ESPN/television contract Question

[pick6pedro]

Back to 2003, aren't you conflating issues? Wasn't there one issue where Virginia refused Cuse in favor of Virginia Tech at the behest of the governor and then following that a mostly separate albeit related issue where the Carolina schools, led by NC State, tried to block us, with some idea that they would aspire to get ND instead, which only ended due to desire to have a championship game? Regardless, I don't know if they could have changed the bylaws if Virginia didn't want them to do so. I don't know if they require a majority, unanimity, etc.

The ACC needed a super-majority to expand (7-2... 6-3 could block it). Duke and UNC were against expansion... period. Nonetheless, the other 7 schools were for it. Until... Governor Warner realized what would happen to VaTech. He then forced UVA to block ANY expansion (including just Miami) unless it included VT. They conference acquiesced and agreed to include VT in place of Cuse. That was brought to a vote (again with Duke and UNC against). In a shot outta the blue, Maryanne Fox switched NCS's vote to no. She would only agree to Miami and VT and demanded that the ACC explore more options than just BC for the 12th spot. Maryanne Fox was on the Board of Notre Dame. The word was that they reached out to her and said they would be interested in joining the ACC. As such, she blocked BC. The ACC immediately reached out to ND. They quickly realized that ND only was willing to do an affiliation in FB (4 games a year). They then came back to BC and brought us in.

Right. But the important part is about changing the by-laws (which you made seem simple to do). If you can't get a super-majority to agree to expansion, how are you going to get a super-majority/unanimity to take away those protections right after they were used?

Because they had the 7-2 vote right up until the very end when Warner shrewdly realized he could block the whole thing. They would have had no problem getting a 7-2 vote to change the bylaws months earlier.

You're assuming that 1) the exact same analysis that each school used for expansion at that exact time would be used for amending voting protocol and 2) changing the voting requirements requires the same level of agreement as a vote on expansion matters.

The consulting company made a presentation to all the schools and they voted to give Swofford authority to ask the 3 schools to submit an application. They had the 7-2 at that point. Word got out... they formally received applications to join (which actually came from more than the 4 schools ultimately in discussion), they did that whole dog-and-pony-show nonsense and then everything went nuts when they sat down to vote on formally making the offer. Once again... it should be noted that they changed the bylaws after the mess to make it easier for next round (Pitt and Cuse).

What does the first part have to do with changing the voting protocol or who would be open to it and who would be opposed?

I'm having trouble finding where the by-laws were changed to make expansion easier...in fact it should be noted that Pitt and Cuse were accepted with a unanimous vote.

[HJS]

I'm having trouble finding where the by-laws were changed to make expansion easier...in fact it should be noted that Pitt and Cuse were accepted with a unanimous vote.

Officially... so was BC.
The Cuse-Pitt expansion was much more orderly. They clearly learned from previous expansion.

[pick6pedro]

Combining West's history of accuracy with this current narrative has me pretty depressed.

But my thoughts are similar to 9903's. West's narrative assumes and concludes that all parties operating internally on the ACC deal are dumb, yet all external parties can see exactly what all the problems are and can avoid them accordingly despite not even being privy to the same info the internal parties have. I have trouble with that.

There are also many questions. Sure the difference between the ACC and SEC if it is 17 to 30 million are significant. The same story says that FSU values the academic side. Where do they value it? Is 13 mill enough to overcome that value? And many more.

Dumb is too strong. But not a good negotiator and clearly not a tough negotiator is a fair description. Swofford is no Larry Scott on this front. Far from it. I do not think he is incompetent. I did think that of the Big East leadership. Swofford has done a lot right. But, yes, I believe he failed to get the most he could have out of a TV deal.

I'm almost positive that he didn't get the most out of the deal that he could have. Earlier in the thread, though, I stated that I doubt it's as large a difference as other people have decided. Was NBC really a party that 1) had legit interest and 2) could have been played against ESPN after getting out of the renegotiation (which I'm not even sure they could have gotten out of either easily or without other repercussions)?

Duly noted - better than dumb. There was a specific mention that ND would recognize the ACC as weak. There were other remarks that seem to reply that most other parties in contrast to the ACC and ESPN know exactly what is going on and have and will continue to make all the right moves. It's the stark contrast of the recognition factors and the full credit given to all other parties that I still have trouble with.

