OT: Florida State to sue ACC over GOR

[Pat125]

Why would the ACC settle ? The Florida judge ordered remediation and both parties have said it won't go anywhere.

This is an existential matter for them...Why not delay as long as possible?

...there is no need to settle. FSU and Clemson won't even announce that they are leaving (and thus have the ACC withhold conference payouts). But FSU and Clemson won't play in the ACC in 2026.

Come 2025..it is over.

You have an opinion...and I have another...

The point is the contract is not as cut and dried as you state it is. If it was, Florida St. would be out, regardless of the ACC’s interest to drag things out, and Florida St. would save a lot on attorney fees. Yet here we are months later with no end in sight, and lots of attorneys continue to get rich for the unforeseeable future.

Your interpretation of the ACC/ESPN agreements may be right for all I know, and maybe all the courts will agree to that someday well into the future, but the problem is there are parts that both sides are vehemently fighting for regarding the interpretation.

In the paragraph of the agreement including “only to meet the requirements of the ESPN agreement” also includes the phrase whether the school “is a member of the conference or not.”

Also, I have not read from anyone or seen in any documentation regarding February 2021. If that were true, then the GOR is over in 2027 according to you. Why would Florida St. have to wait until February 2025?

Also, it does not seem fair to me that the option to extend to 2036 is one-sided towards ESPN. Both the ACC and the individual schools should have the option as well. But contracts can include one-sided provisions, and the ACC and the schools apparently agreed to it when they signed.

 

[billybud]

Lots of comments about the belief that since ESPN did not exercise its option to extend the ACC TV contract to 2036, then the contract ends in 2027. Period.

The concern goes that if this is so obvious, why hasn’t anyone influential to ending this debate come forward?

The answer lies in the documentation, or lack of it. FSU first announced that there was this ESPN “opt out” in a BOT meeting held several months before it filed the first suit in December. And they noted that it was extended after it expired and without a member vote.

But FSU only read those documents without being allowed to take notes and while being proctored and weren’t sure they read everything. The ESPN Agreement was unavailable to review except in a heavily redacted form. Several hundred pages to eyeball only. They needed all the documentation to make the legal case. They needed the TV contract(s) in their hands.

The ACC has kept documents unavailable..has instead, told members what the deals were...Clemson has filed in court that the conference, with malice, misrepresented the GOR and the ESPN Agreement...and acted outside of the bylaws.

Phillips just stated that he is negotiating with ESPN...If ESPN is already negotiating ”something” with the ACC, it is likely that Phillips knows that ESPN is not going to extend the contract.

ESPN probably doesn’t see the necessity of making a public announcement. Even if ESPN decides to extend the current contract, FSU and CU will then sue that the extension is invalid for all the reasons noted in former posts. ESPN will have no certainty that FSU and CU will be in the conference in the near future.

It will be glacierly slow if it goes through the courts with appeals, etc. But we will soon know with more clarity the contract details.

"Now, in response to Attorney General Moody’s action, the ACC has notified the state of Florida that the following documents will be produced in accordance with the Florida Public Records Act: (due by August 1, 2024)

..2010 ACC Multi Media Agreement
..2012 Amendment and Exten sion Agreement
..2014 Second Amendment to Multi Media Agreement
..2016 Amended and Restated ACC ESPN Multi Media Agreement
..ACC- ESPN Network Agreement (2016)
..Letter Amendment to Amended and Restated Multi Media Agreement (Aug. 10, 2021)

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Has the extension to reach agreement on a contract through 2036 lapsed?

 

[billybud]

Has the extension to reach agreement on a contract through 2036 lapsed?

ESPN had until Feb. 1. 2021 to exercise their option to extend the Agreement from 2025 to 2036..this was kept hidden from Members of the ACC..and the conference kept telling the press and members that the Agreement was in place until 2036.

Jim Phillips came to the ACC that February...and, at some time, found out that ESPN had not exercised the extension option as defined in the Agreement...he, unilaterally, without informing members, sent a letter to ESPN in August, 2021 giving them until September 2025 to extend the Agreement to 2036. And that was also kept secret.

Clemson and FSU's position is that, with the failure to extend by the deadline in the Agreement, the Agreement ends in 2025...and furthermore, the Commissioner did not have the authority to attempt to extend the Agreement without member's knowledge...and the deliberate misleading by the conference office, the secrecy, the hidden documents have been portrayed by Clemson as an outright act of fraud...and they have sued for damages caused to their program by being misled.

