As Predicted By Anyone With A Brain, The ACC Is NOT Getting A TV Network

[buckaineer]

Are you actually this dense? Maybe I already know the answer. This is not an ACC network. This is Watch ESPN. Every one of those conferences listed are getting ready to hold basketball tournaments that ESPN wants its viewers to have easy access to find them online to watch the games.

Keep deluding yourself.

 

[buckaineer]

Ok, that's where I misunderstood what you were getting at. They probably do not feel "confident" in the GOR. A strong argument exists that GORs are unenforceable. This is the best explanation that I have found thus far arguing this point: http://msn.foxsports.com/college-fo...erage/myth-of-the-big-12s-grant-of-rights.php (however, it automatically assumes that GORs are liquidated damage clauses). To this point, the legality of the GORs is grounded in conferences that have GORs declining to poach schools from other conferences with GORs. God forbid the Big 12 try and poach FSU, win, and then the PAC-12 take Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Ok. State, and the B1G takes Kansas. That is the irony in winning against the GOR.

Not only do they apparently not feel confident, perhaps its not as it seems. For example, the BIG 12 and its lawyers, and the tv network partners crafted their GOR over months and months and it was well documented in the media--and heavily questioned until it was announced everyone had signed on. The ACC's GOR however, came up virtually overnight. At the time neither Pittsburgh nor Syracuse were going to be in the league for months. Notre Dame wouldn't become a partial member for months. Louisville isn't going to be a member until this summer.

Yet they announced it was all done and immediately effective for everyone which is basically impossible since ND obviously didn't sign the same agreement as everyone else and Pitt, SU and UL all had media rights agreements with another league as well as ND, and weren't even members of the ACC. News reports also spoke of i.e. FSU being enticed with an ACC network guarantee, which certainly isn't any closer to being a reality in the manner in which they sold it. The ACC has made many false claims about many things such as their revenues being better than the top four leagues, that an ACC network was guaranteed, etc. etc. so there is at least a possibility that this GOR is also not exactly written in stone at this point. That they continue to sue UMD could well be an indication that if the lawsuit falls through then there isn't anything else besides the threat of an enormous buyout to hold anyone in. Continuing to sue Maryland at this late stage doesn't make much sense unless you are very concerned about what happens if you don't get the outcome you seek.

 

[buckaineer]

Ok, that's where I misunderstood what you were getting at. They probably do not feel "confident" in the GOR. A strong argument exists that GORs are unenforceable. This is the best explanation that I have found thus far arguing this point: http://msn.foxsports.com/college-fo...erage/myth-of-the-big-12s-grant-of-rights.php (however, it automatically assumes that GORs are liquidated damage clauses). To this point, the legality of the GORs is grounded in conferences that have GORs declining to poach schools from other conferences with GORs. God forbid the Big 12 try and poach FSU, win, and then the PAC-12 take Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Ok. State, and the B1G takes Kansas. That is the irony in winning against the GOR.

The Pac 12 is generating less revenues for its schools than the BIG 12 does. There is no chance the Pac 12 or anyone else for that matter is going to "take" Big 12 schools. It's possible some Pac 12 schools might one day join the BIG 12, or some of those western Big Ten schools would become tired of being stuck in a western upper midwest conference while OSU, PSU, MSU and Michigan all play one another each year and get yearly exposure in the new east coast markets.

The ACC remains vulnerable because its schools make so much less than the other leagues. $100 million less than Maryland by just 2020 and the ACC still has another 7 years on their all in contract.

 

[upstater]

The Pac 12 is generating less revenues for its schools than the BIG 12 does. There is no chance the Pac 12 or anyone else for that matter is going to "take" Big 12 schools. It's possible some Pac 12 schools might one day join the BIG 12, or some of those western Big Ten schools would become tired of being stuck in a western upper midwest conference while OSU, PSU, MSU and Michigan all play one another each year and get yearly exposure in the new east coast markets.

The ACC remains vulnerable because its schools make so much less than the other leagues. $100 million less than Maryland by just 2020 and the ACC still has another 7 years on their all in contract.

