Jim Phillips: ACC will fight FSU, Clemson "as long as it takes"

[18IsTheMan]

ACC has zero incentive to negotiate a buyout with either team. If FSU and Clemson leave, the conference will disintegrate and cease to exist so the buyout does ACC no good at all. Their only option is to fight these lawsuits tooth and nail to the finish, whatever outcome that may be. The ACC can tie this up in the courts for years. That this is taking place in two different courts only adds to the complexity and longevity.

There will be no swift resolution.

ACC to fight Clemson, FSU 'as long as it takes'

ACC commissioner Jim Phillips vigorously defended the league as questions have swirled about its long-term future after lawsuits by Clemson and Florida State.

www.espn.com

 

[Rogue Cock]

Three lawsuits in three jurisdictions and the ACC has not counterclaimed in Leon County or Pickens County. There will be conflicting judgments because each of the three parties will not answer or appear in another’s jurisdiction.

More interested in how FSU got the information to make what is a very specific and very damaging complaint. Phillips sounds more worried than anything. If FSU can prove what they allege in any court, the ACC is toast.

Old legal adage: if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts….if you have the law on your side, argue the law….if you have neither facts nor law on your side, scream, rant, beat the table and sound offended.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Three lawsuits in three jurisdictions and the ACC has not counterclaimed in Leon County or Pickens County. There will be conflicting judgments because each of the three parties will not answer or appear in another’s jurisdiction.

More interested in how FSU got the information to make what is a very specific and very damaging complaint. Phillips sounds more worried than anything. If FSU can prove what they allege in any court, the ACC is toast.

Question, though: If FSU could prove it, what would they be waiting on? They want out as fast as possible, so if that's the "get out of jail free" card, why wait to play it?

 

[Rogue Cock]

Question, though: If FSU could prove it, what would they be waiting on? They want out as fast as possible, so if that's the "get out of jail free" card, why wait to play it?

Legal process is slow…always has been, always will be. There are certain scheduled hearings and you have to give opposing parties adequate time to respond.

FSU has sent discovery requests and the ACC is fighting those.

 

[18IsTheMan]

if you have neither facts nor law on your side, scream, rant, beat the table and sound offended.

Could be wrong, but it's just seemed to me like a lot of saber rattling from FSU. A lot of bluster.

Seems readily apparent to me that FSU and Clemson simply have extreme buyer's remorse. They jumped the gun to sign a bad deal, not knowing that the market was going to shift dramatically.

I was reading one legal analysis a couple days ago (can't find it now) and it made the point that no such college media rights deal has ever been challenged, so the question arises "what makes this deal worthy of being challenged?" There's obviously a first time for everything, but do courts want to set a precedent that the deals aren't worth the paper they're printed on?

FSU and Clemson were pretty transparent and on the record at the outset that they were primarily challenging the deal because they were falling far behind the SEC in revenue. They had no problems at all with the deal until the SEC starting making more money.

 

[Lurker123]

Could be wrong, but it's just seemed to me like a lot of saber rattling from FSU. A lot of bluster.

It does, BUT. I have a hard time believing FSU and Clemson went to court without a landing spot picked out. Would it really be worth it to go to court, fight and spend millions, THEN look at the big2 and see if they are interested?

 

[18IsTheMan]

It does, BUT. I have a hard time believing FSU and Clemson went to court without a landing spot picked out. Would it really be worth it to go to court, fight and spend millions, THEN look at the big2 and see if they are interested?

I think it's plausible that both schools think they are a big enough brand to feel confident that they'll land somewhere, even if that spot hasn't been identified yet.

 

[Rogue Cock]

Could be wrong, but it's just seemed to me like a lot of saber rattling from FSU. A lot of bluster.

Seems readily apparent to me that FSU and Clemson simply have extreme buyer's remorse. They jumped the gun to sign a bad deal, not knowing that the market was going to shift dramatically.