Of course it is untenable for Clemson and FSU to stay in the conference...they will endure a stream of adversarial negativeness. The boats have been burned on the beach and there is no retreat. It is now about how much will it cost.

Many ACC programs are hoping that the ACC stays together...But Clemson and FSU have been outsiders...big football programs in a basketball centric conference. It has never been a real comfortable match.

...and North Carolina politics will be working to keep the ACC a North Carolina based piggy bank...every championship is played now in North Carolina, the ACC office is in North Carolina...it is about North Carolina. Even if UNC was offered a place in the B1G, it is not at all clear that the State System BOG would allow it...their new Chair has stated that they would look out for what is best for the state university system as a whole...they currently have four programs in the ACC and might want to add another if the opportunity arose. And the BOG Chair is appointed by the Governor and ratified by the legislature.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

ESPN had until Feb. 1. 2021 to exercise their option to extend the Agreement from 2025 to 2036..this was kept hidden from Members of the ACC..and the conference kept telling the press and members that the Agreement was in place until 2036.

If this were true, then the ACC would have been actively pursuing a new media contract with all potential broadcast partners as there would be now less than one year remaining on the current deal. The negotiations that led to the downfall of the P-12 started more than thirty months in advance of expiration of their then current contract, became public nearly 25 months in advance and completely deteriorated roughly twelve months in advance of the contract expiring.

Jim Phillips came to the ACC that February...and, at some time, found out that ESPN had not exercised the extension option as defined in the Agreement...he, unilaterally, without informing members, sent a letter to ESPN in August, 2021 giving them until September 2025 to extend the Agreement to 2036.

To me this sounds like standard operating procedure. Until I see a ruling stating differently, I will adhere to this.

And that was also kept secret.

Who eactly was this kept secret from? Every member school likely would have been anticipating announcement of an extenstion and I imagine that any member that was curious as to to situation would merely have needed to ask (and well coulld have asked). The general public not being informed doesn't necessarily constitute it being a secret and it is highly likely that those complaining they hadn't found out put themselves in that position intentionally for plausible deniability.

Clemson and FSU's position is that, with the failure to extend by the deadline in the Agreement, the Agreement ends in 2025...and furthermore, the Commissioner did not have the authority to attempt to extend the Agreement without member's knowledge...and the deliberate misleading by the conference office, the secrecy, the hidden documents have been portrayed by Clemson as an outright act of fraud...and they have sued for damages caused to their program by being misled.

Again, the authority the commissioner was granted and whether or not others in authority did or did not know are things that should be easily proven and if the commissioner had overstepped his authority and/or did not properly notify those who were required to be notified, this would have been settled (in favor of FSU/Clemson) in the matter of days. Why is it still an open issue? As far as fraud allegations, this will be quite difficult to prove and of greater importance, someone claiming to have been defrauded does not mean a fraud had been committed. There's a federal statue (the False Claims Act) due ti the excessive number of false accusations of fraud that end up in court. Clemson can claim it. I'll believe it was a fraud when a court states that it was.

Of course it is untenable for Clemson and FSU to stay in the conference...they will endure a stream of adversarial negativeness. The boats have been burned on the beach and there is no retreat. It is now about how much will it cost.

There may be an even larger issue for FSU and Clemson. If a court decides these actions undermined the ACC's ability to negotiate an extension at fair market value, the two schools could be on the hook for damages.

Many ACC programs are hoping that the ACC stays together...But Clemson and FSU have been outsiders...big football programs in a basketball centric conference. It has never been a real comfortable match.

Why the hell didn't they leave for the B-12 a dozen years ago (when it not only wouldn't have cost them close to the current cost to leave, but they would have been able to face off as conference mates with Texas and Oklahoma)? The opportunity was there, it was a basketball centric conference then (more than today even), the match wasn't comfortable then.

...and North Carolina politics will be working to keep the ACC a North Carolina based piggy bank...every championship is played now in North Carolina, the ACC office is in North Carolina...it is about North Carolina.

It isn't as if the headquarters of the conference office, the number of North Carolina members or even the basic membership of the conference (I believe there was only one change) has altered since the GOR was signed.

Even if UNC was offered a place in the B1G, it is not at all clear that the State System BOG would allow it...their new Chair has stated that they would look out for what is best for the state university system as a whole...they currently have four programs in the ACC and might want to add another if the opportunity arose. And the BOG Chair is appointed by the Governor and ratified by the legislature.