The B12's revs are only as good as Texas's word that it's going nowhere. Whereas the Pac12 is here to stay. $20m in perpetuity or until college sports cease. If you're Kansas you're not taking a chance.

 

[Durks07]

The Pac 12 is generating less revenues for its schools than the BIG 12 does. There is no chance the Pac 12 or anyone else for that matter is going to "take" Big 12 schools. It's possible some Pac 12 schools might one day join the BIG 12, or some of those western Big Ten schools would become tired of being stuck in a western upper midwest conference while OSU, PSU, MSU and Michigan all play one another each year and get yearly exposure in the new east coast markets.

The ACC remains vulnerable because its schools make so much less than the other leagues. $100 million less than Maryland by just 2020 and the ACC still has another 7 years on their all in contract.

No chance is probably too strong an assessment. While the Big 12 rakes in roughly $20m per school (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8346345/big-12-announces-media-deal-abc-espn-fox), the Pac-12 rakes in just about the same amount (http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/04/pac-12-officially-announces-landmark-media-deal/). The difference is not dramatic, and the numbers suggest that the Pac-12 gets almost $1m more per school (insignificant a difference in it of itself for sure). However, the media rights deal the Pac-12 could get with Texas alone in its footprint is massive. Adding Oklahoma brings that market into the equation and gives the Pac-12 control of one of the biggest rivalries in college sports. The raid of these four Big 12 schools came perilously close to happening in 2010 (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6998751/pac-12-conference-decides-expand-further).

Kansas, if the opportunity presented itself would jump at the chance to go to the B1G. The B1G pays out $5m more per school (http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76205/big-tens-tv-revenue-keeps-climbing), and projects a higher payout when its rights come up in 2016. The Big 12 has only 5 states in its footprint, and with three of those states have multiple members, the opportunities to grow that pot are limited. Especially if the Pac-12 came calling again, there is no benefit to sticking around with 6 schools when stability is so quick to attain.

The ACC has reason to remain concerned because two powerful conferences flank them. The SEC would love to get into NC and VA. The B1G would love to reach into those markets as well. However, the UNC and UVA talk to the B1G seems to have died down for now. Both see themselves as "Southern" universities and don't want (at the moment) to go to the B1G. However. if the SEC came calling and ripped two teams, the B1G would respond, and the Big 12 lives to fight another day with new members.

I'm not saying that it is going to happen that way, but the conference does have reason to sweat.

 

[buckaineer]

No chance is probably too strong an assessment. While the Big 12 rakes in roughly $20m per school (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8346345/big-12-announces-media-deal-abc-espn-fox), the Pac-12 rakes in just about the same amount (http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/04/pac-12-officially-announces-landmark-media-deal/). The difference is not dramatic, and the numbers suggest that the Pac-12 gets almost $1m more per school (insignificant a difference in it of itself for sure). However, the media rights deal the Pac-12 could get with Texas alone in its footprint is massive. Adding Oklahoma brings that market into the equation and gives the Pac-12 control of one of the biggest rivalries in college sports. The raid of these four Big 12 schools came perilously close to happening in 2010 (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6998751/pac-12-conference-decides-expand-further).

Kansas, if the opportunity presented itself would jump at the chance to go to the B1G. The B1G pays out $5m more per school (http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76205/big-tens-tv-revenue-keeps-climbing), and projects a higher payout when its rights come up in 2016. The Big 12 has only 5 states in its footprint, and with three of those states have multiple members, the opportunities to grow that pot are limited. Especially if the Pac-12 came calling again, there is no benefit to sticking around with 6 schools when stability is so quick to attain.

The ACC has reason to remain concerned because two powerful conferences flank them. The SEC would love to get into NC and VA. The B1G would love to reach into those markets as well. However, the UNC and UVA talk to the B1G seems to have died down for now. Both see themselves as "Southern" universities and don't want (at the moment) to go to the B1G. However. if the SEC came calling and ripped two teams, the B1G would respond, and the Big 12 lives to fight another day with new members.

I'm not saying that it is going to happen that way, but the conference does have reason to sweat.

