Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[Nolaeer]

No matter what the court in north carolina rules, the florida sct can says the gor violates florida public policy bc of its length.

the florida sct, not any nc court or even the US SCT can overrule the florida sct on a matter of florida law.

if that is the ruling, only FSU gets out. Miami is a private university.
of course the NC court has no incentive to rule in favor of the ACC either-UNC wants out.

 

[2speedy1]

No matter what the court in north carolina rules, the florida sct can says the gor violates florida public policy bc of its length.

the florida sct, not any nc court or even the US SCT can overrule the florida sct on a matter of florida law.

if that is the ruling, only FSU gets out. Miami is a private university.
of course the NC court has no incentive to rule in favor of the ACC either-UNC wants out.

What will matter is what jurisdiction is determined to have precedent. This is what will have to be determined.
No court can trump Florida SCT on Florida Law, but they can determine the FL SCT and law does not have have precedent.

 

[Nolaeer]

in Louisiana the la sct has ruled it always has jurisdiction to decide a mater of Louisiana law. some federal courts send unsettled issues of Louisiana law to the la sct to decide, even as they retain jurisdiction. jurisdiction isnt the issue--florida and florida alone will have the last say on what violates florida public policy--jurisdiction issues aside.

choice of venue provisions that say otherwise are held invalid.

 

[2speedy1]

in Louisiana the la sct has ruled it always has jurisdiction to decide a mater of Louisiana law. some federal courts send unsettled issues of Louisiana law to the la sct to decide, even as they retain jurisdiction. jurisdiction isnt the issue--florida and florida alone will have the last say on what violates florida public policy--jurisdiction issues aside.

choice of venue provisions that say otherwise are held invalid.

You are misunderstanding. Being the HQ of the ACC is in NC, and all contracts etc are held and signed there they claim NC law has jurisdiction. This is the basis of the ACC suit.

The NC supreme court will not rule on Florida law, because Florida SC has jurisdiction on Florida. What they may say is because the ACC is based in NC that the contract is under NC law, so NC SC has jurisdiction. Then it may have to go to a Fed court to decide which Court has jurisdiction on the contract.

This would be similar to interstate commerce, and with the amount of money at play, being across state lines may actually be considered interstate commerce and therefore fall under the interstate commerce clause and subsequent Acts. Which in turn would make congress and its commissions in charge of deciding and regulating the matter.

 

[aeroclone]

I thi

You are misunderstanding. Being the HQ of the ACC is in NC, and all contracts etc are held and signed there they claim NC law has jurisdiction. This is the basis of the ACC suit.

The NC supreme court will not rule on Florida law, because Florida SC has jurisdiction on Florida. What they may say is because the ACC is based in NC that the contract is under NC law, so NC SC has jurisdiction. Then it may have to go to a Fed court to decide which Court has jurisdiction on the contract.

This would be similar to interstate commerce, and with the amount of money at play, being across state lines may actually be considered interstate commerce and therefore fall under the interstate commerce clause and subsequent Acts. Which in turn would make congress and its commissions in charge of deciding and regulating the matter.

I think the interstate commerce angle could certainly come into play here. The ACC based in NC is handling the contract, but obviously the member institutions are spread across a number of states all with their own laws and regulations.

 

[2speedy1]

I thi

I think the interstate commerce angle could certainly come into play here. The ACC based in NC is handling the contract, but obviously the member institutions are spread across a number of states all with their own laws and regulations.

With all things in play, I think we have to understand a resolution is not going to come quickly. My feeling is that 2027 date is probably about when we see this settled.

A couple years for the legal battles and possible congressional decision, then another year for the member school/s to transition to another conference if that happens.

Which may be FSUs ultimate goal too, to make it so when the ESPN guarantee is up in 2027, they are out. Which would drastically reduce their costs to depart the ACC. Basically nullify 10 years of GOR and only leave them with the conference exit fees.

That ESPN option clause, and the fact that they required it with a GOR for 10 extra years beyond it, may be the thing that breaks up the ACC. Seems like a huge loophole that lawyers are going to have a hayday with.