[pick6pedro]

I'm having trouble finding where the by-laws were changed to make expansion easier...in fact it should be noted that Pitt and Cuse were accepted with a unanimous vote.

Officially... so was BC.
The Cuse-Pitt expansion was much more orderly. They clearly learned from previous expansion.

Did the by-laws change? What is required for the by-laws to change? Why would the conference have supported by-law changes before the disorder of the 2003 expansion? You're still not answering any of the questions.

[innocentbystander]

I post on another college football forum with fans from all the ACC teams. I'm the only BC fan at that forum. In talking to the FSU fans about this tv deal, every single one of them has emailed the FSU BOT and encouraged them to come up with the $20,000,000 to bolt the ACC for the Big-XII. And so I asked them, after trying to get BC to leave the Big East and join the ACC, don't you think you are being hypocritical? And to a man, they all said basically the same thing, that money is all that counts. The ACC isn't good enough for them anymore, that if they can do better why allow the ACC to drag them down? Capitalist that I am, I did not have an argument against that. FSU has no real reason to stay if they are willing to part with the $20,000,000.

Of course, these are just posters. They have zero control of what FSU BOT will do, none what-so-ever. So who knows, they will probably stay and just tough it out in the ACC.

[DavidGordonsFoot]

The ACC isn't good enough for them anymore, that if they can do better why allow the ACC to drag them down?

Interesting how their opinion of the ACC is directly proportional to FSU's success in the conference. Because no one was more defensive of the ACC than FSU back when they were winning the league every year and the rest of the country was calling the ACC "Florida State and the Eight Dwarfs."

[innocentbystander]

The ACC isn't good enough for them anymore, that if they can do better why allow the ACC to drag them down?

Interesting how their opinion of the ACC is directly proportional to FSU's success in the conference. Because no one was more defensive of the ACC than FSU back when they were winning the league every year and the rest of the country was calling the ACC "Florida State and the Eight Dwarfs."

what do you want them to say? ACC isn't the pretty girl at the prom anymore and FSU is the ACC's Doug Simpson, Big Man on Campus. they can do better, just like BC could in 2004.

[DavidGordonsFoot]

The ACC isn't good enough for them anymore, that if they can do better why allow the ACC to drag them down?

Interesting how their opinion of the ACC is directly proportional to FSU's success in the conference. Because no one was more defensive of the ACC than FSU back when they were winning the league every year and the rest of the country was calling the ACC "Florida State and the Eight Dwarfs."

what do you want them to say? ACC isn't the pretty girl at the prom anymore and FSU is the ACC's Doug Simpson, Big Man on Campus. they can do better, just like BC could in 2004.

I want them to admit that the ACC isn't the pretty girl at prom anymore largely due to the fact that FSU, standard bearer for the conference, has consistently failed to meet expectations since the ACC expanded. FSU and Miami's nosedive is dragging the ACC down, not vice-versa.

[BCWest]

I post on another college football forum with fans from all the ACC teams. I'm the only BC fan at that forum. In talking to the FSU fans about this tv deal, every single one of them has emailed the FSU BOT and encouraged them to come up with the $20,000,000 to bolt the ACC for the Big-XII. And so I asked them, after trying to get BC to leave the Big East and join the ACC, don't you think you are being hypocritical? And to a man, they all said basically the same thing, that money is all that counts. The ACC isn't good enough for them anymore, that if they can do better why allow the ACC to drag them down? Capitalist that I am, I did not have an argument against that. FSU has no real reason to stay if they are willing to part with the $20,000,000.

Of course, these are just posters. They have zero control of what FSU BOT will do, none what-so-ever. So who knows, they will probably stay and just tough it out in the ACC.

I don't think the math adds up for them to move now.

If you are FSU and you decide to move, you are out the $20 plus million. That is fixed. Plus you will be getting only $3 million more per season. For now. So your break-even is in year 7! Interestingly, it is after 6 years that the B12 schools no longer have their media rights assigned to the conference. So it is at that time that the Big 12 will again be in play. By that, I mean Texas will decide what it wants to do. Don't rule out Texas doing something different. If I were FSU, I would wait. The Big 12 would not be my preferred destination. Not even close. But, looking to move on from the ACC would be something FSU should explore. The Big 12, at least for now, is not the answer. Not financially, not academically, and not even for what is best for their football program.