I know you want to give the impression that somehow the BIG 12 is unstable or that schools are looking to move elsewhere to deflect from the instability of the ACC, buts it is simply misguided.

The numbers you see for the BIG 12 only include tiers 1 and 2 media rights for the league along with other things. They don't include tier 3, and all BIG 12 schools are making money from tier 3 tv deals despite what ACC fans and others will tell you.

Last year Texas and other members of the BIG 12 were paid out $22 million by the league. On top of that, Texas pulled in over $10 million for their tier 3 deal for television for the Longhorn Network. This year, UT will make more than $22 million in payouts from the BIG 12 conference as will other members and the number will increase throughout the tv deals. BIG 12 payouts for all media rights will remain on par with the top conferences.

Pac 12 payouts on the other hand --here is exactly what Oregon, the highest revenue earner for the 2012 year for the Pac 12 made:

• UO projects to receive $18.43 Million from the Pac-12 and the NCAA in Fiscal Year 2013. This distribution includes television revenue (projected and budgeted as $14.74 M), bowl revenue, NCAA basketball or other event revenue the conference distributes.
• We received $14.69 Million last fiscal year from the Pac-12 and the NCAA.
• The net gain is $3.74 Million from the Pac-12 and the NCAA, which includes the television revenue increase.

http://www.goducks.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205705405

You referenced a potential move of several years ago, prior to the BIG 12 signing new tv deals, GORs, Sugar bowl deal including ownership, Alamo bowl deal including ownership, and other revenues which on a per school basis are higher for the BIG 12 than any other league-coming online. You are talking about the past and inferring since teams were leaving the Big 12 years ago -and so some others explored options-that the same situation exists years later. It does not.

There isn't more stability in the Pac 12 and no BIG 12 schools are going to consider moving west--that is done.

Kansas would not jump at a chance to move to the Big Ten. Disregarding the GORs there is absolutely nothing to support that at all. Conference payouts for everything from the Big Ten were just over $25 million for full share members last year. Conference payouts for full share BIG 12 members were $22 million. But schools like Kansas also had tier 3 deals that boosted revenues for media rights above every Big Ten school.

For some reason you and others are under the mistaken belief that BIG 12 revenues remain static through 2025 but it isn't the case. By 2015 the conference payouts will be at $30 million per school and over $40 million by the end of the contracts. When you add in tier 3 media rights, BIG 12 schools will be just fine thank you. By 2025 the conference will have new tv deals that--if they are doing so for everyone else, will also be increasing for the BIG 12. Financially the BIG 12 is strong and will remain so, and also competitively.

ACC members are not going to keep pace financially and they know this and have expressed concern about it. No one in the BIG 12 is expressing any concern about stability of the league or a need to look around--and they aren't going to.

 

[buckaineer]

The B12's revs are only as good as Texas's word that it's going nowhere. Whereas the Pac12 is here to stay. $20m in perpetuity or until college sports cease. If you're Kansas you're not taking a chance.

The Big Ten's revs are only as good as Ohio State's word its not going anywhere. The SEC's revs are only as good as Alabama's and LSU's word they aren't going anywhere. The ACC's revs are only as good as FSUs word they aren't going anywhere. The Pac 12's revs are only as good as Oregon's and USC's word they aren't going anywhere.

Where do you people come up with this nonsense? I know some of you HOPE for the BIG 12 to go away, but it isn't a remote possibility. You are basing these silly thoughts on nothing real.

 

[upstater]

The Big Ten's revs are only as good as Ohio State's word its not going anywhere. The SEC's revs are only as good as Alabama's and LSU's word they aren't going anywhere. The ACC's revs are only as good as FSUs word they aren't going anywhere. The Pac 12's revs are only as good as Oregon's and USC's word they aren't going anywhere.

Where do you people come up with this nonsense? I know some of you HOPE for the BIG 12 to go away, but it isn't a remote possibility. You are basing these silly thoughts on nothing real.