I was reading one legal analysis a couple days ago (can't find it now) and it made the point that no such college media rights deal has ever been challenged, so the question arises "what makes this deal worthy of being challenged?" There's obviously a first time for everything, but do courts want to set a precedent that the deals aren't worth the paper they're printed on?

FSU and Clemson were pretty transparent and on the record at the outset that they were primarily challenging the deal because they were falling far behind the SEC in revenue. They had no problems at all with the deal until the SEC starting making more money.

The fact that FSU alleged very specifically what they did in their complaint causes me to believe it is a bit more than saber rattling.

you could be right especially on Clemson’s complaint. Haven’t made heads or tails out of that one….seems to be very philosophical.

 

[gamecock stock]

It could be a situation where if FSU and Clemson were to win their court case, use that as leverage to have their share of conference TV revenue tied to what the SEC gives to its members. If they were to bolt the conference, I would think there is a provision in the ACC's ESPN contract that reduces what ESPN pays out. All that is speculation on my part.

 

[Rogue Cock]

It could be a situation where if FSU and Clemson were to win their court case, use that as leverage to have their share of conference TV revenue tied to what the SEC gives to its members. If they were to bolt the conference, I would think there is a provision in the ACC's ESPN contract that reduces what ESPN pays out. All that is speculation on my part.

It reduces if there are less than a certain number of schools. That is why the addition of Stanford, Cal and SMU were so important.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

The fact that FSU alleged very specifically what they did in their complaint causes me to believe it is a bit more than saber rattling.

you could be right especially on Clemson’s complaint. Haven’t made heads or tails out of that one….seems to be very philosophical.

Rogue I feel as if I missed something today or in the past. What specifically are you referencing that FSU claimed.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

It could be a situation where if FSU and Clemson were to win their court case, use that as leverage to have their share of conference TV revenue tied to what the SEC gives to its members. If they were to bolt the conference, I would think there is a provision in the ACC's ESPN contract that reduces what ESPN pays out. All that is speculation on my part.

Actually the contrary. It’s a hard number. The espn contract allegedly states that teams can come and go as long as they don’t fall below 14 members. It’s believed that’s why they brought in the new 3.

Can’t delete so apologies to rogue for parroting him.

 

[gamecock stock]

I WANT Clemson in the SEC for the reasons I gave in the Sankey thread. It would be to OUR advantage if that happens. I'm just not convinced they will ever be invited, unfortunately for us, for the reasons I gave, on the other thread about Sankey.

 

[gamecock stock]

Actually the contrary. It’s a hard number. The espn contract allegedly states that teams can come and go as long as they don’t fall below 14 members. It’s believed that’s why they brought in the new 3.

Can’t delete so apologies to rogue for parroting him.

And by the way, I want Clemson in the SEC because they would not come close to winning 80% of its games like they do in the ACC. It's to OUR advantage for Clemson to join the SEC. I guarantee that if you put Dabo under a truth serum, he'd say he wants no part of the SEC. And I don't blame him. I believe he would retire before joining.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

And by the way, I want Clemson in the SEC because they would not come close to winning 80% of its games like they do in the ACC. It's to OUR advantage for Clemson to join the SEC. I guarantee that if you put Dabo under a truth serum, he'd say he wants no part of the SEC. And I don't blame him. I believe he would retire before joining.

The man made a living out of beating the sec lol. I hate him just as much as anyone but with the sec likely getting 4-5 teams in I’m not so sure that path is as hard as you make it. 1 vs 5 says it’s quite the opposite when you take some statistics into it. It’s not inconceivable that a 3 loss sec team gets in. You’re also giving them what they lack right now, money! All I’m saying is be careful what you ask for.

 

[gamecock stock]

Actually the contrary. It’s a hard number. The espn contract allegedly states that teams can come and go as long as they don’t fall below 14 members. It’s believed that’s why they brought in the new 3.

Can’t delete so apologies to rogue for parroting him.