[pick6pedro]

the additions of Pittsburgh and Syracuse as ACC members triggered a composition clause in the existing agreement. This clause is designed to allow for both partners to address the value of the conference taking into account the change in membership. There was no specific valuation formula based on total number of schools or on a per school basis. It is not an “out clause” nor does it trigger a complete renegotiation of the entire agreement. Again, conference composition clauses are standard in our industry and are part of every ESPN college rights agreement.

http://frontrow.espn.go.com/2012/05/acc-on-espn-rights-agreement-speculation-just-the-facts/


This appears to debunk those saying the ACC could renegotiate the entire contract or even opt out/choose ADR.

[eepstein0]

The ACC isn't good enough for them anymore, that if they can do better why allow the ACC to drag them down?

Interesting how their opinion of the ACC is directly proportional to FSU's success in the conference. Because no one was more defensive of the ACC than FSU back when they were winning the league every year and the rest of the country was calling the ACC "Florida State and the Eight Dwarfs."

what do you want them to say? ACC isn't the pretty girl at the prom anymore and FSU is the ACC's Doug Simpson, Big Man on Campus. they can do better, just like BC could in 2004.

I want them to admit that the ACC isn't the pretty girl at prom anymore largely due to the fact that FSU, standard bearer for the conference, has consistently failed to meet expectations since the ACC expanded. FSU and Miami's nosedive is dragging the ACC down, not vice-versa.

I agree 100% here. FSU and Miami have stunk now for a while.

[HJS]

the additions of Pittsburgh and Syracuse as ACC members triggered a composition clause in the existing agreement. This clause is designed to allow for both partners to address the value of the conference taking into account the change in membership. There was no specific valuation formula based on total number of schools or on a per school basis. It is not an “out clause” nor does it trigger a complete renegotiation of the entire agreement. Again, conference composition clauses are standard in our industry and are part of every ESPN college rights agreement.

http://frontrow.espn.go.com/2012/05/acc-on-espn-rights-agreement-speculation-just-the-facts/


This appears to debunk those saying the ACC could renegotiate the entire contract or even opt out/choose ADR.

1. I am surprised that ESPN would come out and publicly defend any contract. I can only hope that a little light bulb went over their heads realizing how taking advantage of a property that they are now a major stakeholder in may not be in their longterm best interest. The question to ask ESPN is this... if the contract is so fair, would you be willing to void it right now before it ever becomes effective?

2. I think all he has addressed is the exclusive negotiation rights that the new members triggered. The question with anything like that is "What happens if the parties can't agree?" What if ACC said "we ain't taking a penny less than $25mm" What if ESPN said, "You ain't getting a penny more for crappy Pitt and Cuse." There has to be dispute resolution... be it through mediation, arbitration or open bidding. The parties agreed during their exclusive negotiation period. So, the ACC was never out for bid in the market. My understanding from West's posts is that all he has said is that IF the ACC and ESPN didn't agree, it eventually COULD be brought to market.

3. If what he is saying is accurate, then we should all forget about Notre Dame as they will have nothing but a marginal effect on the contract.

[Logitano]

I'll wait for HJS to chime in because beyond all the HomoJSisms, he's been pretty accurate.

But F$U needs to STFU, according to bagel boy the 1 tier 3 game they had last year was Charleston Southern there were nearly 10k empty seats (not sure if they count by tickets sold or asses in seats).

HJS, just like a lot of negative prognosicators, throws so much shit against the wall that once is a while some sticks. For some reason, most people only remember when they were right. I am not even sure how much stuck this time. Looks like the FSU BOT Chair went off based on HJS's rant without checking. We should be careful, looks like BOT chairs and members may read this board.

I am convinced '94 and retardo are gag posters. Nobody is this stupid, right?

Just checking....you do know that the last two sentences were a joke, right?

I get you said the end of your rant in jest. However, the rest of your attack on homojs was retarded. I would prefer him throwing out his theories and random knowledge to attacking him when he is pretty close to being right. The best is when he is wrong so we can then make fun of him and call him homojs.

[eagle9903]

1. I am surprised that ESPN would come out and publicly defend any contract. I can only hope that a little light bulb went over their heads realizing how taking advantage of a property that they are now a major stakeholder in may not be in their longterm best interest. The question to ask ESPN is this... if the contract is so fair, would you be willing to void it right now before it ever becomes effective?