What does this have to do with FSU or Clemson? Hell, what (directly) does it have to do with the ACC? If the governing body of state of Florida's higher education system passed a rule requiring some relationship between UF, FSU, UCF and USF (X number of football games every Y number of years; X number of basketball games every Y number of years; X number of baseball games every Y number of years) would that be an ACC/SEC/B-12/AAC issue?
It isn't as if the headquarters of the conference office, the number of North Carolina members or even the basic membership of the conference (I believe there was only one change) has altered since the GOR was signed.

 

[BlueHen]

If this were true, then the ACC would have been actively pursuing a new media contract with all potential broadcast partners as there would be now less than one year remaining on the current deal. The negotiations that led to the downfall of the P-12 started more than thirty months in advance of expiration of their then current contract, became public nearly 25 months in advance and completely deteriorated roughly twelve months in advance of the contract expiring.


To me this sounds like standard operating procedure. Until I see a ruling stating differently, I will adhere to this.


Who eactly was this kept secret from? Every member school likely would have been anticipating announcement of an extenstion and I imagine that any member that was curious as to to situation would merely have needed to ask (and well coulld have asked). The general public not being informed doesn't necessarily constitute it being a secret and it is highly likely that those complaining they hadn't found out put themselves in that position intentionally for plausible deniability.



Again, the authority the commissioner was granted and whether or not others in authority did or did not know are things that should be easily proven and if the commissioner had overstepped his authority and/or did not properly notify those who were required to be notified, this would have been settled (in favor of FSU/Clemson) in the matter of days. Why is it still an open issue? As far as fraud allegations, this will be quite difficult to prove and of greater importance, someone claiming to have been defrauded does not mean a fraud had been committed. There's a federal statue (the False Claims Act) due ti the excessive number of false accusations of fraud that end up in court. Clemson can claim it. I'll believe it was a fraud when a court states that it was.


There may be an even larger issue for FSU and Clemson. If a court decides these actions undermined the ACC's ability to negotiate an extension at fair market value, the two schools could be on the hook for damages.


Why the hell didn't they leave for the B-12 a dozen years ago (when it not only wouldn't have cost them close to the current cost to leave, but they would have been able to face off as conference mates with Texas and Oklahoma)? The opportunity was there, it was a basketball centric conference then (more than today even), the match wasn't comfortable then.



It isn't as if the headquarters of the conference office, the number of North Carolina members or even the basic membership of the conference (I believe there was only one change) has altered since the GOR was signed.



What does this have to do with FSU or Clemson? Hell, what (directly) does it have to do with the ACC? If the governing body of state of Florida's higher education system passed a rule requiring some relationship between UF, FSU, UCF and USF (X number of football games every Y number of years; X number of basketball games every Y number of years; X number of baseball games every Y number of years) would that be an ACC/SEC/B-12/AAC issue?
It isn't as if the headquarters of the conference office, the number of North Carolina members or even the basic membership of the conference (I believe there was only one change) has altered since the GOR was signed.

If what were true? You seem to be responding to yourself. Was a post deleted? I'm confused (that's nothing new though).

 

[FfldCntyFan]

If what were true? You seem to be responding to yourself. Was a post deleted? I'm confused (that's nothing new though).

Look at the portion of his post immediately above each response (unless you've blocked the initial poster, then all you would see would be my responses).

 

[billybud]

If this were true, then the ACC would have been actively pursuing a new media contract with all potential broadcast partners as there would be now less than one year remaining on the current deal. The negotiations that led to the downfall of the P-12 started more than thirty months in advance of expiration of their then current contract, became public nearly 25 months in advance and completely deteriorated roughly twelve months in advance of the contract expiring.


To me this sounds like standard operating procedure. Until I see a ruling stating differently, I will adhere to this.


Who eactly was this kept secret from? Every member school likely would have been anticipating announcement of an extenstion and I imagine that any member that was curious as to to situation would merely have needed to ask (and well coulld have asked). The general public not being informed doesn't necessarily constitute it being a secret and it is highly likely that those complaining they hadn't found out put themselves in that position intentionally for plausible deniability.



