Welp. Even if ACC stays put for now, appears the dissension is there.....
- Thread starter OG Goat Holder
- Start date
Will be interesting if the Pac12 can pull a rabbit out of its hat and get a semi-decent media deal. If not, the 4 corner schools might be headed to the Big 12
A handful are appealing enough that they may just take the financial hit if they get an SEC or B1G invite. FSU, UNC, maybe Clemson (but they are more appealing for the B1G than SEC). Will pay for itself in a year or two for them. But the others are pretty much screwed.
It’s also interesting that UNC is leaving Duke in the lurch on basketball with this.
They can 100% get out of the GOR if a majority of members (8 total) vote to dissolve the conference. With 7 currently wanting out, it's only a matter of time before 1 more jumps aboard and that'll be the end of the ACC.
Would it be bad faith for the 7 that want out to offer an 8th incentives to vote with them? Or tortious interference with contract to offer a guaranteed spot to those 8 teams?
Could they work out a deal where they go to the 8th most desirable ACC team and guarantee the 8th they are a package deal for the next conference? Be hard to structure since they won't all go to the same conference, but if they could discuss with the SEC and Big10 and get some sort of arrangement to have 4 go to one and 4 go to the other, what school could afford to pass that up if they knew the next stop was to go to the 9th most desirable school?
ETA: Looks like the options are go to Louisville and tell them they can be the 8th team, and if they say no the next step is to ask Duke if Louisville isn't quick to say yes.
Then you could have the Big10 pick up Louisville and Clemson (don't think the SEC would be interested in either of those), have the Big10 pick up Virginia or Va Tech, and then one of UNC, FSU, Miami, and NC St. The SEC gets the rest. The only problem for the SEC is they are going to either end up with two Virginia Schools, two North Carolina Schools, or three Florida schools. I think with the growth in those states though, any of those options would be fine. I think the only no go for the SEC would be picking up Louisville or Clemson.
To me none of this would be desirable as a fan of the SEC. 20 teams just doesn't make any sense to me as a conference. But I'm assuming the 7 looking to get out have reason to believe they will have a landing spot in the SEC or Big 10 for them to be going down this road. Wouldn't think leaving the ACC for a Pac 12 or Big 12 invitation would make any sense.
ETA2: I guess if you have a twenty team conference, you end up with two 10 team divisions, 10 conference games (so 9 division games and one cross over?) and everybody makes more money.
Last edited:
The cost kept Texas and Oklahoma in the Big 12 until a year before their agreement expired. The cost to get out of the ACC deal will be astronomical until they get closer to the expiration of the deal.
They're looking at a huge lawsuit for conspiracy if that happens. And they will pay out a massive judgement (or more likely settlement).
I don't see why not. Seven already.
Finebaum and Marcello were just taking about the situation. Looks like at least the teams seek to be compensated relative to their performance,
participation in the Playoffs, Their TV ratings, etc.
After Oklahoma left Oklahoma State, nothing surprises me anymore. I don't think those things are anything close to deal breakers any longer.
The money is there based on population, it's just a matter of whether it's practical for the SEC and Big10 to have 20 team conferences.
FSU is one of the top two most popular schools in a state with almost 22 million people and it's one of the fastest growing states. Miami is I guess still the third highest profile school in that state. But UCF and USF are putting out about twice as many graduates each year. Not sure they are a better bet long term than USF or UCF, but they have cachet and a big endowment.
Virginia and Virginia Tech are in a state with more than 8.5M people and it's affluent because of all the federal government spillover.
UNC and NCSt are in a state with more than 10.5M people.
South Carolina only has a little over 5M people and USCe is going to capture a lot of that. But Clemson is a big time name right now. I think the Big10 would take Clemson because they aren't in South Carolina and they make the Big10 better right now, even if they aren't the slam dunk the others are.
This is still going off TV sets, which going forward it's probably going to be more about having enough dedicated fans to buy streaming packages, but I think those seven schools, especially if done as a package deal, will generally increase the per school payout for the Big10 or SEC. Not sure they'd be able to move the needle enough to put up with the hassles of a 20 team conference, but ignoring that, the money would definitely be there to make it worth it to them.