2. I think all he has addressed is the exclusive negotiation rights that the new members triggered. The question with anything like that is "What happens if the parties can't agree?" What if ACC said "we ain't taking a penny less than $25mm" What if ESPN said, "You ain't getting a penny more for crappy Pitt and Cuse." There has to be dispute resolution... be it through mediation, arbitration or open bidding. The parties agreed during their exclusive negotiation period. So, the ACC was never out for bid in the market. My understanding from West's posts is that all he has said is that IF the ACC and ESPN didn't agree, it eventually COULD be brought to market.

3. If what he is saying is accurate, then we should all forget about Notre Dame as they will have nothing but a marginal effect on the contract.

My guess, based on nothing but reading between the lines, is that ESPN's public defense is for the benefit of Swofford and the ACC because there is a ton of misinformation that is making what is already a terrible ACC contract seem like a major breach of fiduciary duty. It is an unusual step, that I believe was caused in large part by the equally unusual step of the FSU BOT chair making a loud, hostile, apparently factually incorrect allegation. I'd further take this article as evidence that ESPN is likely at least somewhat aware that damaging the ACC is not to their benefit.

I read the fair bit as the only part of the article I would classify as legitimate bullshit. Counting length of contract as a boon to the ACC for instance is absurd. However, while it is not a "fair" contract in terms of relative value in the market, it was when it was agreed to. Exposure rears its confusing head in the fairness paragraph and I continue to not understand whether owning ESPN3 is a net positive or negative?

Please for the love of God stop saying Ain't. It is more early 90s than Teddy's backpack or FSU fans' smug sense of superiority.

The article says "There was no specific valuation formula based on total number of schools or on a per school basis. It is not an “out clause” nor does it trigger a complete renegotiation of the entire agreement." That is some lawyerly doublespeak for sure, but I have difficulty reading the bolded part and thinking of any way that lends itself to an interpretation that an open market negotiation was an available option. Just bullshitting here, but maybe its possible that there is some kind of liquidated damages clause which is triggered by the composition clause and they could get to open market but would have to pay a significant amount to get out of the current K, in this way West's source and the ESPN article could both be more or less right.

As to your third point, if it was actually beneficial to both parties to renegotiate (there are myriad circumstances in which an ND addition would be so) they could very easily negotiate out of the contract. I would agree that the ACC would still not be able to unilaterally remove itself from the contract even with ND and throw in PSU for good measure in the fold, if this article is correct.

[HJS]

1. I am surprised that ESPN would come out and publicly defend any contract. I can only hope that a little light bulb went over their heads realizing how taking advantage of a property that they are now a major stakeholder in may not be in their longterm best interest. The question to ask ESPN is this... if the contract is so fair, would you be willing to void it right now before it ever becomes effective?

2. I think all he has addressed is the exclusive negotiation rights that the new members triggered. The question with anything like that is "What happens if the parties can't agree?" What if ACC said "we ain't taking a penny less than $25mm" What if ESPN said, "You ain't getting a penny more for crappy Pitt and Cuse." There has to be dispute resolution... be it through mediation, arbitration or open bidding. The parties agreed during their exclusive negotiation period. So, the ACC was never out for bid in the market. My understanding from West's posts is that all he has said is that IF the ACC and ESPN didn't agree, it eventually COULD be brought to market.

3. If what he is saying is accurate, then we should all forget about Notre Dame as they will have nothing but a marginal effect on the contract.

My guess, based on nothing but reading between the lines, is that ESPN's public defense is for the benefit of Swofford and the ACC because there is a ton of misinformation that is making what is already a terrible ACC contract seem like a major breach of fiduciary duty. It is an unusual step, that I believe was caused in large part by the equally unusual step of the FSU BOT chair making a loud, hostile, apparently factually incorrect allegation. I'd further take this article as evidence that ESPN is likely at least somewhat aware that damaging the ACC is not to their benefit.

I read the fair bit as the only part of the article I would classify as legitimate bullshit. Counting length of contract as a boon to the ACC for instance is absurd. However, while it is not a "fair" contract in terms of relative value in the market, it was when it was agreed to. Exposure rears its confusing head in the fairness paragraph and I continue to not understand whether owning ESPN3 is a net positive or negative?

Please for the love of God stop saying Ain't. It is more early 90s than Teddy's backpack or FSU fans' smug sense of superiority.

