Re: How would the Supreme Court rule?

BigCUFan®

CU Medallion [64621]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 89012

Joined: 3/27/01

In such circumstances, I believe...

Aug 4, 2023, 8:42 AM

the black letter language in the contract would dictate.

However, if the league made certain commitments, either financial or otherwise, as inducements to persuade/convince the member institutions to sign the GOR which later that did not materialize, I think it would be reasonable to assume the court would rule in favor of the schools on that basis.

Clearly John Swofford and the ACC failed to deliver on several of its promises. Those included:

1 - Failure to bring ND in full time

2 - The league didn’t keep pace with the B1G and SEC in terms of medial rights revenue. The revenue projections presented the ACC (John Swofford) were grossly and quite possibly intentionally inaccurate and misleading which could constitute a bad faith representation especially if the ACC knew the projections were unrealistic.

3 - Failure to launch the ACC Newtwork timely (6 years after it was promised). Then, revenues for the conference network were far less than expected, while costs to produce programming, particularly for non-revenue sports, that is funded by the member institutions, exceeded estimates. The delay in launching ACCN was one of many factors that failed to live up to the promises made by Swofford. Revenues for the conference network were far less than expected, while costs to produce programming exceeded estimates.

4 - Then, the TV money that was promised didn't adequately adjust for inflation which would have increased revenue for each team by nearly $50 million annually. The 2.5% inflation rate used was too low. The purchasing power of a dollar decreased by approximately 7% from 2022 to 2023.

The ACC's potential misleading statements, if not outright fraud, certainly opens the door for schools to challenge the GOR and exit without penalty.

The ACC made promises in exchange for its grant of rights and it appears that none of those promises were realized. If the facts were intentionally misrepresented, to coerce schools into approving the grant of rights, I do think these deceptive practiced may nullify the GOR. Do the member schools approve the ACC grant of rights if Swofford's presentation contains accurate revenue projections and assurances of ESPN's interest in a conference network?

There's no doubt schools like FSU and Clemson (among others) simply can't afford to stay in the ACC. Every year we remain in the ACC puts our program at greater disadvantage than the year before, so at what point do we say enough is enough?

No matter what people may think about the possibilities of winning legally in court and getting out from under the GOR albatross, it’s still untenable either way. The question then becomes, are you better off fighting it out through court because remaining in the ACC through 2036 is definitely a no win situation.

There was an article posted earlier in the week were FSU raised all of these issues (effectively deliberate, fraudulent, and misleading statements which lead to a breach of their fiduciary
commitments).