Texas & OK ask to join SEC?

Joined
May 7, 2015
Messages
477
Reaction Score
820
The thing that is interesting to me is the speed of this monumental change...

From first leak to SEC acceptance of Texas and OU was just 9 days,,,

Blitzkrieg
It was in the works for a while now. They were probably waiting for the playoff expansion to go through before announcing it, but TA&M decided to snitch. Now it looks like that won't happen anytime soon. How pissed is the SEC admin at A&M? :)
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
1,077
Reaction Score
884
Maybe UConn FB and men's BB can turn things around in the next two years so one of the P5 conferences will welcome us aboard before Texas and Okla. play in the SEC. A high national ranking can turn things around quickly.
 
Joined
May 7, 2015
Messages
477
Reaction Score
820
Maybe UConn FB and men's BB can turn things around in the next two years so one of the P5 conferences will welcome us aboard before Texas and Okla. play in the SEC. A high national ranking can turn things around quickly.
You mean P4, don’t you? Big 12 just lost 2/3rds of their value. Do you really think they’re on the same level as those other conferences?
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
6,748
Reaction Score
2,904
The ACC GOR has some language that our Seminole fan lawyers have been discussing....The GOR is tied into the ESPN Agreement (which no one outside of the ACC corporate office has ever seen).

" Grant of Rights. each school irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference ALL rights necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement, regardless of whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term and agrees to satisfy and perform all contractual obligations of a Member Institution during the Term that are expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement. "

Since no one knows the "contractual obligations of the Conference as set forth in the ESPN Agreement"....there is some speculation that ESPN left themselves a backdoor in the defining "contract obligations" in the Agreement.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2021
Messages
14
Reaction Score
9
The ACC GOR has some language that our Seminole fan lawyers have been discussing....The GOR is tied into the ESPN Agreement (which no one outside of the ACC corporate office has ever seen).

" Grant of Rights. each school irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference ALL rights necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement, regardless of whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term and agrees to satisfy and perform all contractual obligations of a Member Institution during the Term that are expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement. "

Since no one knows the "contractual obligations of the Conference as set forth in the ESPN Agreement"....there is some speculation that ESPN left themselves a backdoor in the defining "contract obligations" in the Agreement.
That contract is a massive pile of dung. What were they thinking? I know why we did.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
3,382
Reaction Score
5,758
The ACC GOR has some language that our Seminole fan lawyers have been discussing....The GOR is tied into the ESPN Agreement (which no one outside of the ACC corporate office has ever seen).

" Grant of Rights. each school irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference ALL rights necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement, regardless of whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term and agrees to satisfy and perform all contractual obligations of a Member Institution during the Term that are expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement. "

Since no one knows the "contractual obligations of the Conference as set forth in the ESPN Agreement"....there is some speculation that ESPN left themselves a backdoor in the defining "contract obligations" in the Agreement.
a backdoor for espn to do what, rescind the contract for itself? Or on behalf of another school, e.g clemson and fsu?

either scenario is difficult to comprehend. in the first instance, why would the acc agree to a K that unilaterally allows espn to rescind the K? in the second instance why would espn agree to a K that allows schools to do the same? what if uva and unc wanted to leave for the big10 which isnt solely an espn conference?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
6,748
Reaction Score
2,904
a backdoor for espn to do what, rescind the contract for itself? Or on behalf of another school, e.g clemson and fsu?

either scenario is difficult to comprehend. in the first instance, why would the acc agree to a K that unilaterally allows espn to rescind the K? in the second instance why would espn agree to a K that allows schools to do the same? what if uva and unc wanted to leave for the big10 which isnt solely an espn conference?


Nobody knows.

But...what if ESPN wanted to move a program or two to another ESPN property...and if the ACC revenue is not affected (like when the Big 12 went from 12 to 10 without revenue effect)....the ESPN considers that the conference is still performing "their contractual obligations". Especially since that would just be a transfer from one ESPN property to another.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
3,382
Reaction Score
5,758
Nobody knows.