When you think about leaving the ACC for the SEC, just envision that there are 8 Florida States in the SEC.

 

[gamecock stock]

The man made a living out of beating the sec lol. I hate him just as much as anyone but with the sec likely getting 4-5 teams in I’m not so sure that path is as hard as you make it. 1 vs 5 says it’s quite the opposite when you take some statistics into it. It’s not inconceivable that a 3 loss sec team gets in. You’re also giving them what they lack right now, money! All I’m saying is be careful what you ask for.

Except he did not play them week after week. It's different than having weeks to prepare for a bowl. Trust me. I think it's you who needs to be careful what you ask for. There are 8 Florida States in the SEC.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

Except he did not play them week after week. It's different than having weeks to prepare for a bowl. Trust me. I think it's you who needs to be careful what you ask for. There are 8 Florida States in the SEC.

I’m not asking for anything because I don’t really care where they end up. I do enjoy following it but ultimately don’t care where they end up.

 

[gamecock stock]

I’m not asking for anything because I don’t really care where they end up. I do enjoy following it but ultimately don’t care where they end up.

I WANT them into the SEC because it would be to OUR benefit for them to join us and experience the difference in playing in a football, rather than a basketball conference. I'd love to trade schedules with them this season. But Dabo wouldn't. He will retire before playing a SEC schedule in a conference with 8 Florida States. People need to be careful what they wish for. Ask Nebraska how many national championships they have won since joining the Big 10. Nebraska has won 54% of its conference games since joining the Big 10. LOL

 

[18IsTheMan]

There are so many factors to consider. One of which is ESPN. They pull a lot of strings and pay the bills, so why would they want Clemson/FSU in the SEC and pay considerably more for their games than they are paying for them in the ACC?

 

[gamecock stock]

There are so many factors to consider. One of which is ESPN. They pull a lot of strings and pay the bills, so why would they want Clemson/FSU in the SEC and pay considerably more for their games than they are paying for them in the ACC?

Anyone who thinks the SEC teams would take a pay cut to bring in Clemson and FSU, are naive beyond help. And it would require them to take a pay cut. That's why I think FSU and Clemson's law suit is a ploy to blackmail the ACC. It does not look like the ACC is falling for it. One group is playing checkers while the other group is playing chess.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

JIM PHILLIPS CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS:

 

[18IsTheMan]

JIM PHILLIPS CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS:

I'm not sure it's all that bad.

ACC has better lawyers than Clemson or FSU.

There seems to be a general assumption that the lawsuits have merit simply because they were filed.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

Anyone who thinks the SEC teams would take a pay cut to bring in Clemson and FSU, are naive beyond help. And it would require them to take a pay cut. That's why I think FSU and Clemson's law suit is a ploy to blackmail the ACC. It does not look like the ACC is falling for it. One group is playing checkers while the other group is playing chess.

Where exactly do you get this notion that they would have to take a pay cut. What reputable data do you have that shows this?

 

[18IsTheMan]

Where exactly do you get this notion that they would have to take a pay cut. What reputable data do you have that shows this?

You'd be cutting the pie into 18 pieces instead of 16. x/18 < x/16

 

[gamecock stock]

You'd be cutting the pie into 18 pieces instead of 16. x/18 < x/16

Bingo. Business 101.

 

[92Pony]

.....

There will be no swift resolution.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

You'd be cutting the pie into 18 pieces instead of 16. x/18 < x/16

How do you know ESPN would not up the contract. There were contingencies for that in the ACC contract do you really think the SEC doesn’t have those with conference expansion as crazy as it is?

 

[18IsTheMan]

How do you know ESPN would not up the contract. There were contingencies for that in the ACC contract do you really think the SEC doesn’t have those with conference expansion as crazy as it is?

They would only up the contract if Clemson and FSU added value. Do they?

