ADVERTISEMENT

FSU exposes Swofford & Raycom deal

cease10 said:
I'm so happy to see details of this sweetheart Raycom deal in the spotlight.
Swofford was underhanded and the ACC presidents that let him do this were either morons or also underhanded.

https://www.espn.com/college-footba...s-ex-acc-boss-john-swofford-amended-complaint
Click to expand...

I have said this many times. The "original sin" of the ACC was not going to market in 2010. We are in the ACC as a direct result of that cataclysmic blunder. Swofford demanded that Raycom be included in any deal by a bidder. No one would agree to it except ESPN so the ACC didnt go to market. ESPN made them an offer with a promise to sublease games to Raycom and the ACC took it. In the ACC's defense, this timeframe was RIGHT before the lid got blown off of TV deals. 1 or 2 years later is when conferences started making bank. So their deal was the last bad deal so to speak. And we are still stuck in it. Added a few million for Pitt & Syracuse. A few million for a few ND road games per year. A little more than a few million for ACCN. And here we are. So the ACC will go from 2010-2036 without ever going to market to get their full market value.

All this being said, FSU continues to sound like message board fanboys. They probably just plagiarized my posts about this on this board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HailToPitt725
More and more, the ACC is mirroring the demise of Big East Football.

They let Notre Dame in the conference as a partial member when no one else would, just like the Big East did.

Now they're bringing in all kind of no-value schools, just like the Big East did.

I think the Big East also missed out on a payout by making a not so smart move.
 
cease10 said:
More and more, the ACC is mirroring the demise of Big East Football.

They let Notre Dame in the conference as a partial member when no one else would, just like the Big East did.

Now they're bringing in all kind of no-value schools, just like the Big East did.

I think the Big East also missed out on a payout by making a not so smart move.
Click to expand...
I have not seen other conferences telling ND NO to all but FB
 
It amazing that none of the schools pushed back on the sweat heart deal with Raycom. It was obvious to everyone that Swafford was protecting his son and Raycom. In the end it going to end up being the downfall of the conference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cease10
dan15701 said:
It amazing that none of the schools pushed back on the sweat heart deal with Raycom. It was obvious to everyone that Swafford was protecting his son and Raycom. In the end it going to end up being the downfall of the conference.
Click to expand...

Yes, its going to be the downfall of the conference but we'd be in the American (or I guess the Big 12) if not for it. And to defend Swofford a little here, it wasnt JUST Raycom. In 2010, no one had signed a major deal with anyone but ESPN or CBS. They were college football. I guess the Pac 12 and Big 12 always had those syndicated games you'd see on Fox Sports Pittsburgh but that was small time stuff. He wanted the ACC on ESPN. ESPN said they'd cut in Raycom. So he thought why go to market and maybe end up on NBC Sports Network or a Speed Network, which was renaming itself Fox Sports One when ESPN has an offer for us and they'll let us continue our tradition with Raycom.

FWIW, these CW games are still part of that original ESPN/Raycom deal.
 
BigChungus90210 said:
What do you think that number is? How underpaid, in your mind, are the ACC schools compared to everyone else?
Click to expand...

They should be at about 75% of the SEC/B10. Would that have been enough to keep FSU happy? I dont know. But its crazy that the ACC is going to go 26 years without ever seeing what its worth on the open market. But this isnt just Swofford's fault. Instead of sucking it up and letting these deals expire, they added Pitt & Syr for a few more nickels but had to extend then had to extend for ND road games. Then had to extend for ACCN. They wanted the short-term money. Now FSU is saying even though we agreed to that, what you made us sign is an illegal document
 
  • Like
Reactions: cashisking884
Sean Miller Fan said:
They should be at about 75% of the SEC/B10. Would that have been enough to keep FSU happy? I dont know. But its crazy that the ACC is going to go 26 years without ever seeing what its worth on the open market. But this isnt just Swofford's fault. Instead of sucking it up and letting these deals expire, they added Pitt & Syr for a few more nickels but had to extend then had to extend for ND road games. Then had to extend for ACCN. They wanted the short-term money. Now FSU is saying even though we agreed to that, what you made us sign is an illegal document
Click to expand...
2024 payout estimates have the SEC at 57.6M and ACC at 37.9M, so ACC is approx. 66%. By the end of the decade though with the SEC projected at 105.3M and the ACC 55.3M (52.5%)... yikes.
 
