Clemson files Grant of Rights language lawsuit against the ACC

It's possible. Nobody knows for sure what will happen. But Texas, just a few years ago, was easily the top revenue generating program in the nation not named Notre Dame. Texas has a HUGE endowment as well. USCw is probably a top 5 revenue generating program nationally. I think there was probably a lot of pressure to take UCLA because it would give USC another West Coast team as opposed to being on an island and because I think the move probably would have been blocked if USC tried to leave UCLA behind.

I know the same is somewhat true with NCSU and UNC, but NCSU is nowhere near UCLA in value, plus UNC would have several regional teams in either the SEC or Big-10.

But I agree to never say never. I just think UVA is a more likely pairing to move with UNC.

Yep. It would be a very dangerous precedent for any conference to ever kick ANY member out without cause, especially a founding member (I know USCe isn't a SEC founding member). I don't think you'll ever see the SEC or Big-10 kick anybody out.

The only way I could ever see a complete restructuring and weeding out of weaker programs is it the top members of the Big-10 and SEC actually left their conference to form a brand new entity.

 

The $20 million a year ESPN is paying for the ACC is a bargain. UNC, Clemson, FSU, Miami, and VTech, and Stanford are all worth north of $20 million. The rest is debatable, but to get these teams at $20 million a year is much better than $60 million. For the money they are saving, they can afford to pay the rest of the ACC $20 million a year and get a ton more content, including things like Duke/UNC basketball games, which have value in Feb/Mar.

The late west coast games have less value than all other time slots, but the 4th window can still be profitable. A late night game that involves USC or Washington won't draw as many eyeballs as 2nd or 3rd slot SEC game premiere matchup, but what other game on the 4th slot can draw 1 million viewers? The answer is none. Mountain West and WAC rarely draw more than 250,000, and even an early season game like North Dakota State at Arizona can draw 500,000. Pales in comparison to SEC, yes, but if you're ESPN or Fox, you still want to maximize 4th window profit. Schools like UCLA, USC, UW, and Oregon can do that. The rest are now part of the ACC or BIG12. When the 4-corner schools went BIG12 for half the cost of what Fox is paying for the B1G, ESPN smiled. Yes, the corners won't generate the eyeballs, but for the cost, it's a decent deal. And by the way, Oregon and Washington are getting half B1G plus full travel expenses, which is expected to be about $10 million a year each respectively. So they are getting closer to $40 million.

The big wildcard in all of this are the success/failure of the streaming services. Last August, the number of subscribers to ESPN+ actually dropped. But I think Disney is counting on moving more premiere content on plus to draw more people in. Will it work? Time will tell. If it doesn't, how will ESPN be able to afford $60 million for 16 SEC schools?

 

I think the key here is to see what the ESPN/Fox/Warner deal does. If somebody like ESPN can consolidate all the major sports into a SINGLE streaming service, that is reasonably priced, I believe they will have something. That seems to be the new trend streaming TV may be heading toward. Consolidating content so people only have to have a couple of streaming services to get everything they want. I think cable TV operators may move to something similar offering more packaging options to lower pricing, but that might be a problem with carriage contracts for them.

That's why I believe I've mentioned in previous discussions with you that I think the SEC was particularly smart to put all their eggs in the ABC/ESPN basket. ESPN, especially if they add Fox sports programming, will likely become the standard sports package the vast majority of sports viewers subscribe to. SEC fans will be able to get all the SEC games on one service, plus all the ESPN content.

Big-10 fans may have to pay for ESPN/Fox/Warner, plus CBS and NBC services to get all their games.

 

They have a cool mascot as well.

 

Texas said the same thing for years, now they are assimilated.

 

It's definitely an easier path for one of them. The nolies just went 13-0 and were left out of the playoff. It very unlikely you see the ACC getting an at-large bid in the new format. A 2 or 3 loss SEC/BIG team will always take those spots over a 1 loss or equal loss ACC team. The message was clearly sent this past year and ESPN would rather see their cash cows in playoffs. As much as it pains me, Ill give them credit for scheduling home and home with Jawga and Bammers in upcoming years. They know an ACC schedule isn't going to impress anyone. Although a conference switch likely blows up future scheduling.

 

It's not accurate. The payouts for making the CFP go to the conferences, not the school. Additionally under the new CFB agreement, the B10 and SEC get paid more than the other conferences.

College Football Playoff Payouts 2023-2024

What these lawsuits are really about FSU and Clemson wanting to continue to compete at the national level in football. The majority of the ACC members schools are no longer interested into competing at that level due to the greatly increased costs of running a national program due to NIL and the transfer portal. The top college football brands in the ACC will not be able to compete long term if they are getting around $5M-$10M less per year than SEC/B10 school. That matters to FSU, Clemson, UNC, and likely Miami. That does not matter to BC, Wake, 'Cuse, Duke, etc. So the football first schools want out of the ACC.