Working off last year's numbers, the SEC distributed $51.3 million to each of the 14 schools after excluding bowl expenses ($718.2 million total). If you had 16 teams, that number would be $44.9 million. To get back to the $51.3 million/school, the total distribution needed would be $820 million, meaning Clemson and FSU would need to add $102 million/year in value. Would adding 2 teams from states where the SEC already has teams do that? Maybe. Even so, that's just to get back to the same per/school payout, so they haven't actually added value yet. To actually add value, they would have add more than $102 million/yr in value to actually increase the per/school payout. I'm not sure they would.

When you've already got Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Auburn, Florida, etc, it gets harder to move the value needle with new additions.

Unless adding those teams results in an increased per/school payout, what's the incentive to adding them? You're not gaining new territory and you're not increasing payout.

Some have mentioned it as a defensive maneuver against the Big 10, but there really is no threat of Clemson and FSU going to the Big 10.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

The difference is you are still looking at this from a regional basis and that is our disconnect. I don’t think region has anything to do with it. When it comes to adding value you need more than just that teams fans to watch. Historically it would be hard to fine two other teams still on the big board that would beat out Clemson and FSU in viewership which is what drives this thing. You nor I have any clue what value they bring. They carry Well could bring that Value. You just simple do not know the answer to that question.

Secondly you don’t know if there is a threat to the big 10 or not. I know you and rogue have been very consistent on that but truth is this isn’t the first time those rumors have been abound. Couple that with the commissioner saying himself AAU membership is not a requirement I’ll hold judgement on that. I do believe the B1G wants to expand into the south. It’s the epicenter of college football and where a large portion of the views come from. I believe those to teams to the B1G is more possible than you lead on.

 

[18IsTheMan]

The difference is you are still looking at this from a regional basis and that is our disconnect. I don’t think region has anything to do with it. When it comes to adding value you need more than just that teams fans to watch. Historically it would be hard to fine two other teams still on the big board that would beat out Clemson and FSU in viewership which is what drives this thing. You nor I have any clue what value they bring. They carry Well could bring that Value. You just simple do not know the answer to that question.

Secondly you don’t know if there is a threat to the big 10 or not. I know you and rogue have been very consistent on that but truth is this isn’t the first time those rumors have been abound. Couple that with the commissioner saying himself AAU membership is not a requirement I’ll hold judgement on that. I do believe the B1G wants to expand into the south. It’s the epicenter of college football and where a large portion of the views come from. I believe those to teams to the B1G is more possible than you lead on.

As I see it, though, the SEC and Big 10 have stockpiled essentially all the juggernauts and blue bloods in college football.

Adding Clemson and FSU to the mix just really doesn't seem to move the needle value-wise. It's not that they have no value, but when the league's are already that loaded it's hard to add value.

I've said elsewhere I think Clemson and FSU ultimately end up in the SEC, but there are reasons to doubt this is the outcome.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

As I see it, though, the SEC and Big 10 have stockpiled essentially all the juggernauts and blue bloods in college football.

Adding Clemson and FSU to the mix just really doesn't seem to move the needle value-wise. It's not that they have no value, but when the league's are already that loaded it's hard to add value.

I've said elsewhere I think Clemson and FSU ultimately end up in the SEC, but there are reasons to doubt this is the outcome.

But they would add value to the BIG12. Which is why that makes sense.

 

[18IsTheMan]

But they would add value to the BIG12. Which is why that makes sense.

But why make the move if you still don't come close to SEC money? You lose all the regional matchups AND you still don't achieve your primary goal of making SEC/Big 10 money?

 

[gamecock stock]

I believe that the adding of Texas and Oklahoma, in retrospect, is detrimental to FSU and Clemson's chances of getting a SEC invite. Does anyone really think the SEC needs to shore up football weakness? Of course not. Think of it this way: If you have a portfolio heavy in tech giants Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, etc, do you really get a big enough benefit adding another tech stock? Or are you better off diversifying into another sector of the economy? Professional market investors emphasize diversification. I suspect that Sankey and the boys in Birmingham will be VERY selective before handing out further invitations to the SEC to shore up gaps in other areas., if they even decide to expand further. That's not what our Clemson friends want to hear. But, if they are objective, they know it's the truth.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I believe that the adding of Texas and Oklahoma, in retrospect, is detrimental to FSU and Clemson's chances of getting a SEC invite. Does anyone really think the SEC needs to shore up football weakness?