The article says "There was no specific valuation formula based on total number of schools or on a per school basis. It is not an “out clause” nor does it trigger a complete renegotiation of the entire agreement." That is some lawyerly doublespeak for sure, but I have difficulty reading the bolded part and thinking of any way that lends itself to an interpretation that an open market negotiation was an available option. Just bullshitting here, but maybe its possible that there is some kind of liquidated damages clause which is triggered by the composition clause and they could get to open market but would have to pay a significant amount to get out of the current K, in this way West's source and the ESPN article could both be more or less right.

As to your third point, if it was actually beneficial to both parties to renegotiate (there are myriad circumstances in which an ND addition would be so) they could very easily negotiate out of the contract. I would agree that the ACC would still not be able to unilaterally remove itself from the contract even with ND and throw in PSU for good measure in the fold, if this article is correct.

That lawyerly doublespeak you quoted is exactly where I got my interpretation from. The new members triggered the exclusive renegotiation clause. As such, it was not an "out clause". As for his "didn't trigger complete renegotiation", that is exactly what happened. More years were added, more games were given (including Olympic sports) as was branding control and flexibility on scheduling... the ACC also received bcaddict's silver bullet "look ins". That seems an effing top-down renegotiation to me.

The only thing that really makes sense to me (based on everything that has been said and that has happened), is that the dispute resolution provision provision says something like: mediation, followed by arbitration, if either party reject the decision of the arbitrator the ACC can solicit other bids (for which ESPN possibly could have a right to match).

I wholeheartedly agree that this is ESPN trying to (a) save Swofford and (b) trying to minimize the damage they have inflicted on a long-term "partner". I think/hope that this is the beginning of the end of Swofford and the ACC brings in someone who is more savvy about the realities of the changed landscape which every other conference now operates.


And... for the record... I would be very surprised if FSU left the ACC for the B12 any time soon. That conference is a temporary coalition that will be up for grabs in 6-years. But, FSU's ire is as real (and irrational) as TAMU's. Left unaddressed (like Miami's concerns by the Big East), it will forever be a destabilizing factor in the conference. And, ironically, weaken it for FSU. In my opinion, the most poachable schools right now are VT (with NCS as an additional possibility) by the SEC and MD (with GT as an additional possibility) by the B10.

[eagle9903]

That lawyerly doublespeak you quoted is exactly where I got my interpretation from. The new members triggered the exclusive renegotiation clause. As such, it was not an "out clause". As for his "didn't trigger complete renegotiation", that is exactly what happened. More years were added, more games were given (including Olympic sports) as was branding control and flexibility on scheduling... the ACC also received bcaddict's silver bullet "look ins". That seems an effing top-down renegotiation to me.

The only thing that really makes sense to me (based on everything that has been said and that has happened), is that the dispute resolution provision provision says something like: mediation, followed by arbitration, if either party reject the decision of the arbitrator the ACC can solicit other bids (for which ESPN possibly could have a right to match).

I see another possibility (of what actually happened in the recent negotiations) being that ACC and ESPN mutually agreed to new years, new games, the look ins and the rest. Whereby it wasn't an ACC renegotiation by right due to a clause in the contract, but rather a renegotiation by mutual agreement which superseded the initial contract.

Other than from BCwest, I have not seen anything that indicates the course to open market in your second paragraph.

[pick6pedro]

the additions of Pittsburgh and Syracuse as ACC members triggered a composition clause in the existing agreement. This clause is designed to allow for both partners to address the value of the conference taking into account the change in membership. There was no specific valuation formula based on total number of schools or on a per school basis. It is not an “out clause” nor does it trigger a complete renegotiation of the entire agreement. Again, conference composition clauses are standard in our industry and are part of every ESPN college rights agreement.

http://frontrow.espn.go.com/2012/05/acc-on-espn-rights-agreement-speculation-just-the-facts/


This appears to debunk those saying the ACC could renegotiate the entire contract or even opt out/choose ADR.

1. I am surprised that ESPN would come out and publicly defend any contract. I can only hope that a little light bulb went over their heads realizing how taking advantage of a property that they are now a major stakeholder in may not be in their longterm best interest. The question to ask ESPN is this... if the contract is so fair, would you be willing to void it right now before it ever becomes effective?