That $100,000,000 isn’t nearly as big of a figure when you consider that they are only paying out about $36 million per year to each school. B1G is going to be dispersing $80-$100 million per school per year in their new deal. SEC will be a little below that, but in the same ballpark with the TX / OU additions and 9-game schedule with its new contract.
That’s a minimum opportunity cost forfeiture of about $44 million per year for any ACC school that is attractive enough to be offered a spot in the B1G or SEC…..and closer to $50-$60 million per year forfeiture in the near future. Therefore, its a very easy decision to bolt for any team that gets an offer from those 2 leagues - even if there is no dissolution of the conference. But a dissolution certainly makes things easier and solves a lot of problems for everyone but the ACC and its have-not members.
Phase 1 is the “Magnificent 7” seeks leverage to get the ACC / ESPN to rip up its current TV agreement and replace it with one that is more competitive with the SEC and B1G - at least for them. That is what is happening right now. If that doesn’t work, Phase 2 is to attempt to dissolve the league to break the GOR, then either jump back to Phase 1 (maybe with some additional members), and/or have big schools doing what they want, or both. If that also fails, it’s on to Phase 3 which is all the big schools leaving, at minimum.
You can also easily read between the lines….and consider that list of 7schools as ones who have been approached through back channels by the SEC and/or B1G as schools of interest to them. The only certainty here is that the ACC ain’t making it to 2035 with its current teams and current agreement. Too many people being screwed.
That sounds like cable/linear TV markets thinking. I'd bet my favorite ball gag that we are going to be subscribing to the SEC network and paying $10-20 per month to watch SEC sports in the not too distant future. In that world, nobody cares about the geography of the eyeballs watching, just the number. And having the most compelling content/teams is going to be the name of the game. Clemson is a very big draw compared to the rest of the ACC. No way South Carolina can keep them out if A&M couldn't keep Texas out.
I guess there is no way of telling how its really going to pan out, but it sure looks like we are heading to 18-24 teams each in the B1G and SEC with an NFC/AFC style playoff within each league leading towards a national title game between the two conference winners. Everyone not on those 2 boats will have to do something else. While the NCAA may not have any teeth, those 2 super leagues will and that's where we could see salary caps come into play.
But those two were also making bank in the Big 12 due to unequal revenue sharing. And they STILL got out a year early. Nobody in the ACC is making bank with even the most appealing schools only drawing $36 million per season.
Again - pays for itself in 2 years or less for probably any of those 7 schools. And definitely for FSU, Clemson, or UNC. Kinda like refinancing a mortgage to a shorter term and lower rate. You have to pay the closing costs. But it pays for itself many times over after a very short period of time.
Yep, geography is not that big of a deal anymore. It's hard for me to believe that the SEC didn't realize this even in 2012, but it's all about the short term money grab, and back then, it was still cable. And in 2023, streaming has now become the short term money grab.
I don't think that's going to change the math that much. The only reason where TVs are right now matters is that cable companies are going to be sensitive to it and are going to be more willing to put SEC or Big 10 networks in lower tier packages in areas where the fans are concentrated.
But while Clemson right now would probably attract more eyeballs to streaming packages than demographics would suggest, I'm not sure how durable that is. If they have a down few years, I think they will be reliant on "hard core" fans, and I'm not sure how many national bandwagon fans are going to continue to pay for a subscription based on Clemson being included. Some certainly will, but I don't think they've been elite for long enough to continue to drive interest in a specific streaming package through a down period in the same way that Bama and/or OSU will be able to.
I think with streaming packages being sold separately, the premium is going to be for hardcore fans, and the fact that you can drive viewers to watch a game that's included in a relatively low tier cable or satellite package isn't going to be as relevant. For all the fans that will apparently tune in to watch Bama on CBS, how many of them will pay for a streaming package to watch Bama? Same thing with OSU or Clemson. I think those fans will pay for a streaming package, but I think they're going to pay for Big10 or SEC or both depending on how much they like watching college football, and having a Clemson or not is not going to be a deciding factor for most of them.
Problem is it’s not just the $100,000,000. That’s just to leave the conference. The ACC still owns your media rights. SEC or Big 10 not gonna pay you much if they can’t get more money from ESPN. And the law of diminishing returns may already be coming into play with the addition of Texas & Oklahoma. Is ESPN going to pay an additional $100,000,000 per year for say a Florida St? Or a Louisville?