 

[Clonehomer]

You are misunderstanding. Being the HQ of the ACC is in NC, and all contracts etc are held and signed there they claim NC law has jurisdiction. This is the basis of the ACC suit.

The NC supreme court will not rule on Florida law, because Florida SC has jurisdiction on Florida. What they may say is because the ACC is based in NC that the contract is under NC law, so NC SC has jurisdiction. Then it may have to go to a Fed court to decide which Court has jurisdiction on the contract.

This would be similar to interstate commerce, and with the amount of money at play, being across state lines may actually be considered interstate commerce and therefore fall under the interstate commerce clause and subsequent Acts. Which in turn would make congress and its commissions in charge of deciding and regulating the matter.

If this were private businesses, I’d say that’s an easy answer. But FSU being a public institution, the contract is in effect with the state of Florida. So, I don’t know that it’s that simple as there are different rules around civil suits against public entities.

 

[Yellow Snow]

Sorry if already posted, but I thought this was a good behind the scenes read on the Pac 12 breakup.

Inside UW’s breakup with the Pac-12 and the conference’s final, frantic days

At midnight on Aug. 4, there was still hope for the Pac-12. By dawn, it all fell apart. Here's a look at how the quest for TV money undid a century-old partnership.

www.seattletimes.com

 

[Yellow Snow]

Because no one understood the loopholes that ESPN put in it. ESPN only guarantees they are paying until 2027 but required a GOR until 2036, This was a one page agreement that the Commish signed without asking the member schools. Among other things.

ESPN said sign or we wont ever enter into contract again. etc. Which brings the duress issue in to play.

It appears their GOR had some other 1 pager agreements/amendments that were signed under the table that people didnt know, it appears even some of the members didnt know. Everyone saw the basic GoR that was basically a copy of the Big 12s, The added amendments were not seen.

With that, most didnt say they would never challenge it, they said it would be very difficult, to beat it. And if anything with the history of exits it has shown the contracts hold up. Look at OuT paying for 1 year. Look at the PAC 2 keeping and controlling the conference money, as contractually written and it holding up in court, so far.

We all have to realize just because there is a lawsuit coming that doesnt mean they will win. But they have pointed out quite a few issues with their GoR and how it was done.

I thought some of the points made in this make sense... this is a cut and paste excerpt from a post I will link below. I have bolded the points below that I feel FSU may have a case on. Below is a cut and paste.....

"My summary was removed as it's own post but AutoMod probably, I'm gonna hijack the top comment to post the summary for those who didn't want to watch:

The following is a summary of the FSU Board of Trustees meeting.

FSU's Legal Arguments

1. The ACC's Agreements and extensions of the agreements are in violation of the State of Florida's Anti-Trust laws.
2. The ACC's penalties via the Grant of Rights buyout and the conference Severe Penalty (payment to leave the conference) are unenforceable as they are excessive and do not accurately reflect the damages the conference would incur if a member school left. If found to be unenforceable, a court would not adjust the penalty amount, instead the penalties would be nullified completely.
3. The ACC is in breach contract to protect and improve their member's financial interests. The following highlights were made:

• The ACC has failed to appropriately give FSU the value of their atheletic program media rights and has since further diluted that value with the addition of 3 additional members
• The ACC amended the 2016 Tier 1 media agreement without the approval of 2/3rds of the conference's Athletic Directors as required by ACC bylaws
• The ACC leadership without AD approval extended the unilateral ESPN 9-year option for Tier 1 media rights from 2016 without any financial considerations, allowing ESPN to wait to execute an extension of media rights until 2025 when it should have occurred as agreed upon in 2024.
• The ACC agreed to a previously unheard of 20-year period of media rights for its conference members
• The ACC breached it's fiduciary duties the conference has to its members
• A generic Fundamental Failure of Frustration of Contractual Purpose. As explained by the lawyer, the whole purpose of the ACC is to look out for its member's interests and maximize value for them and it has failed to do so.
• Last count is Violation of Public Policy. As explained, it is not consistent with public policy to impose the penalties and contracts that the conference has on the school.