2. I think all he has addressed is the exclusive negotiation rights that the new members triggered. The question with anything like that is "What happens if the parties can't agree?" What if ACC said "we ain't taking a penny less than $25mm" What if ESPN said, "You ain't getting a penny more for crappy Pitt and Cuse." There has to be dispute resolution... be it through mediation, arbitration or open bidding. The parties agreed during their exclusive negotiation period. So, the ACC was never out for bid in the market. My understanding from West's posts is that all he has said is that IF the ACC and ESPN didn't agree, it eventually COULD be brought to market.

3. If what he is saying is accurate, then we should all forget about Notre Dame as they will have nothing but a marginal effect on the contract.

1. I'm not surprised. And they phrased it so it would be a "clearing up of facts and fictions" rather than a defense. I do not doubt they saw the damage and potential for further damage that has been caused by an FSU BOT member running his mouth. Just because a party is not willing to void the contract does not make it unfair. Fair can mean a lot of things. When you start throwing out that a legitimately negotiating contract is not fair, it sounds really whiny. Negotiate better.

2. While there were no specific valuation methodologies, there could easily be caps in place. There could just as easily be a clause that says if the parties don't agree, then the former contract applies. If Swofford is as bad a negotiator as you say, then he could have waived rights to dispute resolution or never had any explicitly included in the first place. What's becoming more and more clear is that the ACC did not have the leverage that some seem to assume.

3. Who is he? Why would that be?

[pick6pedro]

That lawyerly doublespeak you quoted is exactly where I got my interpretation from. The new members triggered the exclusive renegotiation clause. As such, it was not an "out clause". As for his "didn't trigger complete renegotiation", that is exactly what happened. More years were added, more games were given (including Olympic sports) as was branding control and flexibility on scheduling... the ACC also received bcaddict's silver bullet "look ins". That seems an effing top-down renegotiation to me.

How is adding years on the tail-end and more options for Olympic games a complete renegotiation? Where is the branding control and flexibility? Did I miss that? Weren't look-ins part of the prior contract? I'm fairly certain they were.

[HJS]

2. While there were no specific valuation methodologies, there could easily be caps in place. There could just as easily be a clause that says if the parties don't agree, then the former contract applies. If Swofford is as bad a negotiator as you say, then he could have waived rights to dispute resolution or never had any explicitly included in the first place. What's becoming more and more clear is that the ACC did not have the leverage that some seem to assume.

3. Who is he? Why would that be?

2. If ESPN could hold the ACC to the originial contract, then they had no incentive to renegotiate AT ALL and just stole $1.3B of shareholder money that could have been used to securing the rights to the NFL, ND or BigTen in the near future.

3. Because you just got done saying that ESPN is not obliged to ever pay anything more regardless of the ACC's membership composition. The addition of ND means that the ACC has no greater leverage than it did when it added Cuse or Pitt.

The only reason... THE ONLY REASON... the ACC added Cuse and Pitt was to reopen negotiations on their ESPN deal. To take the position that the change in membership really didn't give leverage to the ACC (all in an attempt to make Swoffy seem not incompetent in negotiations) means that the entire conference and its 12-universities had a complete misunderstanding of what the contract really said. I think it a little easier to believe that the ACC (who negotiated the contract through their inhouse media person) did a piss-poor job... than it is to believe that 12 universities (Duke and UVA among them) didn't understand the terms of the contract. Let me finally point out that history is on the side of ACC sucking at TV negotiations. Just 2 years ago, they saddled the conference with the worst deal in college sports... and that was when its rights were wide the eff open to the market. This current deal is just par for the course.

[HJS]

How is adding years on the tail-end and more options for Olympic games a complete renegotiation? Where is the branding control and flexibility? Did I miss that? Weren't look-ins part of the prior contract? I'm fairly certain they were.

1. ESPN can brand the ACC games now... "Welcome to the ACC Basketball Tournament brought to you by Depends Undergarments". That is all now in the exclusive control of Disney.
2. I do not believe the look-ins ever existed before this year and I'm pretty sure Swoffy was quoted in the past week arguing that it was something he was proud of and worked hard in getting included. Possibly was in one of addict's links.

[eagle9903]

2. If ESPN could hold the ACC to the originial contract, then they had no incentive to renegotiate AT ALL and just stole $1.3B of shareholder money that could have been used to securing the rights to the NFL, ND or BigTen in the near future.