I don't know why I bother. In over a century, Ohio State has sat on its eggs and hasn't spoken to a single anyone about leaving the B1G. Alabama and LSU have spoken to no one about leaving the SEC. Oregon and USC are on the Left Coast. Enough said. Only one of the schools mentioned here has had discussions with various conferences (Pac12, B1G, SEC, ACC), and that school is Texas.

Stop being an idiot.

 

[Pat125]

Buckaineer, the ACC's current exit fee and GOR has been done, at least significantly in part, to dissuade other universities from leaving the conference. It may have ended what I believe was mutual distrust that some of the members have on each other. But I don't think the purpose of the lawsuit is to make other members think twice of leaving. I think Mr. Swofford somehow actually believes the ACC is legally entitled to extort $52 million from Maryland, or thinks he can convince a possibly biased North Carolina court of that. If his purpose is to try to keep all of the current membership in line, he is playing a dangerous game with the lawsuit. Maryland, of course, would have a better chance of prevailing than other members, because they voted against the grossly, excessive fee, and announced soon after they were leaving the conference. That would not be the case for the others, who (except for Florida State) voted for the fee, and enough time has passed. Whereas Maryland has a good argument to say that the ACC's bylaw procedures weren't followed, the others, even Florida State, can no longer make that claim (they could only try to convince a court that the exit fee is punitive, and they had temporary asininity when they voted for it). Sure, if the ACC prevails, then the other members will see that the current fee would most likely be enforceable for them. A big gamble in my opinion.

As for the ACC Network, I doubt it will happen any time soon, but it appears to me this ESPN announcement has nothing to do with whether the ACC Network is happening or not. That ACC hasn't made any announcement about the ACC Network is more indicative they have no news to report at this time.

 

[buckaineer]

I don't know why I bother. In over a century, Ohio State has sat on its eggs and hasn't spoken to a single anyone about leaving the B1G. Alabama and LSU have spoken to no one about leaving the SEC. Oregon and USC are on the Left Coast. Enough said. Only one of the schools mentioned here has had discussions with various conferences (Pac12, B1G, SEC, ACC), and that school is Texas.

Stop being an idiot.

I've noticed when posters like you have no legitimate rebuttal you resort to personal attack or childish staements. That is uncalled for.

Things change. Once upon a time Big 12 payouts weren't so good compared to some of the other leagues. That has all changed now. Once upon a time the BIG 12 didnt have ownership of the Sugar bowl, a deal to play their best against the best of the SEC in the Sugar bowl - or to receive the same money and exposure as the Rose bowl. Its all changed. You rest your hopes on things that transpired years ago, but none of the circumstances of that time exist in the BIG 12 now. No one is considering moving from the BIG 12. Some did years ago, but it has absolutely no bearing on today or going forward.

Teams left the SEC, and big ten in the past as well as the ACC--different times, different circumstances.

No need to be angry, you need to move into the present and quit hanging your hopes on four years ago.

 

[buckaineer]

Buckaineer, the ACC's current exit fee and GOR has been done, at least significantly in part, to dissuade other universities from leaving the conference. It may have ended what I believe was mutual distrust that some of the members have on each other. But I don't think the purpose of the lawsuit is to make other members think twice of leaving. I think Mr. Swofford somehow actually believes the ACC is legally entitled to extort $52 million from Maryland, or thinks he can convince a possibly biased North Carolina court of that. If his purpose is to try to keep all of the current membership in line, he is playing a dangerous game with the lawsuit. Maryland, of course, would have a better chance of prevailing than other members, because they voted against the grossly, excessive fee, and announced soon after they were leaving the conference. That would not be the case for the others, who (except for Florida State) voted for the fee, and enough time has passed. Whereas Maryland has a good argument to say that the ACC's bylaw procedures weren't followed, the others, even Florida State, can no longer make that claim (they could only try to convince a court that the exit fee is punitive, and they had temporary asininity when they voted for it). Sure, if the ACC prevails, then the other members will see that the current fee would most likely be enforceable for them. A big gamble in my opinion.