But...what if ESPN wanted to move a program or two to another ESPN property...and if the ACC revenue is not affected (like when the Big 12 went from 12 to 10 without revenue effect)....the ESPN considers that the conference is still performing "their contractual obligations". Especially since that would just be a transfer from one ESPN property to another.
if espn gets to decide whether or not there is a revenue effect then that's very interesting... but a neutral 3rd party would have to conclude losing clemson and fsu would significantly impact the conference's revenue.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
4,765
Reaction Score
8,975
This all reminds me of that line "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." The GOR was put in to place to protect ESPN and secure content, not to protect the schools. I am sure there is language in there that if ESPN decides to move Clemson from 1 espn entity to another, it can and will.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
6,748
Reaction Score
2,904
if espn gets to decide whether or not there is a revenue effect then that's very interesting... but a neutral 3rd party would have to conclude losing clemson and fsu would significantly impact the conference's revenue.

It is all dependent on the exact wording of the ESPN-ACC contract...which no member has seen.

It is ESPN that defined the "contractual obligations of the Conference" in the contract...
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
581
Reaction Score
820
So the argument is that ESPN should pay MORE money to the SEC to support Clemson and Florida State in the conference.... but so long as the rest of the ACC comes out even, it's contractually ok? I just don't see how that would make sense for ESPN.

The ACC earns less on a per-team basis than the SEC. So right now ESPN already owns FSU and Clemson content at a discount of what it would have to pay to keep the SEC whole for the same content.. there is no gain there for ESPN.

Even if the argument is that Clemson and Florida State are worth the extra money (meaning they are worth more than the per team proportion on the ACC deal).. then that would indicate that ESPN is going to willingly overpay the other 12 full members for more than the decade remaining on the contract.. which again eliminates any gain.

The only way ESPN would come out ahead on that deal is if they placed Clemson and FSU in the SEC; while still paying them the same as they earn as members of the ACC, which doesn't help Clemson or FSU as they'd end up earning less than the rest of the SEC and continuing to fall behind, while faced with a significantly more difficult schedule.
 

UConn Dan

Not voldemort; I lurk & I like
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
2,439
Reaction Score
3,621
So the argument is that ESPN should pay MORE money to the SEC to support Clemson and Florida State in the conference.... but so long as the rest of the ACC comes out even, it's contractually ok? I just don't see how that would make sense for ESPN.

The ACC earns less on a per-team basis than the SEC. So right now ESPN already owns FSU and Clemson content at a discount of what it would have to pay to keep the SEC whole for the same content.. there is no gain there for ESPN.

Even if the argument is that Clemson and Florida State are worth the extra money (meaning they are worth more than the per team proportion on the ACC deal).. then that would indicate that ESPN is going to willingly overpay the other 12 full members for more than the decade remaining on the contract.. which again eliminates any gain.

The only way ESPN would come out ahead on that deal is if they placed Clemson and FSU in the SEC; while still paying them the same as they earn as members of the ACC, which doesn't help Clemson or FSU as they'd end up earning less than the rest of the SEC and continuing to fall behind, while faced with a significantly more difficult schedule.
It's not the teams alone. It's the matchups. More eyeballs. More Ad dollars.

Clemson vs. top half of SEC is worth X more $$$ than Clemson vs. top half of ACC. Same can be said for the bottom half. SEC is just deeper in football.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
5,211
Reaction Score
4,234
It's not the teams alone. It's the matchups. More eyeballs. More Ad dollars.

Clemson vs. top half of SEC is worth X more $$$ than Clemson vs. top half of ACC. Same can be said for the bottom half. SEC is just deeper in football.
Worth more money how though? Who is making more money? The conferences? The teams? ESPN would be going up against itself in bidding so they wouldn't be adding any money there. If you are talking about ESPN, how would they make more money?

I think the risk they are running by putting all these teams in the same conference is that they are going to eat each other. There can it be so many winners in a conference. You are now taking 12-0, 11-1 teams and placing them into the same conferences (if you put Clemson in there too). It's not a good situation.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
169
Reaction Score
280
Worth more money how though? Who is making more money? The conferences? The teams? ESPN would be going up against itself in bidding so they wouldn't be adding any money there. If you are talking about ESPN, how would they make more money?

I think the risk they are running by putting all these teams in the same conference is that they are going to eat each other. There can it be so many winners in a conference. You are now taking 12-0, 11-1 teams and placing them into the same conferences (if you put Clemson in there too). It's not a good situation.
What does it matter when you also control the playoff? You can put as many of "your teams" in as you like.
 
Top Bottom