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.