As for the ACC Network, I doubt it will happen any time soon, but it appears to me this ESPN announcement has nothing to do with whether the ACC Network is happening or not. That ACC hasn't made any announcement about the ACC Network is more indicative they have no news to report at this time.

i don't believe that having voted for the fee ( which as you mentioned FSU did not) or immediately leaving have any legal bearing whatsoever. If the court rules the buyout isn't legal- it isn't legal or valid anymore. Obviously schools had not been invited anywhere else at the time, and some would not be so of course they voted for the increase. If it wasnt a valid vote though, it would have to be done over probably, but the court may rule the fee to be punitive and unenforceable.

Some believe the announced network is indeed what the ACC will get. It is strange the conference hasnt commented one way or another on this development- they make official announcements for all new developments and if that is what its claimed then they would make an announcement about the increased exposure. no reason not to make an announcement as they have for everything else.

 

[Durks07]

I know you want to give the impression that somehow the BIG 12 is unstable or that schools are looking to move elsewhere to deflect from the instability of the ACC, buts it is simply misguided.

The numbers you see for the BIG 12 only include tiers 1 and 2 media rights for the league along with other things. They don't include tier 3, and all BIG 12 schools are making money from tier 3 tv deals despite what ACC fans and others will tell you.

Last year Texas and other members of the BIG 12 were paid out $22 million by the league. On top of that, Texas pulled in over $10 million for their tier 3 deal for television for the Longhorn Network. This year, UT will make more than $22 million in payouts from the BIG 12 conference as will other members and the number will increase throughout the tv deals. BIG 12 payouts for all media rights will remain on par with the top conferences.

Pac 12 payouts on the other hand --here is exactly what Oregon, the highest revenue earner for the 2012 year for the Pac 12 made:

• 
  [ ]UO projects to receive $18.43 Million from the Pac-12 and the NCAA in Fiscal Year 2013. This distribution includes television revenue (projected and budgeted as $14.74 M), bowl revenue, NCAA basketball or other event revenue the conference distributes.
  [ ]We received $14.69 Million last fiscal year from the Pac-12 and the NCAA.
  [ ]The net gain is $3.74 Million from the Pac-12 and the NCAA, which includes the television revenue increase.

http://www.goducks.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205705405

You referenced a potential move of several years ago, prior to the BIG 12 signing new tv deals, GORs, Sugar bowl deal including ownership, Alamo bowl deal including ownership, and other revenues which on a per school basis are higher for the BIG 12 than any other league-coming online. You are talking about the past and inferring since teams were leaving the Big 12 years ago -and so some others explored options-that the same situation exists years later. It does not.

There isn't more stability in the Pac 12 and no BIG 12 schools are going to consider moving west--that is done.

Kansas would not jump at a chance to move to the Big Ten. Disregarding the GORs there is absolutely nothing to support that at all. Conference payouts for everything from the Big Ten were just over $25 million for full share members last year. Conference payouts for full share BIG 12 members were $22 million. But schools like Kansas also had tier 3 deals that boosted revenues for media rights above every Big Ten school.

For some reason you and others are under the mistaken belief that BIG 12 revenues remain static through 2025 but it isn't the case. By 2015 the conference payouts will be at $30 million per school and over $40 million by the end of the contracts. When you add in tier 3 media rights, BIG 12 schools will be just fine thank you. By 2025 the conference will have new tv deals that--if they are doing so for everyone else, will also be increasing for the BIG 12. Financially the BIG 12 is strong and will remain so, and also competitively.

ACC members are not going to keep pace financially and they know this and have expressed concern about it. No one in the BIG 12 is expressing any concern about stability of the league or a need to look around--and they aren't going to.

You "know" that I want to deflect from the instability of the ACC? How is that exactly? I am a UConn fan. I'm now predisposed to advocating for the ACC? Something I'd rather mainline battery acid than do. Not sure how you got to that point (other than taking any comment that the Big 12 is not as stable as the B1G or the SEC as an attack against the conference).

 

[clmssun]

From the link in the original post:
The deal doesn't include the Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 or SEC because those conferences either already have or are planning to launch their own networks.

What Big 12 network? Isn't the Big 12 missing from this list due to their Fox television contract? Or have I missed something?

