• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC

You would have to be insane right now to say Miami, FSU, UNC, Clemson, don't have an easier path to a National Championship in the ACC than with the liars and charlatans conferences. And that includes Wake.
 
You would have to be insane right now to say Miami, FSU, UNC, Clemson, don't have an easier path to a National Championship in the ACC than with the liars and charlatans conferences. And that includes Wake.

If only national championships were the goal instead of boosting TV revenue.
 
I've read the Athletic article and the GOR.

If Clemson agreed to a deal stating that no matter *what* happens, they can't leave the ACC until 2036 or the ACC retains their media rights from the new conference, and this deal is valid even if Clemson's ACC media rights dwindle to $0, then that is a historically awful deal for Clemson.

ACC has a contract with ESPN that runs as long as the Grant of Rights. That is, it expires in 2036. If Clemson's media rights value hits zero, likely every team in the conference is at the same point. I am putting a lit match to your strawman.

Clemson and every other ACC school agreed to the deal to achieve certainty and stability at a time when there wasn't much.
 
ACC has a contract with ESPN that runs as long as the Grant of Rights. That is, it expires in 2036. If Clemson's media rights value hits zero, likely every team in the conference is at the same point. I am putting a lit match to your strawman.

Clemson and every other ACC school agreed to the deal to achieve certainty and stability at a time when there wasn't much.
ESPN won't exist in 2036.
 
I’m not an attorney but practically speaking - if the contract is changed in any way shape or form, including adding members, I would think that that’s an opportunity to void GOR, creating opportunity for schools to leave so that should be avoided if it is as airtight as many with more legal background than I have attested to
 
I’m not an attorney but practically speaking - if the contract is changed in any way shape or form, including adding members, I would think that that’s an opportunity to void GOR, creating opportunity for schools to leave so that should be avoided if it is as airtight as many with more legal background than I have attested to

Write a successor Grant of Rights that is the same as the existing, except it includes both old and new schools. Include a clause that puts the successor contract in effect and succeeding the existing only once it has signatures of all parties. Until then, the existing GoR remains in effect.
 
The GOR is specifically agreed to among the member institutions whom were signatories. Unless the GOR specifically addresses the inclusion of new members (and the version I’ve seen doesn’t) then it would require at a minimum an addendum to the contract which would require agreement of all the original signatories.
 
If any school were to join the ACC, presumably the new additions would have to agree to the GoR.

The GOR that the Athletic posted addresses the inclusion of new members:

" 4. The Conference shall not admit a new member to the Conference unless and until (a) such new member agrees to become bound by this Agreement with respect to all sports in which it participates as a member of the Conference by executing a signature page of joinder agreement hereto as a condition to such admission and (b) grants to the Conference pursuant to this Agreement all Rights of such Member Institution with respect to such sports."

So yes they'd have to agree to the GoR and doesn't give an opportunity to void the GoR. So unless me and the lawyers I talked to this weekend missed something, adding teams doesn't void it
 
Cam, having a lawyer on to talk about the GOR and the ESPN deal would be good for the next episode of your podcast.
 
The GOR that the Athletic posted addresses the inclusion of new members:

" 4. The Conference shall not admit a new member to the Conference unless and until (a) such new member agrees to become bound by this Agreement with respect to all sports in which it participates as a member of the Conference by executing a signature page of joinder agreement hereto as a condition to such admission and (b) grants to the Conference pursuant to this Agreement all Rights of such Member Institution with respect to such sports."

So yes they'd have to agree to the GoR and doesn't give an opportunity to void the GoR. So unless me and the lawyers I talked to this weekend missed something, adding teams doesn't void it

Do you have the link to that GOR?

That’s a prerequisite to admission, but what’s the process on schools admitting new members?
 
Do you have the link to that GOR?

That’s a prerequisite to admission, but what’s the process on schools admitting new members?

The ACC's bylaws govern the process for voting to admit a new member. But once an offer to join is made, the candidate school has to agree to the GOR to be admitted. Seems pretty standard.
 
The underlying financials of the deal changed in 2016, prompting the amendment which was signed at that time.
 
Cam, having a lawyer on to talk about the GOR and the ESPN deal would be good for the next episode of your podcast.

was trying to set that up this weekend but schedules never really lined up. If/when things progress that is top of the priority list
 
Do you have the link to that GOR?

That’s a prerequisite to admission, but what’s the process on schools admitting new members?

https://theathletic.com/3396108/2022/07/01/acc-grant-of-rights-staples/ it's inside the athletics article about how they'd have a lawyer challenge the GoR(which is hilarious because every option even the lawyer is like, "eh this is probably a terrible decision")

in terms to the process on admitting new members, I'm not aware of a copy of the ACC's bylaws in admitting members, but I can't think it's much different than a simple majority. Teams don't really do anything anyways unless everyone has already agreed to say yes
 
Back
Top