Noteworthy Comments

• It was stressed numerous times that this is not a reaction to FSU being left out of the "CFP Invitational" (as said by FSU's President) and that this process has been in play for over a year and a half.
• FSU's leadership made it clear this was a failure of "Prior ACC leadership"
• This meeting confirmed numerous times that the Grant of Rights and other ACC Binding Contracts are under protection at the ACC League Offices and that no photos or verbatim copies are allowed to be made
• As for Argument 2 of unenforceable penalties, ESPN's contract with the ACC says that payouts will not change so long as the conference has 15 or more members. With the recent addition of 3 members, were FSU to leave then ESPN's payouts per the contract would remain the same as the conference continues to have more than 15 members. Therefore, the penalties laid out by the conference are excessive.
• An FSU BoT member who is a trial lawyer coyly pointed out that internet copies of the Grant of Rights may or may not be correct and since lawyers are unable to compare them that they can not be used in trial. Therefore, if this was taken to court a "true, accurate, and correct copy of the document that would have original signatures on it, preferably in blue ink so that you know they are original." This seems to imply that part of FSU's play is to get the Grant of Rights publicly available and out of the ACC's closed off protection.
• The FSU Board of Trustee's approved the lawsuit against the ACC which would be filed later today and start the legal process following Christmas. The law firm hired by FSU feels its reasonable to believe other schools would "join in the conversation" with the ACC regarding these claims made.
• This is considered an "ACC vs FSU" lawsuit. It passed unanimously without any objection from any BoT member."

Full thread below:

 

[clonehome]

I think the hardest part will be getting the B10 and SEC to give up the money they are going to receive in the future, to ensure that the whole thing does not come crashing down.

The B1G and the SEC, particularly the handful of power teams with a legit shot at winning the natty, love the current arrangement. Where they get the most money while maintaining the appearance of competition. Then when one of them inevitably wins the title they can feel like they’ve accomplished something significant, when in reality they were heavy favorites in all but one or two games.

 

[IceCyIce]

I know this has been said often. Similar to the NFL collective bargining and salary cap implementation, college footbll will need to do something to bring competitive balance. Without the NFL salary cap, the Cowboys and San Fran as well as a few others would by buying Super Bowls. I don't konw the answer for college football but it's obviously broken. Hopefully it's not beyond repair?

 

[exCyDing]

I know this has been said often. Similar to the NFL collective bargining and salary cap implementation, college footbll will need to do something to bring competitive balance. Without the NFL salary cap, the Cowboys and San Fran as well as a few others would by buying Super Bowls. I don't konw the answer for college football but it's obviously broken. Hopefully it's not beyond repair?

Schools like Texas, Ohio St, Alabama and others would have to agree to give up some of their advantages for that to happen, so it’s a long shot. They view their advantages as a birth right and have done everything the can to grow those advantages to the detriment of the sport as a whole. The thing is, it’s been that way for a long time in college athletics, it’s just more out in the open now days.

NIL money is going to be very tough to control without a player’s union and collective bargaining agreement because it’s not going through the school / conference / NCAA. IMO, the outrage over compensation should be the coaches, athletic depts staffs, conference officials and network execs having careers paying high 6 or 7-figure salaries off college athletics rather than the athletes getting a slice. Most of them have a very small window to cash in on their athletic talents and aren’t going to have multi-decade careers paying nearly as much as those on the business side.

 

[Cloniac2]

I thought some of the points made in this make sense... this is a cut and paste excerpt from a post I will link below. I have bolded the points below that I feel FSU may have a case on. Below is a cut and paste.....

"My summary was removed as it's own post but AutoMod probably, I'm gonna hijack the top comment to post the summary for those who didn't want to watch:

The following is a summary of the FSU Board of Trustees meeting.