dan15701 said:
It amazing that none of the schools pushed back on the sweat heart deal with Raycom. It was obvious to everyone that Swafford was protecting his son and Raycom. In the end it going to end up being the downfall of the conference.
Click to expand...
This is why I don't understand the whole FSU exposes Swofford premise. Swofford couldn't agree to anything himself. They all new and willingly signed up. There's zero chance any of these schools didn't know his son worked for Raycom.

Now did FSU vote no and get overruled by majority? I don't see that mentioned anywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h2p_5150, bwh05, ThePanthers and 2 others
Gunga_Galunga said:
This is why I don't understand the whole FSU exposes Swofford premise. Swofford couldn't agree to anything himself. They all new and willingly signed up. There's zero chance any of these schools didn't know his son worked for Raycom.

Now did FSU vote no and get overruled by majority? I don't see that mentioned anywhere.
Click to expand...
Off topic: I owe you an apology on the airfares thing. You were right, I was wrong. Would have DM'd, but system won't permit it. I think the thread disappeared. Sorry again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boseman7, HailToPitt725, Gunga_Galunga and 2 others
pittdan77 said:
I was thinking the same thing. They advanced to the, "let's run everything up the flagpole and see if something sticks" way too quickly.
Click to expand...
They started that way. It is just more of the same.

I'm not sure this is destined for settlement. There is more of an existential bent to the ACC's side which may force them to dig in. The most important decision may be the venue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: singregardless, ThePanthers and pittdan77
dan15701 said:
It amazing that none of the schools pushed back on the sweat heart deal with Raycom. It was obvious to everyone that Swafford was protecting his son and Raycom. In the end it going to end up being the downfall of the conference.
Click to expand...
That why they call it the All Cronie Conference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dan15701
CrazyPaco said:
They started that way. It is just more of the same.

I'm not sure this is destined for settlement. There is more of an existential bent to the ACC's side which may force them to dig in. The most important decision may be the venue.
Click to expand...
You'll find out sooner rather than later. If the judge doesn't throw the whole thing out, neither side wants to go to trial. If the suit is on, the settling begins.
 
cease10 said:
I'm so happy to see details of this sweetheart Raycom deal in the spotlight.
Swofford was underhanded and the ACC presidents that let him do this were either morons or also underhanded.

https://www.espn.com/college-footba...s-ex-acc-boss-john-swofford-amended-complaint
Click to expand...
The article makes no claims about there being anything underhanded nor were any of the dealing hidden from the ACC schools. In fact, the article makes clear that the initial deal including Raycom was in 2010 and the GOR wasn't a commitment until 2016. So all schools, including FSU, knew of the Raycom arrangement for 6 years before signing the GOR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zepley09, Gunga_Galunga, ThePanthers and 2 others
CrazyPaco said:
They started that way. It is just more of the same.

I'm not sure this is destined for settlement. There is more of an existential bent to the ACC's side which may force them to dig in. The most important decision may be the venue.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. There is no reason at all to settle unless maybe the ACC reaches an agreement to pay them like $10 million/year more until 2036 or something like that. Any other settlement where the ACC cuts the GOR short is the end of the ACC as we know it. They would have no reason to settle.

Settle = FSU, UNC, and others are gone almost immediately

Lose in court = FSU, UNC and others are gone almost immediately

Win in court = ACC stays intact until 2036 or teams leave but the ACC at least controls their home games until 2036 meaning those teams dont get TV revenue from their new league
 
I'm not sure of the legalities, but everyone knows Swofford included Raycom because it was beneficial for Raycom and his son, and not necessarily the ACC. I guess they could argue that the length of the deal is what helped Raycom the most.

