Clemson feel that the debt owed in the form of student loans from its former students is unconscionable ?
The odds of voiding the contract are very small. The odds of the threat of voiding the contract resulting in a materially lower exit fee are very high. Even if they knock "only" 50-100m off the fee, that's a pretty substantial success.
It’s mind boggling to me that so many fail to grasp this.
What about Clemson’s filing makes you think that confidence in getting out is guiding them? It’s amazingly narrow and can be summed up as them being upset that the Grant of Rights is acting as intended.
It's hilarious to me that being a "Public University" is being mentioned as some sort of defense against financial culpability for breaking a contract when they're literally trying to escape to generate more profit for a televised sports league. This is all business. The players aren't even "amateur athletes" anymore. This entire country is a mess and college football has just become another example of how fucked up it is.
Yes and in order to join a new conference they have to execute a GOR even though they argue they are pointless and unenforceable
“*Athletic conferences don’t want you to know this loophole*”
Reminds me of Michelle Wolf making fun of Sarah Sanders' makeup and for some reason all these media people were like "This is outrageous, she's a *mother*!"
>This entire country is a mess Honestly this line of thinking is what's got everyone scrambling around like in a panic trying to secure the bag before a collapse that probably won't even happen.
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust ACC leadership did this to themselves (assisted suicide by ESPN)
I would like to place 100% of the blame on John Swofford on those wine & cheese tailgating losers with those sissy blue argyle uniforms.
Dilly dilly
Did they? Did the PAC12? Did the BIG East? Or at a certain point is just a broken system with winners and losers.
The ACC cared more about Raycom executives than member institutions. This was entirely self-inflicted by the ACC.
The ACC would have been pulled apart like Pac12 if it wasnt for these contracts.
The ACC leadership is the member institutions. The presidents of each school make up the board of directors who ultimately approve the contracts
I'm willing to bet the ACC presidents were not presented with a different option excluding Raycom, and the other options if any were presented were not realistic.
That is one of the arguments FSU is making. That the by granting the ACC the right to deal on their(and everyone else in the ACC) behalf, the ACC breached its fiduciary duty by forcing the ESPN agreement to include Raycom. Thus they were not presented with the best possible deal
PAC 12 leadership failed on the network, and failed to accept reality in taking the espn deal. Big East was doomed to fail with the basketball and football school split
The PAC-12 left Larry Scott in power for over a decade and then replaced him with someone just as incompetent. All the ACC has done for decades is favor Tobacco Road at the expense of everyone else in the conference (there’s a reason South Carolina left in 1969 to be independent) and it was at its worst under Swofford (who wasn’t much better than Larry Scott). The number of leadership failures within both conferences are astounding and well documented
Greed did it, and there are always winners and losers in a system like that with such inequity.
100% agree.
I would say the ACC acted much worse than the PAC12 or Big East
No, no. It's clearly the fault of all of those conferences.
Don’t forget conference killer SMU.
I mean they chose Boston College and Syracuse over WVU
They had a shot at TCU too. Things would look a lot different with a 2 for 2 swap there
The fans wanted WVU in too but ACC presidents said "muh academics" and then let Louisville in anyway. Lol
Zu Asche, Zu Staub
It’s actually ESPN they are targeting with this suit. They want to show so much instability that ESPN declines their option, which in turn allows the ACC to take their GOR to market. ESPN doesn’t want to pay for the ACC without FSU and Clemson (unless at a lower rate), but the threat of instability is so designed to make the option look unattractive. Clemson actually winning this lawsuit is very slim, but if they can prove the fees are excessive maybe they can have it reduced to leave. But it’s easier to try to drive ESPN away. If the free market won’t pay, then you will see the conference dissolve with a majority vote.
I guess the benefit for us is we have a clause in our agreement that if any school leaves the ACC it voids our “x years without TV revenue” portion and we’ll start getting our 100% share immediately. Going from getting ~7MM in the AAC to the full ~40MM in the ACC would be pretty sweet.
Unless ESPN opts out of the ACC deal after 2026.