Well if the ACC still owns the rights then it would stand to reason that they still owe the annual payouts even if the school is in another league. So, I would imagine any school that leaves would have a separate negotiation there as to how it works out. It’s just that no one has had the balls to test it yet.
Say FSU pays the $100 million and gets out, SEC offers membership. They still get $36 million from the ACC, and the SEC can still pay a prorated amount per year to make them whole until the GOR runs out in 2035. If that prorated amount is, say, $20 million per year….FSU is made whole within 5 years and well beyond made whole after that. And if the conference dissolves before that, they get normal member treatment and almost immediately are good to go. So the reality is that even if the ACC still owns the rights, it makes little sense for them to not work something out to return the rights to the departing school, provided that they get their $100 million as agreed. In the case of the SEC, ESPN would also certainly step in to grease the wheels as needed…..for certain schools anyway.
So which ACC school is getting a new residence hall? **
That’s not how a grant of rights works. The ACC gets whatever the $100MM. Not to mention why would ESPN “grease the wheels” to pay $100MM for Florida St when they’ve already got them for $32MM?
You’re saying the ACC owns rights they don’t even have to pay for?
And ESPN doesn’t pay FSU. They pay the ACC and the ACC pays FSU. And yes, they of all people should know that the ACC is a house of cards, and they want the big name teams in the SEC if they have any say….not running to the B1G to Fox/NBC/CBS.
I think the SEC would definitely take Clemson, given their strong national brand.
Would we take Louisville? Probably not, unless we were stuck with an awkward odd number like 23 and just needed 1 more. But even then, I think Georgia Tech or Oklahoma State would be better choices to double up on a state.
Would we take Louisville? Probably not, unless we were stuck with an awkward odd number like 23 and just needed 1 more. But even then, I think Georgia Tech or Oklahoma State would be better choices to double up on a state.
FSU and the others signed over those rights to the ACC, so yeah, the ACC owns them. And the courts pretty much unanimously hold you to contracts you signed.
maybe there is a way out for them. But they’ve had some of the best lawyers in the country working on this for 3 years and they’ve gotten nowhere. I’m just saying this is a lot harder and more complicated than a lot of people think it is.
Edit: I was floored when news of that deal broke. I knew immediately it was a terrible deal for the big schools. Still can’t believe they signed it.
Last edited:
What I’m saying is the courts are also going to uphold the part of the deal where the ACC still has to honor their end of the $36 million in annual payouts to the schools whose rights they hold, even if a member leaves the league and starts playing somewhere else. No court is going to say an entity owns unmitigated rights and they still keep them rent-free even if a team pays an exorbitant fee to leave the league. If that were true, the $100 million buyout would serve no purpose.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s still very complicated. The convoluted negotiations required and requisite game of chicken between a potential departing team and the ACC and the new league for that team would require a lot of lawyers to sort out. And that’s the intention of this agreement….be complex enough to prevent anyone from trying. But now its inevitable that its going to be tested since all of the league members are getting less than half of what their SEC and B1G counterparts are getting (and just barely more than what the Big 12 is getting as a glorified G5 conference). And at an absolute minimum, an ACC member that pays the $100 million to leave will still get their ACC rights check even if they can’t get anything else.
I still think its not off the table for the ACC to save itself….but both ESPN and the league itself are going to be pragmatic enough to see where this is headed if they don’t come up with a new deal.
They are a big draw compared to your Pitt’s and Boston Colleges. But not nearly as big of a national draw as FSU, Miami, or arguably UNC….when looking at the long term. Clemson now seems no different than early 90’s Nebraska or 80’s Miami. They could fall off at any moment, and the cracks are already showing. Just not nearly bulletproof enough or wealthy enough to sustain guaranteed long term success after Dabo is eventually gone.
I don’t think its a matter of South Carolina keeping them out….not sure they would even try. It’s more a matter of if the juice is worth the squeeze for the SEC. They are certainly a better cultural fit in the SEC than the B1G. But hell, you have two teams in 17ing Los Angeles in there now. Pretty obvious that culture doesn’t matter much anymore.
Clemson is one of the top 4 programs in the country for the last decade. They have the second strongest pipeline to the best football metro area in the country. They have money and lots of fan support. They will stay relevant.