Again, the authority the commissioner was granted and whether or not others in authority did or did not know are things that should be easily proven and if the commissioner had overstepped his authority and/or did not properly notify those who were required to be notified, this would have been settled (in favor of FSU/Clemson) in the matter of days. Why is it still an open issue? As far as fraud allegations, this will be quite difficult to prove and of greater importance, someone claiming to have been defrauded does not mean a fraud had been committed. There's a federal statue (the False Claims Act) due ti the excessive number of false accusations of fraud that end up in court. Clemson can claim it. I'll believe it was a fraud when a court states that it was.


There may be an even larger issue for FSU and Clemson. If a court decides these actions undermined the ACC's ability to negotiate an extension at fair market value, the two schools could be on the hook for damages.


Why the hell didn't they leave for the B-12 a dozen years ago (when it not only wouldn't have cost them close to the current cost to leave, but they would have been able to face off as conference mates with Texas and Oklahoma)? The opportunity was there, it was a basketball centric conference then (more than today even), the match wasn't comfortable then.



It isn't as if the headquarters of the conference office, the number of North Carolina members or even the basic membership of the conference (I believe there was only one change) has altered since the GOR was signed.



What does this have to do with FSU or Clemson? Hell, what (directly) does it have to do with the ACC? If the governing body of state of Florida's higher education system passed a rule requiring some relationship between UF, FSU, UCF and USF (X number of football games every Y number of years; X number of basketball games every Y number of years; X number of baseball games every Y number of years) would that be an ACC/SEC/B-12/AAC issue?
It isn't as if the headquarters of the conference office, the number of North Carolina members or even the basic membership of the conference (I believe there was only one change) has altered since the GOR was signed.

This is a realignment board. As such, there has been much speculation about UNC. My point was that if UNC does not bolt, the ACC will maintain a nucleus. And the ACC may be more willing to negotiate with Clemson/FSU with UNC at home.

 

[billybud]

And… we know from Jim Phillips’ remarks at the ACC meeting that he is currently in negotiations with ESPN. Who knows if he is contacting other networks. We do know that he is negotiating.

 

[billybud]

One impact item for the ACC….the ACCN is owned by ESPN and throws off revenue. They are kind of tied to ESPN.

 

[Rufus]

Which conference should FSU join: Big 10, SEC, Big 12 or stay in ACC? Cast your vote!

Florida State is suing to exit the ACC. Should they go to the Big 10, Big 12 or SEC? Or heck, should the Seminoles just stay put? Let us know!

www.tallahassee.com

 

[CL82]

Which conference should FSU join: Big 10, SEC, Big 12 or stay in ACC? Cast your vote!

Florida State is suing to exit the ACC. Should they go to the Big 10, Big 12 or SEC? Or heck, should the Seminoles just stay put? Let us know!

www.tallahassee.com

That's a surprisingly even distribution. Perhaps even more interesting is that the slight favorite is the big 12.

 

[UConnJim]

Jim Phillips came to the ACC that February...and, at some time, found out that ESPN had not exercised the extension option as defined in the Agreement...he, unilaterally, without informing members, sent a letter to ESPN in August, 2021 giving them until September 2025 to extend the Agreement to 2036.

FfldCntyFan To me this sounds like standard operating procedure. Until I see a ruling stating differently, I will adhere to this.​

If Phillips unilaterally extended ESPN's option to extend the ACC contract, I would think this would require conference approval and he exceeded his authority I wouldn't call a unilateral decision to extend the option date standard operating procedure.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

FfldCntyFan To me this sounds like standard operating procedure. Until I see a ruling stating differently, I will adhere to this.​

If Phillips unilaterally extended ESPN's option to extend the ACC contract, I would think this would require conference approval and he exceeded his authority I wouldn't call a unilateral decision to extend the option date standard operating procedure.

Please walk me through this. The assertion is that the commissioner stepped beyond his authority (in extending the option date) yet these lawsuits are still in their infancy in the attempt to free some ACC schools from the GOR. If the assertion were true, there would be no need for the lawsuits.

It is very likely that the commissioner was granted authority to make decisions that, within good faith, he felt were in the conference's best interests. That is standard operating procedure in many businesses. That some members may not agree with the decision does not mean he did not have the authority. I imagine that with nearly any decision, on anything, some members would be in full agreement, others would agree slightly while remaining members would disagree. No decisions would ever be made if full agreement was needed and, business could come to a grinding halt if for many decisions, someone wasn't given full authority to speak for the enterprise as a whole.

If there was malfeasance, it wasn't in extending the option. If it was the case would already have been decided and the schools that want out would already have their freedom.