Unless, less than 6 months removed from offering the BigEast 155 million/10 years or whatever, they realized they could just blow it up and send its most valuable properties to conferences where it held rights (mostly to keep them from competitors) and therefore encouraged the ACC expansion and agreed to $1.3 because it would still be a bargain in the long run.

[eagle9903]

2. While there were no specific valuation methodologies, there could easily be caps in place. There could just as easily be a clause that says if the parties don't agree, then the former contract applies. If Swofford is as bad a negotiator as you say, then he could have waived rights to dispute resolution or never had any explicitly included in the first place. What's becoming more and more clear is that the ACC did not have the leverage that some seem to assume.

3. Who is he? Why would that be?

2. If ESPN could hold the ACC to the originial contract, then they had no incentive to renegotiate AT ALL and just stole $1.3B of shareholder money that could have been used to securing the rights to the NFL, ND or BigTen in the near future.

3. Because you just got done saying that ESPN is not obliged to ever pay anything more regardless of the ACC's membership composition. The addition of ND means that the ACC has no greater leverage than it did when it added Cuse or Pitt.

The only reason... THE ONLY REASON... the ACC added Cuse and Pitt was to reopen negotiations on their ESPN deal. To take the position that the change in membership really didn't give leverage to the ACC (all in an attempt to make Swoffy seem not incompetent in negotiations) means that the entire conference and its 12-universities had a complete misunderstanding of what the contract really said. I think it a little easier to believe that the ACC (who negotiated the contract through their inhouse media person) did a piss-poor job... than it is to believe that 12 universities (Duke and UVA among them) didn't understand the terms of the contract. Let me finally point out that history is on the side of ACC sucking at TV negotiations. Just 2 years ago, they saddled the conference with the worst deal in college sports... and that was when its rights were wide the eff open to the market. This current deal is just par for the course.

The deal 2 years ago was not the "worst deal in college sports" at the time it was made. It was worse than the better SEC and Big10 properties, and better than the existing lesser value conferences. A lot has happened since which has made it the (actually second) worse deal in college sports.

[pick6pedro]

2. While there were no specific valuation methodologies, there could easily be caps in place. There could just as easily be a clause that says if the parties don't agree, then the former contract applies. If Swofford is as bad a negotiator as you say, then he could have waived rights to dispute resolution or never had any explicitly included in the first place. What's becoming more and more clear is that the ACC did not have the leverage that some seem to assume.

3. Who is he? Why would that be?

2. If ESPN could hold the ACC to the originial contract, then they had no incentive to renegotiate AT ALL and just stole $1.3B of shareholder money that could have been used to securing the rights to the NFL, ND or BigTen in the near future.

3. Because you just got done saying that ESPN is not obliged to ever pay anything more regardless of the ACC's membership composition. The addition of ND means that the ACC has no greater leverage than it did when it added Cuse or Pitt.

The only reason... THE ONLY REASON... the ACC added Cuse and Pitt was to reopen negotiations on their ESPN deal. To take the position that the change in membership really didn't give leverage to the ACC (all in an attempt to make Swoffy seem not incompetent in negotiations) means that the entire conference and its 12-universities had a complete misunderstanding of what the contract really said. I think it a little easier to believe that the ACC (who negotiated the contract through their inhouse media person) did a piss-poor job... than it is to believe that 12 universities (Duke and UVA among them) didn't understand the terms of the contract. Let me finally point out that history is on the side of ACC sucking at TV negotiations. Just 2 years ago, they saddled the conference with the worst deal in college sports... and that was when its rights were wide the eff open to the market. This current deal is just par for the course.

2. Wrong, they wouldn't get the additional games and rights that they did.

All along I've said the negotiations were not up to par. I've said I think they left money on the table. But I've also said I don't think they left as much as most think and didn't have the overwhelming leverage that most seem to assume. It figures that you'd ignore all that and go on rants that have nothing to do with what I've said. On top of that - it was not the only reason.

[pick6pedro]

How is adding years on the tail-end and more options for Olympic games a complete renegotiation? Where is the branding control and flexibility? Did I miss that? Weren't look-ins part of the prior contract? I'm fairly certain they were.

1. ESPN can brand the ACC games now... "Welcome to the ACC Basketball Tournament brought to you by Depends Undergarments". That is all now in the exclusive control of Disney.
2. I do not believe the look-ins ever existed before this year and I'm pretty sure Swoffy was quoted in the past week arguing that it was something he was proud of and worked hard in getting included. Possibly was in one of addict's links.