This is the point I made above. The SEC and Big 10 now have virtually every blue blood and powerhouse program in all of college football.

It's really hard to add value when you've already got all the most valuable properties. It would be like giving a Lexus to a guy who collects Ferraris and Lamborghinis. Adding Texas and OU was a no-brainer for the SEC, as they are two mega-powerhouse programs and elite brands. Clemson and FSU are really good brands, but they just don't come close to the top brands already in the SEC and Big 10.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

I believe that the adding of Texas and Oklahoma, in retrospect, is detrimental to FSU and Clemson's chances of getting a SEC invite. Does anyone really think the SEC needs to shore up football weakness? Of course not. Think of it this way: If you have a portfolio heavy in tech giants Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, etc, do you really get a big enough benefit adding another tech stock? Or are you better off diversifying into another sector of the economy? Professional market investors emphasize diversification. I suspect that Sankey and the boys in Birmingham will be VERY selective before handing out further invitations to the SEC to shore up gaps in other areas., if they even decide to expand further. That's not what our Clemson friends want to hear. But, if they are objective, they know it's the truth.

Crappy anology. You’re not making money off putting those tech companies against each other. For the SEC it’s a numbers game. Can you get more high profile games (games with 4-5 million+ viewers). As Josh pate says it becomes about inventory. The more high viewer games you can have the more money you are worth. Who adds more high profile games UNC and VA or Clemson and Florida state? Basketball is a distant second in revenue. It’s a bonus, the bulk of the money is in football.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

This is the point I made above. The SEC and Big 10 now have virtually every blue blood and powerhouse program in all of college football.

It's really hard to add value when you've already got all the most valuable properties. It would be like giving a Lexus to a guy who collects Ferraris and Lamborghinis. Adding Texas and OU was a no-brainer for the SEC, as they are two mega-powerhouse programs and elite brands. Clemson and FSU are really good brands, but they just don't come close to the top brands already in the SEC and Big 10.

No when the teams that you add more viewers on a per game basis. There is still money to be made. It all boils down to eyes on tvs period.

 

[18IsTheMan]

No when the teams that you add more viewers on a per game basis. There is still money to be made. It all boils down to eyes on tvs period.

You're not adding games though. Still only 8 conference games (for now). This season Alabama plays high profile games against UGA, UT, LSU and OU. Say Clemson and FSU were added and they wanted to match one of them up against Bama, they would simply replace one of these existing matchups with Clemson or FSU. Do either of those games get more eyeballs than the current matchups? Not likely.

 

[gamecock stock]

Crappy anology. You’re not making money off putting those tech companies against each other. For the SEC it’s a numbers game. Can you get more high profile games (games with 4-5 million+ viewers). As Josh pate says it becomes about inventory. The more high viewer games you can have the more money you are worth. Who adds more high profile games UNC and VA or Clemson and Florida state? Basketball is a distant second in revenue. It’s a bonus, the bulk of the money is in football.

Diversify into other areas to shore up weaknesses is always the smart move. We do not need to shore up football . We have enough football inventory. If you were objective, you would agree.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

You're not adding games though. Still only 8 conference games (for now). This season Alabama plays high profile games against UGA, UT, LSU and OU. Say Clemson and FSU were added and they wanted to match one of them up against Bama, they would simply replace one of these existing matchups with Clemson or FSU. Do either of those games get more eyeballs than the current matchups? Not likely.

Would Florida state vs Tenn get more views than South Carolina vs vandy? Missouri? Tenn? The answer is yes it’s not even close.