FSU's Legal Arguments

1. The ACC's Agreements and extensions of the agreements are in violation of the State of Florida's Anti-Trust laws.
2. The ACC's penalties via the Grant of Rights buyout and the conference Severe Penalty (payment to leave the conference) are unenforceable as they are excessive and do not accurately reflect the damages the conference would incur if a member school left. If found to be unenforceable, a court would not adjust the penalty amount, instead the penalties would be nullified completely.
3. The ACC is in breach contract to protect and improve their member's financial interests. The following highlights were made:

• The ACC has failed to appropriately give FSU the value of their atheletic program media rights and has since further diluted that value with the addition of 3 additional members
• The ACC amended the 2016 Tier 1 media agreement without the approval of 2/3rds of the conference's Athletic Directors as required by ACC bylaws
• The ACC leadership without AD approval extended the unilateral ESPN 9-year option for Tier 1 media rights from 2016 without any financial considerations, allowing ESPN to wait to execute an extension of media rights until 2025 when it should have occurred as agreed upon in 2024.
• The ACC agreed to a previously unheard of 20-year period of media rights for its conference members
• The ACC breached it's fiduciary duties the conference has to its members
• A generic Fundamental Failure of Frustration of Contractual Purpose. As explained by the lawyer, the whole purpose of the ACC is to look out for its member's interests and maximize value for them and it has failed to do so.
• Last count is Violation of Public Policy. As explained, it is not consistent with public policy to impose the penalties and contracts that the conference has on the school.

Noteworthy Comments

• It was stressed numerous times that this is not a reaction to FSU being left out of the "CFP Invitational" (as said by FSU's President) and that this process has been in play for over a year and a half.
• FSU's leadership made it clear this was a failure of "Prior ACC leadership"
• This meeting confirmed numerous times that the Grant of Rights and other ACC Binding Contracts are under protection at the ACC League Offices and that no photos or verbatim copies are allowed to be made
• As for Argument 2 of unenforceable penalties, ESPN's contract with the ACC says that payouts will not change so long as the conference has 15 or more members. With the recent addition of 3 members, were FSU to leave then ESPN's payouts per the contract would remain the same as the conference continues to have more than 15 members. Therefore, the penalties laid out by the conference are excessive.
• An FSU BoT member who is a trial lawyer coyly pointed out that internet copies of the Grant of Rights may or may not be correct and since lawyers are unable to compare them that they can not be used in trial. Therefore, if this was taken to court a "true, accurate, and correct copy of the document that would have original signatures on it, preferably in blue ink so that you know they are original." This seems to imply that part of FSU's play is to get the Grant of Rights publicly available and out of the ACC's closed off protection.
• The FSU Board of Trustee's approved the lawsuit against the ACC which would be filed later today and start the legal process following Christmas. The law firm hired by FSU feels its reasonable to believe other schools would "join in the conversation" with the ACC regarding these claims made.
• This is considered an "ACC vs FSU" lawsuit. It passed unanimously without any objection from any BoT member."

Full thread below:

Serious Texas vibes here. One point to keep in mind is I doubt the Big10 adds FSU unless they win both lawsuits in Fla and NC.

As to pt 1, who knows - doubt the NC crt buys it.
As to pt 2, FSU is claiming what they think damages might be when I doubt the GOR has this provision- can’t see how this invalidates the GOR.
As to pt 3, most of it is FSU claiming that the ACC didn’t kiss their butt enough.

 

[isucy86]

I know this has been said often. Similar to the NFL collective bargining and salary cap implementation, college footbll will need to do something to bring competitive balance. Without the NFL salary cap, the Cowboys and San Fran as well as a few others would by buying Super Bowls. I don't konw the answer for college football but it's obviously broken. Hopefully it's not beyond repair?

We're at the point where there has to be an option for student-athletes to become university employees. Universities that choose this option will be part of a league where a CBA governs wages and benefits. IMO that is the only way to bring control to the situation.

Currently, every kid is a free-agent every year. And it works both ways- elite players can annually shop their talents, but guys riding the pine can be pushed out at the whim of the coaching staff.

IMO the solution for NCAA D1 college sports is 3 tiers and universities must decide which model they choose to participate.

Tier 1: Athletes are university employees governed by a CBA. Players can earn NIL money, but for transparency purposes all deals must go through a national clearing house.

Tier 2: Athletes receive scholarship equal to full cost of attendance plus a monthly stipend based on multiplier of reasonable college student living allowance. There is a standard monthly stipend at this tier adjusted for location COL. Players can earn NIL money, but for transparency purposes all deals must go through a national clearing house. There are Expense Caps by individual sport adjusted for COL. Any Athletic Department profits are paid back to the University General fund.

