The FSU Vs ACC case will be heard by a judge with 2 degrees from FSU
- Thread starter Las Panteras
- Start date
He will be as fair as the WV judge ruling that the WV 2-time transfer should be immediately eligble.
Did he mean getting off in port or when sinking? When sinking, the last man is generally still on the sub. Just saying...
I don’t think the judge matters per se.
It’s the rule of law that is the biggest issue.
From what I’ve read, NC saves liquidated clauses if they can.
Whereas due to statutes in FL, if it’s found to be punitive in nature at all, the entire clause is void.
That more so than the judge is probably why the ACC tried to keep it in NC.
It’s the rule of law that is the biggest issue.
From what I’ve read, NC saves liquidated clauses if they can.
Whereas due to statutes in FL, if it’s found to be punitive in nature at all, the entire clause is void.
That more so than the judge is probably why the ACC tried to keep it in NC.
Maybe Charlie Ward bullied him in some Latin American Fiction class they had together or Jameis Winston stole his alumni daughter's crab legs and he has an ax to grind with the football program...ya never know.
The loser of this case will undoubtedly appeal it to a higher court. Clemson's play over the last 8 years will blow the FSU case out of the water as it relates to the ACC holding back teams from being successful.
My $ is on the ACC in this first round!
My $ is on the ACC in this first round!
Judges interpret laws though. It’s why both sides want to stack the courts. Whichever outcome the GOP wants they should get in the end with the current majority. Not sure what that is at this point.
I was thinking the same thing. When I enter into a contract, it specifies that any and all disputes will be settled in the jurisdiction where my business is located.
I know there’s different circumstances between the two cases, but IIRC Maryland’s legal case vs the ACC was eventually ruled to be heard in North Carolina when they departed for the Big Ten.
Judges don't matter because they are all fair, unbiased, and paragons of virtue.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Legal venue isn't necessarily something that's needed in a contract. State law assigns venue for certain entities. That is sometimes repeated in recitals but the GOR is sort of a tag-along to the media deal. I would imagine that the ACC bylaws say that as a member, a school is subject to whatever the organization decides? In this case, the ACC is asserting NC state law to determine venue which would be the county where the ACC is incorporated. FSU is trying to establish venue in sort of a reverse fashion saying that the ACC is a "citizen" of every state their members reside in so the venue should be the county court in FL.
Finally got to read both documents. Totally summarizing but the ACC is just asserting venue. Nothing really exciting there except a list of citations that seek to match up with NC law. FSU is basically trying to do the same (without much more than the whole citizen thing) but isn't really challenging the GOR's standing as binding but are characterizing it as a penalty since they can't give their media rights to anyone else when they do leave. Saying that the combination of the GOR and exit fees constitute restraint of trade (keeps them from leaving) and should be unenforceable. I'm a little surprised they are going that route because the potential for unintended consequences -- where the GOR is concerned -- could be pretty spectacular if they're successful. I wonder if a student or professor could challenge their own GOR over academic property with the FSU based on a similar premise?
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Has PSU had a law school for long? Didn't they buy the law school from Dickinson?
This news sucks, I had a back and forth conversation with several douches from Free Shoes U. Gist of the story is at a minimum they expect Carolina and Clumson to also file if nothing else. To show espn that they are leaving and plan to fight back.
So they (espn) opts out of the final 9 years of the contract. So it reduces the years to 3 they have to pay for to leave. Essentially leaving what is left of the conference to starve and settle for scraps.
So they (espn) opts out of the final 9 years of the contract. So it reduces the years to 3 they have to pay for to leave. Essentially leaving what is left of the conference to starve and settle for scraps.
The case was heard in both MD and NC. Then they settled which ended both suits.
No one really knows what is meant by those last 9 years. FSU makes it sound like the contract ends in 2027 but ESPN has the right to extend it. The ACC makes it sound like its a "look-in" period to get more money from ESPN.
The sooner they leave the better. Whoever leaves can be middle of the road in other conferences and just like when the first wave of defections happened to the Big East other schools will rise to the top. But unlike when it happened to the Big East, college football will now have a 12 team playoff where the Top 5 conference champions get a bid. Even after losing FSU, Clemson, and UNC the ACC will be one of the Top 5 conferences left over most years. Especially after Pac12 imploded.
As long as Pitt has a legitimate path to the playoffs should they win 11 or 12 games a year I'm good.
As long as Pitt has a legitimate path to the playoffs should they win 11 or 12 games a year I'm good.
Last edited:
It doesn’t really matter, because if the motivation is great enough and you have the cash, this will eventually be appealed to the SCOTUS. That being said, it’s infinitely better to be on the side who won on appeal, only because you run the risk that SCOTUS decides not to hear the case.
My guess is that the Republican Supreme Court would side with FSU due to their claim for restraint of trade. Just a guess.
I'd be more willing to bet that SCOTUS doesn't touch this.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Yeah, the SCOTUS isn’t going to care about this.
If it ends up in federal court, it will be strictly through diversity. SCOTUS isn’t going to want to get involved in that.
Work for hire is controlled by federal statute, not common law or state statutory law.
It is schools that grant professors control over their work through contracts, not the other way around. Because federal law defaults all work as property under the complete control of the school.
Not just surprising, but really stupid by the ACC if the document lacks governing law and venue provisions.
Similar threads