You start talking relevant, competitive programs that aren't committed to the B1G or SEC and I say Notre Dame (puuuuuuke) and Clemson are 1 & 2. SEC isn't getting Notre Dame so you have to get Clemson.
It's a step down to Oregon, FSU, Miami, TCU, and Washington. Then you get marginal with Stanford, VaTech, Louisville, NC, NC State, Utah, etc...
Looks like UVA and VT and UNC and NCST are going to stick together. There’s been a lot of buzz over here in Raleigh that the state legislature has the power to keep the public schools together. Are UVA and UNC valuable enough to warrant the Big10 taking all four? I don’t think so. I think it’s going to be a shocking move for those four schools to the Big12. The new Big12 media deal is only for 6 years. They’ll renegotiate and get pretty decent money as the #3 football conference. Probably will be able to make some good basketball money too by adding UNC. If they can add the four corners schools to get them to 20, that will lock up the Big12.
The SEC will add Clemson, FLST, Miami, and one oddball (GA Tech, Louisville, Wake Forest, or Memphis if Fred Smith can buy their way in with a gigantic FedEx sponsorship). I guess we could steal a Big12 team if we wanted. The Big10 will hit 20 by adding Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Duke (too prestigious academically to ignore). They screw over Cal for all the UCLA drama. The Oregon and Washington state legislatures won’t care enough to do anything about the instate schools separating.
Notre Dame will never join a conference as long as NBC keeps offering them huge deals. You can make 21 teams work if they ever want to join one.
Thanks for reading my ramblings.
The SEC will add Clemson, FLST, Miami, and one oddball (GA Tech, Louisville, Wake Forest, or Memphis if Fred Smith can buy their way in with a gigantic FedEx sponsorship). I guess we could steal a Big12 team if we wanted. The Big10 will hit 20 by adding Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Duke (too prestigious academically to ignore). They screw over Cal for all the UCLA drama. The Oregon and Washington state legislatures won’t care enough to do anything about the instate schools separating.
Notre Dame will never join a conference as long as NBC keeps offering them huge deals. You can make 21 teams work if they ever want to join one.
Thanks for reading my ramblings.
No doubt they are Top 4 if only looking at the past decade. Again - see Nebraska from 1990 to 2000 or Miami from 1980 - 1990. Both had really good runs over a short period. Both were thought to be college football royalty, and now very few people care about either of them on a national scale. They currently are a hot name with some national bandwagon fans, but those will drop off quickly when they fall back to that 8-4 / 9-3 level where they lived for years before Dabo.
In terms of money, Clemson’s athletic department budget is $122 million, which is about the same as Ole Miss. MSU is at $110 million. They are the one of the nicest houses in the OK neighborhood of the ACC, but they’d be bottom 4 in terms of money in the current SEC. They aren’t loaded at all. By comparison, FSU is at $150 million. UNC is pretty close to Clemson at about $120 million. UVA about $110 million. Miami at $115 million. All of the above (besides FSU) would get a bump up in the SEC with the better TV deal to that Tennessee / Auburn tier, but that still just puts them in the middle of the pack. FSU would move into that Bama / UGA tier.
Yes they have fan support, but so do multiple other ACC schools (FSU, Va Tech, UNC, etc.) From a new footprint perspective, they being nothing close to the same appeal from an existing-state addition as FSU would.
Over the last decade? Yes. But if you’re talking over the last multiple decades, I’m taking FSU every time over Clemson. And ND also isn’t that competitive….not at the level of Clemson. They just have a 17ton of fans everywhere. Their actual success on the field is dwarfed by quite a few programs, actually. But the fan footprint is what this is all about, so yes they are definitely the most desirable program right now.
I could see Clemson in a 20-team or 24-team SEC quite easily. They certainly have some value and it’s an SEC town and school if there ever was one. But I think the SEC is going to not prioritize them the same way they would for a North Carolina school or a Virginia school, or FSU. And if FSU slipped out if reach, Miami might still be a more desirable addition if you’re talking about only schools from the existing footprint.
It worries me that Oklahoma and Texas were from a tiered profit conference and will bring that think in. Clemson and Florida State are following suit in the ACC since they aren't basketball powerhouses, but bring in big bucks in football. I just don't want to see our conference turn into a tiered system with us getting table scraps. Its tough enough as it is now.