 

[billybud]

Something just doesn't seem right..

...the ACC hiding the ESPN Media Agreement
...misrepresenting to everyone the fact of it being through 2027...not 2036 (no mention of need for an ESPN further "opt-in")
...the ESPN Content President, John Skipper, stating that Swofford told him that Raycom had to be included in the deal...cost millions to ACC.


Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. That one may smile and smile and be a villain. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in our philosophy.

 

[billybud]

Commissioner had a chance to clear this up during the ACC Meeting Q&A period...

Did he waffle ? And not answer the direct question of the opt out option for ESPN....

Q. Coach K recently told me when it comes to realignment he sees one of the biggest factors as 'FOX being at war with ESPN'. You just described ESPN and your relationship with them as having never been stronger. It would seem it would help the ACC if somebody at ESPN would come out and say, This is our partner through 2036, as that original contract was written, rather than discussions about a February deadline and opt out option. What can you tell us about how ESPN is advocating for you, given your description that the relationship has never been better?

COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS: Where did you see Coach K?

Q. He was on my show.

COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS: We have a great relationship. I'm not just saying that. We have a great relationship with ESPN and the ACC Network, all of rest of that. We've had significant positive discussions and progress on one component of the contract.

Our partnership with ESPN is not going away. It's not going away. We have talked to them about additional resources and how do we monetize it.

We're 50/50 partners on that. They're as motivated as we are to generate more revenue for the overall television deal. I'm very optimistic about where we're going with them. They understand the importance.

I'll just leave it at that.

 

[UConnJim]

Please walk me through this. The assertion is that the commissioner stepped beyond his authority (in extending the option date) yet these lawsuits are still in their infancy in the attempt to free some ACC schools from the GOR. If the assertion were true, there would be no need for the lawsuits.

It is very likely that the commissioner was granted authority to make decisions that, within good faith, he felt were in the conference's best interests. That is standard operating procedure in many businesses. That some members may not agree with the decision does not mean he did not have the authority. I imagine that with nearly any decision, on anything, some members would be in full agreement, others would agree slightly while remaining members would disagree. No decisions would ever be made if full agreement was needed and, business could come to a grinding halt if for many decisions, someone wasn't given full authority to speak for the enterprise as a whole.

If there was malfeasance, it wasn't in extending the option. If it was the case would already have been decided and the schools that want out would already have their freedom.

My experience is different. Yes, the leader of an organization can be provided with broad powers, but extending the option date on the largest financial matter of the conference potentially without approval is not normal course of business. If the ESPN contract is not extended after 2027, schools need to be planning today for leaving the conference or potentially lower media revenues. That said, we don't know if it was done or if he did it unilaterally. The whole situation is murky. If the option was extended, at the very least he would have been expected to contact each school and tell them about the extension as soon as he did it.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

My experience is different. Yes, the leader of an organization can be provided with broad powers, but extending the option date on the largest financial matter of the conference potentially without approval is not normal course of business. If the ESPN contract is not extended after 2027, schools need to be planning today for leaving the conference or potentially lower media revenues. That said, we don't know if it was done or if he did it unilaterally. The whole situation is murky. If the option was extended, at the very least he would have been expected to contact each school and tell them about the extension as soon as he did it.

Again, if he did overstep his bounds as claimed, FSU and Clemson would already be free.

 

[KryHavok]

View attachment 102593
That's a surprisingly even distribution. Perhaps even more interesting is that the slight favorite is the big 12.

Really surprised they're not considering the Sun Belt Conference. FSU would be the premier "state" university, it gives the SBC a foothold in Florida, and it makes the SBC a contiguous southeast conference. They'd be favorites to win the conference title every year and get a Gx autobid for the the playoffs, and they can negotiate their pay rate. Really, what do the 'noles have to lose? FSU to the SBC, heard it here first folks.

 

[dayooper]

Again, if he did overstep his bounds as claimed, FSU and Clemson would already be free.

One could also say that if the ACC was totally correct, the lawsuits would have ended FSU would be stuck in the ACC for 12 more years. Another point is if there was nothing to hide in the contracts and GoR, why would the ACC/ESPN fight so hard to keep it from their members?

My guess is that this isn’t a black and white answer on either side, that there’s quite a bit of gray area with both arguments. Lawsuits, especially high profile ones like these take a long time to figure out. It’s not a cut and dry situation and it’s going to be a fairly long battle and it’s not going to be good for either party.