Even if these statements are true (I still don't recall seeing the first or that the second is new), your track record of twisting the truth to the extremities appears at play.

[HJS]

2. Wrong, they wouldn't get the additional games and rights that they did.

All along I've said the negotiations were not up to par. I've said I think they left money on the table. But I've also said I don't think they left as much as most think and didn't have the overwhelming leverage that most seem to assume. It figures that you'd ignore all that and go on rants that have nothing to do with what I've said. On top of that - it was not the only reason.

Still haven't answered the why expand question. The ACC didn't need to expand to go to 9 games... the PAC12 is already doing that. If getting more games is the only reason ESPN is paying more, the ACC could've accomplished that without expansion.

[pick6pedro]

1. ESPN can brand the ACC games now... "Welcome to the ACC Basketball Tournament brought to you by Depends Undergarments". That is all now in the exclusive control of Disney.

Sponsorship and Enhancements

For the first time, ESPN has acquired title sponsorship rights, subject to conference approval, beyond football to all other conference championships including the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments. The ACC Men’s Basketball Tournament, televised in its entirety on ESPN networks and its syndication partner Raycom, has never been sponsored in its 59-year history.

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2012/05/espn-and-acc-extend-exclusive-multi-platform-agreement-through-2026-27/

[HJS]

How is adding years on the tail-end and more options for Olympic games a complete renegotiation? Where is the branding control and flexibility? Did I miss that? Weren't look-ins part of the prior contract? I'm fairly certain they were.

1. ESPN can brand the ACC games now... "Welcome to the ACC Basketball Tournament brought to you by Depends Undergarments". That is all now in the exclusive control of Disney.
2. I do not believe the look-ins ever existed before this year and I'm pretty sure Swoffy was quoted in the past week arguing that it was something he was proud of and worked hard in getting included. Possibly was in one of addict's links.

Even if these statements are true (I still don't recall seeing the first or that the second is new), your track record of twisting the truth to the extremities appears at play.

OK... pick and choose what you are going to ignore. BCWest's posts suck... FSU's BOT is clownshoes... choose whatever reality you like.

[pick6pedro]

2. Wrong, they wouldn't get the additional games and rights that they did.

All along I've said the negotiations were not up to par. I've said I think they left money on the table. But I've also said I don't think they left as much as most think and didn't have the overwhelming leverage that most seem to assume. It figures that you'd ignore all that and go on rants that have nothing to do with what I've said. On top of that - it was not the only reason.

Still haven't answered the why expand question. The ACC didn't need to expand to go to 9 games... the PAC12 is already doing that. If getting more games is the only reason ESPN is paying more, the ACC could've accomplished that without expansion.

Who said getting more games was the only reason? Your logic is astounding.

Expansion was for a combination of things. Money (while media rights are a large part there are other considerations you ignore), to weaken a direct competitor, to strenghthen against superior competitors, for overall stability, to be proactive in the face of uncertainty. Among other things.

[pick6pedro]

How is adding years on the tail-end and more options for Olympic games a complete renegotiation? Where is the branding control and flexibility? Did I miss that? Weren't look-ins part of the prior contract? I'm fairly certain they were.

1. ESPN can brand the ACC games now... "Welcome to the ACC Basketball Tournament brought to you by Depends Undergarments". That is all now in the exclusive control of Disney.
2. I do not believe the look-ins ever existed before this year and I'm pretty sure Swoffy was quoted in the past week arguing that it was something he was proud of and worked hard in getting included. Possibly was in one of addict's links.

Even if these statements are true (I still don't recall seeing the first or that the second is new), your track record of twisting the truth to the extremities appears at play.

OK... ignore whatever you like. BCWest's posts suck... FSU's BOT is clownshoes... choose whatever reality you like.

Extremities indeed.

I commended BCWest by the way. I know it's difficult to rationally think about things rather than just toss it into the same agenda fire you've been burning for years.

How's the "exclusive control" lie going now that I've debunked it?

[LawyersGunsnMoney]

According to FSU trustee Derrick Brooks, the BIG 12 reached out to FSU...

http://www.yahoosportsradio.com/shows/tim-brando/derrick-brooks-the-big-12-is-courting-fsu-24111/