It all depends on what the contract says. If it says a school leaving still gets to participate in the ACC annual payouts, then they would still get their share of ACC money, even though they're no longer in the ACC. If it says they won't participate, then they won't. It doesn't matter what you think is fair, or even what a court thinks is fair. What matters is what the parties actually agreed to.
You're right that it's extremely complicated. But you're wrong about the purpose. The purpose isn't to keep anyone from trying to get out of it, the purpose was to make it impossible for anyone to get out of it. And so far at least, it's been very successful. And it's definitely not from a lack of trying.
I’m not saying its fair or not fair. I’m saying it can be reasonably be implied that if there is a $100 million buyout, a team paying that buyout would get at least something for their money. If a team were to theoretically pay that money to leave the conference, but still not get either their media rights or the contractually agreed payout that the GOR guarantees them, AND essentially not be able to play on television until 2036, there would be no reason at all to include the $100MM buyout clause in the contract in the first place as it would serve no purpose - everything that would happen after would be far more severe. And no school would agree to that. Its still a very one-sided agreement, but not as one-sided as you are trying to suggest.
And to be clear, the ACC doesn’t own the individual school’s media rights. They simply control the rights. If they owned them outright, they wouldn’t have to renogotiate anything in 2036, or ever. They are simply being lended control of the rights by the schools, in exchange for the annual payouts as agreed in the contract. The schools that are lending those rights get compensated for doing so. If the conference were to claim both control of the rights and refuse to pay the school their cut, it would get shredded to bits in court under anti-trust pretense…..IF the school did pay their $100 million to leave the league.
The trying didn’t really start until the past 2-3 years, when the SEC and B1G payouts started to substantially escalate way above and beyond what the ACC was paying. But just now is when schools other than blue bloods have started to join the fray.
Either way, the path of least resistance will happen. They will get a new deal that is far more favorable to the schools, or they will vote to dissolve the conference. Doesn’t matter what the GOR says at this point if they have the votes.
I just don't get the appeal of leaving the ACC to go to the Big 12. Is the ACC tv contract that ******? I would agree that UVA, Va Tech, UNC, and NC St don't move the needle together for the Big10. I think the Big 10 would gladly take UNC, and probably either of UVA or Va tech?
For the same reason that the Big10 likely wouldn't take all four mentioned above, I don't think the SEC would take Clemson and Ga Tech, Louisville, Wake Forest, or Memphis. Clemson just doesn't move the needle that much. UTx, Oklahoma, UGA, UF, LSU, Bama, and A&M are all bigger money generators than Clemson. So as good of a program as Clemson is right now, they would be moving the average the wrong way. Even if they were bigger money generators than UTenn and Auburn, you're talking about them essentially being the new median program and just barely moving the median (and probably still moving the average down). You pair them with any of the other oddball teams you mentioned, and it gets much worse.
I think the only reason the SEC would even add say UNC, FSU, Miami, and Virginia is that it would position them to be a dominate conference along with the Big10. The Big10 can probably improve themslevs by adding four teams, but the only reason for the SEC to do so is because of concern that the Big10 will surpass them if they add those teams.
The short answer is yes. Current ACC deal only pays out about $4 million per year per school more than the new Big 12 deal, and those numbers are locked in for the next 13 years with very marginal escalation. That’s close enough to where you could throw a dart at any ACC team, drop that team in the Big 12, and the new resulting Big 12 contract is instantly better than the ACC’s deal without that team. Double that up for what would actually happen, which is at least 2 teams going to the Big 12, to keep the numbers even. Maybe as many as 4. I could see Pitt, Louisville, Wake Forest, Duke, and Georgia Tech all being desirable to the Big 12, with most all of them not being desirable to the SEC or B1G….with the possible exceptions of Georgia Tech to the B1G. Also don’t think they would want both Duke and Wake Forest, but would potentially take either individually.
I'm confused as to what happens with the TV deal if it's locked in for that long. Does the ACC have some sort of out if it dissolves?
If ESPN has a sweetheart deal with the ACC TV deal, then there is zero incentive for them to pay anything to add to the SEC. Surely ESPN has a contract that protects its interests and the Big10 TV partners won't be able/willing to pay enough to offset any termination costs?
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.