Edited for a bump on the post button when I wasn’t finished.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Again, if he did overstep his bounds as claimed, FSU and Clemson would already be free.

Why would they already be free?

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Why would they already be free?

If the claim (that he overstepped his authority) was true, any member school that felt aggrieved could have sued immediately upon discovery of that information as it would be serious malfeasance. A hearing on that could have been settled in a matter of hours and the aggrieved schools could have had basically their choice of settlement (including dissolution of the GOR).

There wouldn't be a lot open to legal interpretation if the conference commissioner extended an option that he did not have the authority to extend.

 

[billybud]

Folks naive to process would say.."they would be free".

Clemson and FSU are only free when a court determines that they do own their future rights,,,other wise it is "he didn't have the authority".."Did too"..."Fraud".."Oh you whiners".

The whole purpose of the court proceedings is to make that determination...now, with the courts ordering that documents that have been kept secret to be delivered, there is information for a judge to look at. To determine just what the combined GOR/ESPN Media Agreement really dictates.

But..these cases are still in the Appeals courts of North Carolina and Florida regarding jurisdiction, so the process will be slow. And after a court makes a decision in favor of a party, the other will appeal the decision.

But...the courts have ordered that the information kept as "confidential" be sent to the courts of Florida and South Carolina. With that information, the cases can be prosecuted.

The usual process will be for the court to enroll evidence, schedule the hearings, and the take sworn testimony from the plaintiff and defendant, and ask questions to develop the facts...the court then issues a decision based on found facts and points of law.

It is that event that triggers the freedom to announce that the program is exiting the ACC with their media rights available.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

One could also say that if the ACC was totally correct, the lawsuits would have ended FSU would be stuck in the ACC for 12 more years. Another point is if there was nothing to hide in the contracts and GoR, why would the ACC/ESPN fight so hard to keep it from their members?

My guess is that this isn’t a black and white answer on either side, that there’s quite a bit of gray area with both arguments. Lawsuits, especially high profile ones like these take a long time to figure out. It’s not a cut and dry situation and it’s going to be a fairly long battle and it’s not going to be good for either party.

Edited for a bump on the post button when I wasn’t finished.

If the only item within the lawsuit was that the option was extended then yes, your point would have some merit. The lawsuit appears to be throwing a number of perceived grievances our, hoping that something sticks.

Were they fighting to keep it from their members or from the general public? I seem to remember reading that the member schools were allowed to view the documents in the ACC office, they just weren't allowed to take copies back with them. I also seem to remember the judge in Florida ruling that FSU was allowed to receive a copy but they could not share it with outside parties, could not publicly comment on its contents and were required to destroy the document once they finished reviewing it.

Back to the commissioner and whether he does or does not have the authority to extend an option, operating agreements, management agreements and employment agreements would all be accessible to all members. I know exactly what would happen if I signed a contract as a representative of my firm. I am very confident that ESPN, the commissioner and senior representatives of all ACC member schools knew what the commissioner did and did not have the authority to authorize at the time the extension was agreed to.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Folks naive to process would say.."they would be free".

Clemson and FSU are only free when a court determines that they do own their future rights,,,other wise it is "he didn't have the authority".."Did too"..."Fraud".."Oh you whiners".

The whole purpose of the court proceedings is to make that determination...now, with the courts ordering that documents that have been kept secret to be delivered, there is information for a judge to look at. To determine just what the combined GOR/ESPN Media Agreement really dictates.

But..these cases are still in the Appeals courts of North Carolina and Florida regarding jurisdiction, so the process will be slow. And after a court makes a decision in favor of a party, the other will appeal the decision.

But...the courts have ordered that the information kept as "confidential" be sent to the courts of Florida and South Carolina. With that information, the cases can be prosecuted.

The usual process will be for the court to enroll evidence, schedule the hearings, and the take sworn testimony from the plaintiff and defendant, and ask questions to develop the facts...the court then issues a decision based on found facts and points of law.

It is that event that triggers the freedom to announce that the program is exiting the ACC with their media rights available.

Billy,

I believe that you are pointing in the wrong direction as to who is being naive here. Not only is that accusation (the commissioner having overstepped his bounds) exceptionally egregious, it is also something that can be readily determined. FSU could have brought that and that alone to a North Carolina court and received a favorable decision in an afternoon if it were truly as you claim.