With the being said, I bet 4 out of 5 people on the FSU BOT have done crony deals like this to benefit themselves and/or family members. So they should watch what they wish for.
 
HailtoPitt said:
I'm not sure of the legalities, but everyone knows Swofford included Raycom because it was beneficial for Raycom and his son, and not necessarily the ACC. I guess they could argue that the length of the deal is what helped Raycom the most.

With the being said, I bet 4 out of 5 people on the FSU BOT have done crony deals like this to benefit themselves and/or family members. So they should watch what they wish for.
Click to expand...
I also don't remember FSU objecting to anything until they threw their hissy fit. Their primary claim, here, is that the ACC didn't act with fiduciary duty but there isn't any record that FSU objected to things which would in turn mean that they weren't doing their fiduciary duty, either. Unless, of course, this is an argument of convenience and they're just full of crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: singregardless, h2p_5150, Gunga_Galunga and 2 others
I am no legal scholar but what surprises me the most is that even in 2010, everyone knew the musical chairs were not over. Everyone knew football drove the money and not basketball. FSU knew they were the biggest brand in the ACC for football, especially then when Clemson was still a "also ran in". Why they thought it was in their interest to sign a 26-year-long contract with such favorable terms to a basketball conference is beyond me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pittdan77
Mikefln said:
I am no legal scholar but what surprises me the most is that even in 2010, everyone knew the musical chairs were not over. Everyone knew football drove the money and not basketball. FSU knew they were the biggest brand in the ACC for football, especially then when Clemson was still a "also ran in". Why they thought it was in their interest to sign a 26-year-long contract with such favorable terms to a basketball conference is beyond me.
Click to expand...

In ther public BOT meeting, they threw the old FSU admin under the bus for this. Basically said they were swindled.
 
NCPitt said:
The article makes no claims about there being anything underhanded nor were any of the dealing hidden from the ACC schools. In fact, the article makes clear that the initial deal including Raycom was in 2010 and the GOR wasn't a commitment until 2016. So all schools, including FSU, knew of the Raycom arrangement for 6 years before signing the GOR.
Click to expand...

Which is why so much of FSU's lawsuit is just message board material. They even included in the original suit that they wanted Oregon State and Washington State over Cal and Stanford because they were better at football THIS year. Stanford had Top 10 teams just a few years ago. It honestly seems like they got some random guy from Warchant to represent them. Next, they will be quoting The Dude and Greg Swaim as sources.
 
pittdan77 said:
I also don't remember FSU objecting to anything until they threw their hissy fit. Their primary claim, here, is that the ACC didn't act with fiduciary duty but there isn't any record that FSU objected to things which would in turn mean that they weren't doing their fiduciary duty, either. Unless, of course, this is an argument of convenience and they're just full of crap.
Click to expand...

I guess they would have trusted the conference executive leader to make a decision that was in the best interest of the conference, and as many here and elsewhere said at the time, it was pure cronyism. I guess those in leadership are sometimes the last to notice. Pitt trusted Scott Barnes to make a basketball hire that was in the best interest of Pitt, but he did something else. Happens all the time and we all saw it right away. Pitt... twiddling their thumbs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cease10
HailtoPitt said:
I guess they would have trusted the conference executive leader to make a decision that was in the best interest of the conference, and as many here and elsewhere said at the time, it was pure cronyism. I guess those in leadership are sometimes the last to notice. Pitt trusted Scott Barnes to make a basketball hire that was in the best interest of Pitt, but he did something else. Happens all the time and we all saw it right away. Pitt... twiddling their thumbs.
Click to expand...

I said many times Pitt should have sued Scott Barnes for breach of fiduciary duties. They could have gotten their case from message boards as FSU has done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eastern Eight
NCPitt said:
The article makes no claims about there being anything underhanded nor were any of the dealing hidden from the ACC schools. In fact, the article makes clear that the initial deal including Raycom was in 2010 and the GOR wasn't a commitment until 2016. So all schools, including FSU, knew of the Raycom arrangement for 6 years before signing the GOR.
Click to expand...
🤔Did I say anything about the article claiming underhandedness??? The underhanded comment was my own claim and opinion. Get it right.
 