Tier 3: Athletes receive scholarship equal to full cost of attendance plus a monthly stipend based on reasonable college student living allowance. Players can earn NIL money, but for transparency purposes all deals must go through a national clearing house. There are Lower Expense Caps by individual sport than Tier 2. Any Athletic Department profits are paid back to the University General fund.

 

[Yellow Snow]

Serious Texas vibes here. One point to keep in mind is I doubt the Big10 adds FSU unless they win both lawsuits in Fla and NC.

As to pt 1, who knows - doubt the NC crt buys it.
As to pt 2, FSU is claiming what they think damages might be when I doubt the GOR has this provision- can’t see how this invalidates the GOR.
As to pt 3, most of it is FSU claiming that the ACC didn’t kiss their butt enough.

Look, I have no dog in this fight. To the bolded in your post above... that is kind of the points being made below. The fact that "you doubt it" is totally fine. You do you.

• This meeting confirmed numerous times that the Grant of Rights and other ACC Binding Contracts are under protection at the ACC League Offices and that no photos or verbatim copies are allowed to be made
• 
  As for Argument 2 of unenforceable penalties, ESPN's contract with the ACC says that payouts will not change so long as the conference has 15 or more members. With the recent addition of 3 members, were FSU to leave then ESPN's payouts per the contract would remain the same as the conference continues to have more than 15 members. Therefore, the penalties laid out by the conference are excessive.

 

[Cloniac2]

Look, I have no dog in this fight. To the bolded in your post above... that is kind of the points being made below. The fact that "you doubt it" is totally fine. You do you.

• This meeting confirmed numerous times that the Grant of Rights and other ACC Binding Contracts are under protection at the ACC League Offices and that no photos or verbatim copies are allowed to be made
• 
  As for Argument 2 of unenforceable penalties, ESPN's contract with the ACC says that payouts will not change so long as the conference has 15 or more members. With the recent addition of 3 members, were FSU to leave then ESPN's payouts per the contract would remain the same as the conference continues to have more than 15 members. Therefore, the penalties laid out by the conference are excessive.

I’ll stop after this. The problem with the second bolded argument is that the ESPN contract with the no reduction clause lasts only to 2027. Guarantee you that ESPN will decline their option to extend that contract if FSU leaves, harming the remaining members as any subsequent contract would be for less. I doubt this gets resolved for quite a while.

 

[Clonehomer]

I’ll stop after this. The problem with the second bolded argument is that the ESPN contract with the no reduction clause lasts only to 2027. Guarantee you that ESPN will decline their option to extend that contract if FSU leaves, harming the remaining members as any subsequent contract would be for less. I doubt this gets resolved for quite a while.

But was this clause a part of the contract when the GOR was signed, or was this added without the approval of the members? I’m not sure i really know the answer to that, but if the members did not agree or even know about that stipulation, it makes point one even more damning.

 

[qwerty]

I thought some of the points made in this make sense... this is a cut and paste excerpt from a post I will link below. I have bolded the points below that I feel FSU may have a case on. Below is a cut and paste.....

"My summary was removed as it's own post but AutoMod probably, I'm gonna hijack the top comment to post the summary for those who didn't want to watch:

The following is a summary of the FSU Board of Trustees meeting.

FSU's Legal Arguments

1. The ACC's Agreements and extensions of the agreements are in violation of the State of Florida's Anti-Trust laws.
2. The ACC's penalties via the Grant of Rights buyout and the conference Severe Penalty (payment to leave the conference) are unenforceable as they are excessive and do not accurately reflect the damages the conference would incur if a member school left. If found to be unenforceable, a court would not adjust the penalty amount, instead the penalties would be nullified completely.
3. The ACC is in breach contract to protect and improve their member's financial interests. The following highlights were made:

• The ACC has failed to appropriately give FSU the value of their atheletic program media rights and has since further diluted that value with the addition of 3 additional members
• The ACC amended the 2016 Tier 1 media agreement without the approval of 2/3rds of the conference's Athletic Directors as required by ACC bylaws
• The ACC leadership without AD approval extended the unilateral ESPN 9-year option for Tier 1 media rights from 2016 without any financial considerations, allowing ESPN to wait to execute an extension of media rights until 2025 when it should have occurred as agreed upon in 2024.
• The ACC agreed to a previously unheard of 20-year period of media rights for its conference members
• The ACC breached it's fiduciary duties the conference has to its members
• A generic Fundamental Failure of Frustration of Contractual Purpose. As explained by the lawyer, the whole purpose of the ACC is to look out for its member's interests and maximize value for them and it has failed to do so.
• Last count is Violation of Public Policy. As explained, it is not consistent with public policy to impose the penalties and contracts that the conference has on the school.

Noteworthy Comments

• It was stressed numerous times that this is not a reaction to FSU being left out of the "CFP Invitational" (as said by FSU's President) and that this process has been in play for over a year and a half.
• FSU's leadership made it clear this was a failure of "Prior ACC leadership"
• This meeting confirmed numerous times that the Grant of Rights and other ACC Binding Contracts are under protection at the ACC League Offices and that no photos or verbatim copies are allowed to be made
• As for Argument 2 of unenforceable penalties, ESPN's contract with the ACC says that payouts will not change so long as the conference has 15 or more members. With the recent addition of 3 members, were FSU to leave then ESPN's payouts per the contract would remain the same as the conference continues to have more than 15 members. Therefore, the penalties laid out by the conference are excessive.
• An FSU BoT member who is a trial lawyer coyly pointed out that internet copies of the Grant of Rights may or may not be correct and since lawyers are unable to compare them that they can not be used in trial. Therefore, if this was taken to court a "true, accurate, and correct copy of the document that would have original signatures on it, preferably in blue ink so that you know they are original." This seems to imply that part of FSU's play is to get the Grant of Rights publicly available and out of the ACC's closed off protection.
• The FSU Board of Trustee's approved the lawsuit against the ACC which would be filed later today and start the legal process following Christmas. The law firm hired by FSU feels its reasonable to believe other schools would "join in the conversation" with the ACC regarding these claims made.
• This is considered an "ACC vs FSU" lawsuit. It passed unanimously without any objection from any BoT member."

Full thread below:

They have had 7 years to bring up these issues but are only doing so now? That's like going back to a company and saying my paycheck from 7 years ago was a little short, can you correct it now.

 

[Cloniac2]

But was this clause a part of the contract when the GOR was signed, or was this added without the approval of the members? I’m not sure i really know the answer to that, but if the members did not agree or even know about that stipulation, it makes point one even more damning.

Confusing isn’t it. Best I can tell, you really have 2 GOR negotiations in this case. The first one was based on the main ESPN contract (with the extension provision?) that lasted until 2027. Later, the ACC wanted an ACC network with ESPN and they extended the GOR I think in 2016 until 2036. FSU really doesn’t address the extension based on the network much at all in their list of grievances. To me, FSU has a case if they can find any type of misrepresentation from the ACC directly tied to either of the GOR’s and especially as to the GOR extension- I haven’t seen it yet.

 

[Yellow Snow]

Confusing isn’t it. Best I can tell, you really have 2 GOR negotiations in this case. The first one was based on the main ESPN contract (with the extension provision?) that lasted until 2027. Later, the ACC wanted an ACC network with ESPN and they extended the GOR I think in 2016 until 2036. FSU really doesn’t address the extension based on the network much at all in their list of grievances. To me, FSU has a case if they can find any type of misrepresentation from the ACC directly tied to either of the GOR’s and especially as to the GOR extension- I haven’t seen it yet.

Agreed. Very confusing. I think that FSU is trying to bring it to light. Nobody has seen anything yet and it seems to be on purpose.

• An FSU BoT member who is a trial lawyer coyly pointed out that internet copies of the Grant of Rights may or may not be correct and since lawyers are unable to compare them that they can not be used in trial. Therefore, if this was taken to court a "true, accurate, and correct copy of the document that would have original signatures on it, preferably in blue ink so that you know they are original." This seems to imply that part of FSU's play is to get the Grant of Rights publicly available and out of the ACC's closed off protection.