 

Yep, here he is now...



You just can't fight it.

 

UNC is starting to make some noise as well:
"I think that what Clemson is doing is 100 percent proof positive that a significant portion of the membership of the conference is unhappy,” UNC Board of Trustees chair John Preyer told Inside Carolina on Wednesday. “I don't see how it is in anyone's interest for the ACC leadership to try and browbeat its member schools from getting access to information and being transparent. And that's kind of the case Clemson is making.

"I think this shows that what is supposed to be a member-based organization is not being led in a way that represents the best interests of all the members, but instead, it's really representing the bottom tier of the membership at the expense of the top tier, which is why Clemson and Florida State are doing what they're doing. I think that's just obvious."

 

How about this gem as the opening line in the lawsuit ..

 

The ACC had a clause that required a certain # of members to vote to scrap the GOR. Last year there was rumblings from Football centric schools to do that and there were (I think the % 5-6 schools required). When the schools actually voted, they fell one vote short, which indicated to me that one of the originally interested parties balked at the last minute. The ACC immediately expanded in part to ensure that the GOR vote of the 5 schools that wanted it dissolved had their voting rights watered down. Adding another school to the vote to dissolve now won't be effective because why would any of the new members vote to dissolve something they just joined. The ACC check-mated FSU and Clemson which is why they are whining in the courts right now.

 

They do believe that. Problem is their academic dishonesty scandal a few year's back is proof positive that they belong in the SEC. Of course, now UMich is trying to step-up the B1G's cheating game, so maybe they fit into either conference.

 

I don't believe the SEC's charter allows them to remove a founding member. Who knows about all the added members over they years, but the SEC's rhetoric on fairness indicates to me that they most likely receive the same protections as an original member.

This is what makes it so interesting now is will the SEC shelve their values to take advantage of a potential new member for a period of time with reduced revenues (who am I kidding...if its about $$ in this era, of course they will).

 

Close. I believe the issue was that if the ACC went below a certain number of members (I believe it was below 9), that ABC/ESPN had the right to tear up the TV contract and negotiate a new one ... which effectively could have "nullified" the GOR. It wouldn't necessarily kill the GOR, but it would have giving those schools leaving all the leverage in negotiating the GOR buyout. And it may have given them the means to get out of the GOR completely.

As I recall, it appeared that FSU, Clemson, UNC and NCSU were ready to make a move. NCSU was just following UNC's lead assuming they were a package deal. I don't remember exactly how it played out but NCSU apparently didn't feel UNC was behind them or told them there was no package deal, or maybe the rest of the ACC convinced them of that, but NCSU got cold feet the day before and changed their vote. FSU, Clemson and UNC were going back and forth trying to get NCSU back in line.

At the same time, the rest of the ACC members were working behind the scene and quickly secured Cal and Stanford, but SMU was the real kicker in the deal. Not a strong pick up but it would have given the ACC enough members, even if those 4 schools left, to keep the TV contract and GOR intact. The ACC effectively took away any leverage the 4 schools would have had. It was a pretty brilliant more.

If I had to guess since the 3 schools are bowing up again, FSU, Clemson and UNC probably got NCSU and maybe UVA to flip (maybe UVA figured out how much value they'd have to either the Big-10 or SEC) where the same deal would again apply with the TV contract. I don't know what it is but something major is going on.

I wonder if the ACC will suddenly add another crappy school to get above the threshold.

 

Correct, the payouts are bigger for the big 10 and SEC for the TV deal, not necessarily playoff money in and of itself.

However, here is what doesn't make sense about FSU and Clempson's whining about being at a competitive disadvantage.
Let's say for example the big 10 and SEC get 70 million a year from the TV deal each and the ACC teams get 35 million for their TV deal each.
Can any of those teams in any of those conferences use that money to buy players in the NIL? The answer is NO! The only thing that discrepancy does is limit what those ACC teams can do for stadium and locker room upgrades. Maybe they can use it for coaches buyouts and things not sure about that. The money to buy a good team of players is the same for the ACC as it is the big 10 and SEC - from the boosters and their collectives. So at the end of the day, these lawsuits are really just about greed from the Athletic Departments.

 

I think there was a belief that a greater number of poor performing ACC teams would spread jam even further and not bring greater revenue to the ACC tv contracts. FSU and Clemson had voted against expansion. Now held hostage by lower revenue producing teams on league.

 

I'm not sure, but I don't believe schools can use their media revenues to pay players. I think all of that revenue needs to come from outside. I think most comes from booster contributions or private donations.

 

I think the answer to your question is that the ADs know with absolute certainty that direct payment is coming.

 

Correct on the bolded part. At least for now. The NCAA is still trying to hold onto a greased pig without calling it 'pay for play'.

So media money is what half ass u is missing out on. Boo friggin' hoo. Just get your Spanx lady friend to fund some more crap.