Transfer Portal for Schools?

[Redwood Forrest]

I Just read on CBS Sports that if FSU and Clemson win their court case they will be freed from their Grant of Rights with the ACC. This would mean every university could change conferences at any time. In effect it would be a portal for schools. Why not. If players and coaches can change their allegiance at will, why not schools too. I am all for it. Constant re-alignments.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

I Just read on CBS Sports that if FSU and Clemson win their court case they will be freed from their Grant of Rights with the ACC. This would mean every university could change conferences at any time. In effect it would be a portal for schools. Why not. If players and coaches can change their allegiance at will, why not schools too. I am all for it. Constant re-alignments.

win 10 different conferences in 10 years.

 

[kwftide]

Let the lawyers rejoice!

 

[CrimsonTitles]

Good grief, college football is becoming a train wreck faster than a UGA player on the highway

 

[Redwood Forrest]

Good grief, college football is becoming a train wreck faster than a UGA player on the highway

We might as well grab on to a piece of flotsam and hang on for dear life.

 

[Guido]

Ok, scream and yell all you want, they will not win their case, even if your GOD,ESPN says they will. I think they will settle with the ACC for more money because nobody wants their sorry butts, especially the SEC.

 

[Ledsteplin]

It seems like Klempson and Flowrida St. are assuming a conference will want them. Maybe the Pac 6 (formerly Pac 2).

 

[DzynKingRTR]

It seems like Klempson and Flowrida St. are assuming a conference will want them. Maybe the Pac 6 (formerly Pac 2).

that would be a perfect fit. they can revenue share the 4 pencils, 8 sticks of gum and the 3 magic beans that the conference generates.

 

[Rocky Mtn Bob]

Y'all are crackin' me up!

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

I Just read on CBS Sports that if FSU and Clemson win their court case they will be freed from their Grant of Rights with the ACC. This would mean every university could change conferences at any time. In effect it would be a portal for schools. Why not. If players and coaches can change their allegiance at will, why not schools too. I am all for it. Constant re-alignments.

Yeah, don't think so.

The lawsuit would just nullify the Grant Contract, which no other conference has...

I don't think there are any schools (outside of the ACC) wanting to bolt from the conferences that they currently occupy.

 

[Redwood Forrest]

Well, I thought The Big 12, Pac 12, and ACC all has those. They granted their rights away, to the conference and have to fork over millions to get their rights back.

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

I couldn't find the article (admittedly a cursory search) so I don't know what it actually said, but three things:

1. A Grant of Rights is a legally enforceable contract. I'm not a lawyer, but to get out of a contract you'd have to show fraud or coercion by the other party(ies), or breach by the other party(ies) plus failure to cure after notice of breach from Clemson/FSU to the other party(ies), or that whoever signed on behalf of Clemson and FSU had no authority to bind their respective institutions. Maybe there are some other examples, but these would seem to be the big three in every business agreement I've ever been involved in. As we always used to say in situations when one party (sometimes even ourselves) became unhappy with a contract after it was signed, "a deal's a deal."
2. Even IF (and that's a big if) Clemson and FSU prevail, it would take a very broad (almost certainly overly-broad) ruling to apply to all such Grants of Rights by all schools in all conferences thenceforth (I've been waiting awhile to unleash THAT word on Tidefans, lemme tell ya). I can't see that happening or, if it does, surviving appeal; and no judge likes to be overturned on appeal (well, maybe except the 9th Circuit). If they prevail, I'd expect a narrow ruling tailored to the specifics of their case and their case only.
3. No one at Clemson or FSU seems to be asking the most important question here, which is, "what's my outcome?" Even if they prevail, what conference in its right mind would admit either of them when they've just shown they don't honor their agreements? For a prospective conference to do so would be akin to someone marrying the person he or she dated while that person was still married: you know what they are, so don't be surprised when they do the same to you...

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I couldn't find the article (admittedly a cursory search) so I don't know what it actually said, but three things:

1. A Grant of Rights is a legally enforceable contract. I'm not a lawyer, but to get out of a contract you'd have to show fraud or coercion by the other party(ies), or breach by the other party(ies) plus failure to cure after notice of breach from Clemson/FSU to the other party(ies), or that whoever signed on behalf of Clemson and FSU had no authority to bind their respective institutions. Maybe there are some other examples, but these would seem to be the big three in every business agreement I've ever been involved in. As we always used to say in situations when one party (sometimes even ourselves) became unhappy with a contract after it was signed, "a deal's a deal."
2. Even IF (and that's a big if) Clemson and FSU prevail, it would take a very broad (almost certainly overly-broad) ruling to apply to all such Grants of Rights by all schools in all conferences thenceforth (I've been waiting awhile to unleash THAT word on Tidefans, lemme tell ya). I can't see that happening or, if it does, surviving appeal; and no judge likes to be overturned on appeal (well, maybe except the 9th Circuit). If they prevail, I'd expect a narrow ruling tailored to the specifics of their case and their case only.
3. No one at Clemson or FSU seems to be asking the most important question here, which is, "what's my outcome?" Even if they prevail, what conference in its right mind would admit either of them when they've just shown they don't honor their agreements? For a prospective conference to do so would be akin to someone marrying the person he or she dated while that person was still married: you know what they are, so don't be surprised when they do the same to you...

Point #1 is the big one. I don’t know how they make a claim of either coercion or breach stick. If the court rules in the plaintiffs’ favor, the ACC will instantaneously and rightly appeal. While I’m no attorney I do have experience with enforcement of contracts.

If the ACC’s Grant of Rights is unenforceable simply because two of the 17 parties woke up one day several years after signing and decided they were unhappy, how could any contract on any topic be enforceable?

As you stated, “A deal’s a deal.”

I also note that the contract does provide an agreed-upon price to exit. CU and FSU just don’t want to pay what they both agreed to.

If the trial is in Florida, they might (maybe) win, but I don’t think so. Even if I’m wrong and they do win in Florida, they’ll get dope-slapped on appeal.