HailtoPitt said:
I guess they would have trusted the conference executive leader to make a decision that was in the best interest of the conference, and as many here and elsewhere said at the time, it was pure cronyism. I guess those in leadership are sometimes the last to notice. Pitt trusted Scott Barnes to make a basketball hire that was in the best interest of Pitt, but he did something else. Happens all the time and we all saw it right away. Pitt... twiddling their thumbs.
Click to expand...
Good point caller
 
pittdan77 said:
I also don't remember FSU objecting to anything until they threw their hissy fit. Their primary claim, here, is that the ACC didn't act with fiduciary duty but there isn't any record that FSU objected to things which would in turn mean that they weren't doing their fiduciary duty, either. Unless, of course, this is an argument of convenience and they're just full of crap.
Click to expand...
But at the time they were unaware of the Swofford manipulation, perhaps?
 
cease10 said:
🤔Did I say anything about the article claiming underhandedness??? The underhanded comment was my own claim and opinion. Get it right.
Click to expand...
Umm, that was kind of the point of addressing my reply to you. You made it up ... completely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThePanthers
pittdan77 said:
I also don't remember FSU objecting to anything until they threw their hissy fit. Their primary claim, here, is that the ACC didn't act with fiduciary duty but there isn't any record that FSU objected to things which would in turn mean that they weren't doing their fiduciary duty, either. Unless, of course, this is an argument of convenience and they're just full of crap.
Click to expand...

How would that be a response to FSU’s argument?

If there is a third party that FSU had a fiduciary duty to, that party can sue FSU for breach.

But a lack of an objection from FSU isn’t really a defense to a breach of fiduciary duty. Your client/principal isn’t going to object much due to the nature of the service/relationship. That’s one reason why you have a fiduciary duty.
 
Sean Miller Fan said:
I said many times Pitt should have sued Scott Barnes for breach of fiduciary duties. They could have gotten their case from message boards as FSU has done.
Click to expand...

I agree. They should have done it so fire Stallingrad with cause and not pay any of the buyout. And to put those two clowns on notice. Maybe the worst hire of the decade in all of college basketball.
 
NCPitt said:
Umm, that was kind of the point of addressing my reply to you. You made it up ... completely.
Click to expand...
Smh....Going back and forth with you is a waste of time. Just put me on ignore, so you don't see my posts and reply.
 
HailtoPitt said:
I agree. They should have done it so fire Stallingrad with cause and not pay any of the buyout. And to put those two clowns on notice. Maybe the worst hire of the decade in all of college basketball.
Click to expand...

Kenny Payne at Louisville was the worst hire of all time. That is an elite program. But, they definitely should have sued Barnes because it certainly seemed like there may have been bribes paid from Vandy to Turner to him to hire Stallings. He didn't deserve to land at Oregon State.
 
cease10 said:
Smh....Going back and forth with you is a waste of time. Just put me on ignore, so you don't see my posts and reply.
Click to expand...
Nope. I'll continue to reply when I feel the urge.

Don't post made-up accusations if you don't want me to reply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThePanthers
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T

Raycom, Swofford, and the ACC

Replies
7
Views
1K
Between Fifth And Forbes
jay1976
J
pitt-girl

ACC amends complaint against FSU....

Replies
72
Views
3K
Between Fifth And Forbes
JSSTartan
JSSTartan
mike412

OT: Homage to Barcelona

Replies
41
Views
2K
Between Fifth And Forbes
recruitsreadtheseboards
recruitsreadtheseboards
JimPL
  • Locked
  • Sticky

War Room- June 2nd

Replies
11
Views
985
In the Pitt Archives
goatman
goatman
plcp
  • Locked
  • Sticky

War Room - June 13

Replies
39
Views
2K
In the Pitt Archives
Panther Parrothead
Panther Parrothead
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back