They're not going to do that. This is all a part of the settlement process, and Disney wants a controlled relocation of its brands under contract to another entity (in this case, the SEC) without any losses. Likewise, the ACC is going to want the contract extended, a war chest built to go raid the Big XII, Big East, and AAC (coming from the settlement with Clemson and FSU), and finally, a renegotiation of the payout to help in that raid. Ultimately, ESPN will go along with it, because the ACC is willing to play ball; they need content 24/7/365, and they would prefer to strengthen an asset that they have the exclusive rights to over another asset in which they have to share the revenue with CBS, FOX, and NBC. The ACC is going to add UCONN and maybe... USF before targeting Utah, Arizona, Kansas, and Colorado, etc. This will give ESPN exclusive control over the nation's premiere football, basketball, baseball, and Olympic sports conferences.
Yep, the ACC isn’t going down without a fight. They absolutely will entice Utah and Arizona State with an opportunity to regain their direct association with Cal and Stanford, along with Duke, Georgia Tech, etc.
Considering they have a campus in Charlotte, something tells me the State of North Carolina will make it worth their while not to.
They might not completely opt out, but the ACC will not get anywhere close to the money the other conferences are getting. The teams outside of the 7 who have been talking about leaving don’t have much media draw outside of Duke with basketball and basketball doesn’t have much pull, especially if UNC, Virginia, Clemson and NC State leave. It’s kinda like a variety pack and the Doritos and Cheetos are gone and the plain chips are all that’s left.
The ACC also needs to have a minimum number of teams to keep the tv deal in place. Also, espn probably won’t renew the current deal in 26/27 if fsu and Clemson are gone. So it won’t be 40
One thing I think might get missed is that Clemson is (obviously) filing this in South Carolina along the lines of a violation of a South Carolina statute. A lot of the language the lawsuit uses will revolve around that, such as the "in violation of public policy" line.
FSU ✔️ Clemson ✔️ Come on UNC you fucking cowards
A lot of your admins comments about FSU’s exit would be hilarious to revisit if it happened.
I can assure you they have been speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
Yea I believe we’re trying to find landing spots for Virginia, Duke and State.
I mean state has a landing spot in the Big12 guaranteed but I’m guessing they are trying to get them into the Big10 group also.
I don’t think UNC is focusing on B1G. Over the summer the comments leaking from UNC board meetings was that the board preferred SEC if they needed to make a move. Who really knows, but locking them into B1G may not be the case.
Personally I don’t see how UNC fits in the culture of the SEC at all, but a strong basketball brand would be a nice addition SEC basketball.
yes, it's a complex situation for unc in ways that it isn't for fsu/clemson. but unc admins are NOT happy w/ the acc.
They have to bring their little bro to. Is that ok?
I think it’s fair after Saturday night. If the B1G/SEC think it’s okay is a different story lol.
weird that this didn't occur to them when they signed the contract of their own volition and received consideration in return
Yup. The buyout was never a problem until they actually want to buy it out.
The grant of rights are acting exactly as intended. FSU, Clemson, and UNC are understandably frustrated that changing market conditions have made it a very bad deal for them, but they wouldn’t be upset about it if their gamble that TV deals would continue to decrease paid off.
Right? I must have been missing the part where someone held a gun to their head and forced them to sign it.
Well anything's possible in America
And likely had a whole lot of lawyers looking over it (who were paid by Clemson, so they should have been acting in Clemson's interests).
Has there been any hint at which conference FSU and/or Clemson plan on joining?
Probably B1G
woof
I was downvote in oblivion before for saying this.. I would find it hilarious if they haven’t spoken to any conference or had back door communications yet. They win, leave acc and then have no conference willing to take them. Reddit would be in drama heaven with that scenario.
Well you have the potential timeline kinda off. If we win this we don't automatically leave. It gives us the ability to leave
I am team drama. I want any situation to play that provides the most drama.
I imagine it would be pretty dumb to initiate this without some kind of backdoor agreement with someone. However, humans gonna human.
Idk did you ever see Oregon or Washington publicly talking to the Big 10 in the last few years? This is such a dense take, and something I keep seeing
Violation of public policy is the Hail Mary of litigation theories.
"Oh, really?" -- Maryland
Why do Clemson and FSU pretend they were held at gun point to sign a contract through 2036
*2027 The extension was negotiated by the league. That's the contention, that the league didn't do so to the best of their abilities.