 

[upstater]

I've noticed when posters like you have no legitimate rebuttal you resort to personal attack or childish staements. That is uncalled for.

Things change. Once upon a time Big 12 payouts weren't so good compared to some of the other leagues. That has all changed now. Once upon a time the BIG 12 didnt have ownership of the Sugar bowl, a deal to play their best against the best of the SEC in the Sugar bowl - or to receive the same money and exposure as the Rose bowl. Its all changed. You rest your hopes on things that transpired years ago, but none of the circumstances of that time exist in the BIG 12 now. No one is considering moving from the BIG 12. Some did years ago, but it has absolutely no bearing on today or going forward.

Teams left the SEC, and big ten in the past as well as the ACC--different times, different circumstances.

No need to be angry, you need to move into the present and quit hanging your hopes on four years ago.

Is it not idiotic to suggest Ohio State is just as likely to leave the B1G as Texas is the B12? USC? Come on!!!

 

[clmssun]

It's interesting the ACC office hasn't commented on this new ACC network. Usually they are out ahead of the game spinning every so called development but not a peep on this so far.

What I find particularly interesting is WVU's obsession with the ACC, an "inferior" conference, they argue.

 

[clmssun]

It's interesting the ACC office hasn't commented on this new ACC network. Usually they are out ahead of the game spinning every so called development but not a peep on this so far.

This is not a "new ACC network", and it has nothing to do with a possible future ACC network. This is not a "development", hence no comment. (No, at this point, I do not understand Syracuse's concerns.)

 

[pj]

i don't believe that having voted for the fee ( which as you mentioned FSU did not) or immediately leaving have any legal bearing whatsoever. If the court rules the buyout isn't legal- it isn't legal or valid anymore.

Of course it matters. The general principle of contract law is that you are liable only for those obligations that you voluntarily agreed to incur. If Maryland had voted for the exit fee increase, then the ACC would have a strong case that Maryland had agreed to the fee and was therefore liable to pay it.

Whereas, the ability of the ACC to impose an exit fee on Maryland against its will is much more doubtful. Particularly since the ACC was aware that some universities were considering/negotiating their departure at the time it imposed the fee increase. Clearly if Maryland had announced its departure, and then the ACC tried to retroactively impose a higher exit fee, courts would throw that out. But since it takes months for Maryland to negotiate its agreement with the B1G, and the ACC acted to impose the fee after it heard of B1G efforts to recruit ACC schools, Maryland can argue that the case is functionally similar.

 

[buckaineer]

Is it not idiotic to suggest Ohio State is just as likely to leave the B1G as Texas is the B12? USC? Come on!!!

No its not idiotic to suggest that Ohio State is just as likely to leave the Big Ten as Texas is the BIG 12. Its idiotic to suggest one is more likely than the other.

Neither one is likely to happen at all.

You are mistaking your preference for something that is a possibility.

 

[buckaineer]

Of course it matters. The general principle of contract law is that you are liable only for those obligations that you voluntarily agreed to incur. If Maryland had voted for the exit fee increase, then the ACC would have a strong case that Maryland had agreed to the fee and was therefore liable to pay it.

Whereas, the ability of the ACC to impose an exit fee on Maryland against its will is much more doubtful. Particularly since the ACC was aware that some universities were considering/negotiating their departure at the time it imposed the fee increase. Clearly if Maryland had announced its departure, and then the ACC tried to retroactively impose a higher exit fee, courts would throw that out. But since it takes months for Maryland to negotiate its agreement with the B1G, and the ACC acted to impose the fee after it heard of B1G efforts to recruit ACC schools, Maryland can argue that the case is functionally similar.

No. If a court rules that the buyout is illegal it doesn't matter if someone voted for it or not. Its illegal and unenforceable and void.

I agree with the second part of what you stated.

 

[buckaineer]

This is not a "new ACC network", and it has nothing to do with a possible future ACC network. This is not a "development", hence no comment. (No, at this point, I do not understand Syracuse's concerns.)

The ACC has announced every new development- certainly media agreements. Its interesting they did not comment on this network. This certainly is an ACC network- via ESPN. Syracuse is concerned because it isn't what they were promised and provides no financial increase.

 

[buckaineer]

What I find particularly interesting is WVU's obsession with the ACC, an "inferior" conference, they argue.

WVU didnt write the article or create the thread. Neither did WVu fans. I wonder why ACC fans always try to dismiss every bit of news that isnt positive for their league.

 

[Pat125]

i don't believe that having voted for the fee ( which as you mentioned FSU did not) or immediately leaving have any legal bearing whatsoever. If the court rules the buyout isn't legal- it isn't legal or valid anymore. Obviously schools had not been invited anywhere else at the time, and some would not be so of course they voted for the increase. If it wasnt a valid vote though, it would have to be done over probably, but the court may rule the fee to be punitive and unenforceable.

Some believe the announced network is indeed what the ACC will get. It is strange the conference hasnt commented one way or another on this development- they make official announcements for all new developments and if that is what its claimed then they would make an announcement about the increased exposure. no reason not to make an announcement as they have for everything else.

First of all, if Swofford had any civilized, adult human traits, he would have let Maryland go for $20 million and avoid a trial. This would have at least left the illusion that $52 million fee is enforceable, thus preventing other defections. Going to trial risked that.

As for the ACC Network, it is only tangentially or indirectly related to the ESPN announcement. Frankly, I don't know if Swofford typically responds to such news by making announcements. Even then, I don't know what can be interpreted by his silence this time.

 

[SouthronCross]

Of course it matters. The general principle of contract law is that you are liable only for those obligations that you voluntarily agreed to incur. If Maryland had voted for the exit fee increase, then the ACC would have a strong case that Maryland had agreed to the fee and was therefore liable to pay it.

As a member of the ACC, Maryland agreed to abide by league votes on things like the exit fee. That they voted against the $52M does not mean they are not bound by that decision, since the 10-2 vote confirming the fee easily surpasses the 75% threshold needed to make it a league law. If the ACC properly followed its own bylaws on the voting and implementing of the fee, the league will win the case.

Whereas, the ability of the ACC to impose an exit fee on Maryland against its will is much more doubtful. Particularly since the ACC was aware that some universities were considering/negotiating their departure at the time it imposed the fee increase. Clearly if Maryland had announced its departure, and then the ACC tried to retroactively impose a higher exit fee, courts would throw that out. But since it takes months for Maryland to negotiate its agreement with the B1G, and the ACC acted to impose the fee after it heard of B1G efforts to recruit ACC schools, Maryland can argue that the case is functionally similar.

Where do you get that the ACC imposed the exit fee upon Maryland? It was brought up, debated upon, and, passed by, the league's membership. All 12 members (at the time) were bound by the vote on it. That is not something that can be unilaterally slapped on a member institution by John Swofford. It looked more like a show of unity by the 10 who voted for it, IMHO.

To be sure, Clemson...who was having their own second thoughts about the league...would have certainly voted against it if they thought it was overly excessive.

 

[clmssun]

The ACC has announced every new development- certainly media agreements. Its interesting they did not comment on this network. This certainly is an ACC network- via ESPN. Syracuse is concerned because it isn't what they were promised and provides no financial increase.

I have been Googling, and, thus far, I can find no comment suggesting that this ACC "subchannel" of WatchESPN is streaming any additional events beyond those which WatchESPN has already been streaming. This sounds like a purely cosmetic, superficial, user-friendly "ease of searching" mechanism so that ACC fans can find all of their Watch ESPN events (that have always been there) more quickly and easily.

 

[Pat125]

No its not idiotic to suggest that Ohio State is just as likely to leave the Big Ten as Texas is the BIG 12. Its idiotic to suggest one is more likely than the other.

Neither one is likely to happen at all.

You are mistaking your preference for something that is a possibility.

I'm afraid I disagree. By 2025, I believe the chances that Ohio St. leaves the Big Ten is < 1%. The chances that Texas is not in the Big 12 (including the possibility of the dissolution of the Big 12) is about 50%.