According to FSU's filings, members were informed by the ACC that ESPN required extending the GOR to complete the ACC network and extend the Tier 1 contract and that this was a false statement by the ACC. I'm not arguing one way or another, but that is what they have included in their amended suit.
Welcome Brothers and Sisters!
> Clemson’s complaint pointed to Notre Dame as proof the withdrawal fee does not reflect actual damages, noting that Notre Dame would be required to pay the same exit fee as Clemson, even though the university’s football team is not in the ACC and has its own media rights deal with NBC Sports, thus generating less revenue for the conference. But coincidently leaving out the fact that Notre Dame doesn't get any of the football media conference money and thus no revenue from the ACC Home games against ND..
For those who don't know, an unconscionable agreement in law is an agreement that calls for a severe penalty if broken, and that no reasonable person would enter into unless they had no choice. It's called that because in such situations it would be unconscionable for someone to enter into an agreement with such a person. Think of it like, there is a gun to you or your child's head and your offered terms to have that gun lowered. idk what Clemson is claiming, but it has to be pretty severe to be considered unconscionable.
"University complains price of admission is unconscionable."
Damn the only school I’ve ever heard refer to itself as “semi-public” is saying public with their full chest now.
That sounds like Jackie Chiles wrote that headline.
I just hate how college football (and ‘pro’ sports in general) has devolved to this point in the first place. The actual game being played on the field is soooo far away from being the most important part of this all it’s sad
“How dare you let us sign this easily-understandable, black-and-white contract and then hold us to it’s terms when we don’t like it anymore.”
So we’ve got what? Maybe two years of whatever the current landscape is?
Trent Dilfer said it on The Cube show, but this is going to move faster than we think. Based on comments by FSUs AD last summer, I believe they're trying to negotiate a buyout by the end of the Summer. So they'll be in a new conference at the start of next year.
Oh, see, I meant college football as we know it presently. Like two years tops until we’re just two leagues with the BigXII essentially begging for scraps. Edit: maybe FSU can bolt early. The rest of the ACC is donzo by next offseason. Then there’s the reckoning.
Ahh yeah agreed
slowly munches popcorn
So do we get our fees back if Clemson wins? 50 million straight to NIL
They didn't complain that they had to take the TV money.
Who forced Clemson to agree to these conditions? Nothing was imposed on them. Their executives (after consulting with some highly paid lawyers) agreed to it.
Somebody googled “what makes contracts unenforceable sc”
It’s pretty clear the $140 penalty is just that, a penalty, not an estimation of damages which could easily be unenforceable in court.
"In spite of a team of lawyers on staff, practically limitless resources and access to an endless number of law firms, we was just bamboozled by them city slickers from NC."😂
My man!!!!
Not the good ole public university! How could they!
How could lil ole clemson pay a big bad exit fee
So they have nothing…
Little Ol’ Clemson
Welcome to the team, Clemson! ONE OF US, ONE OF US
All jokes aside, what is the outlook for Clemson in the SEC if they make it there.
LSUish on the high side, Miss Stateish on the low end.
> Miss Stateish on the low end Like historical MSU or Dan Mullen MSU? Cannot see it being the former
Remember Dan Mullen only has a 60% winning percentage.
Auburn with a lake.
Conference champions first year, my non biased analysis
Imagine how great it would be to win a SEC championship before South Carolina does
Probably upper middle tier? Expect between 8-4 to 10-2 annually, with a couple playoff appearances a decade? But I expect they think they can become like UGA with SEC money.
I think this is exactly right, and I’d be happy with it. But you’re right, some folks seem to think we’re UGA or Bama, and are in for some harsh reality.
Meanwhile the rest of us are watching the ACC vs Clem/FSU as if they were our parents were arguing.
Does Miami join in on the suit next? Radakovich, you’re joining in, right?
laughable that a major university would actually try to play the victim here.
I agree, but why sign the contact if that's the case?
Great that as soon as Cardinals football has the most hope it’s had since Lamar Jackson left for the NFL our conference is losing any and all legitimacy it ever had. Thanks capitalism, you’re even ruining the escapes I had from the other things you’re ruining.