Clemson Joins FSU in Suing the ACC To Get Out of Media Rights

[batchaps4me]

We don't know. If the GOR is tied to the ESPN deal, then a new one. But that will give the out to FSU and others. If the GOR is not dependent on the ESPN contract, then no, they won't need a new one.

So IF, and I made that a big if. ESPN opts out the ACC GOR and therefore the penalties for leaving are no longer in effect. This is exactly what I think will happen and haven't been able to explain it properly.

Think through what you are saying ... do you really think ADs sit down and tell inside information to Pate? Why? The only thing they would tell him is exactly what they want to get out and most of the time that won't be the truth.

Yes I do. What makes you think that an AD wouldn't go off the record to manage a narrative? Or at least wink and nod approval to some of his/her staff to do so.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

So IF, and I made that a big if. ESPN opts out the ACC GOR and therefore the penalties for leaving are no longer in effect. This is exactly what I think will happen and haven't been able to explain it properly.

Yes I do. What makes you think that an AD wouldn't go off the record to manage a narrative? Or at least wink and nod approval to some of his/her staff to do so.

Let's back up for a minute. I said:

There are two ways that FSU leaves early - they break the GOR which is highly unlikely, or they try to buy their way out.

You said a third way was if ESPN decided not to exercise their option in or around 2025 - that's when they have to do it by. I disagreed, but in our back and forth have admitted we don't know what they GOR says about the relationship between the GOR and the ESPN contract. It's possible, as you point out, that the two are tied at the hip and if ESPN chooses not to exercise their option, the GOR is over. It's also possible, as I have pointed out, that the GOR and the ESPN contract, while related, are two different agreements. It's possible that even if ESPN decides not to exercise their option that the ACC still owns FSU's rights until 2036.

Let's assume ESPN doesn't exercise their option, and the GOR is no longer in place. FSU and Clemson can pay an exit fee of about $125 million and be gone, assuming they have a landing spot. The exit fee is not related to the GOR or the ESPN contract.

As to your second point, people who make millions of dollars don't wink and talk off the record to Pate-like people about billion-dollar litigation. If they want to manage the narrative and get something out, they will call a press conference. Obviously sports writers have sources and get inside info all the time. But this is about as big a deal as there could be. If the ACC found out that an AD was releasing information like you say Pate has, he or she would fired. What a lot of these people have are innuendo, rumor, and some inside whispers from low-level people, from which they make assumptions just like we are doing here. But, to put all your trust in one person because you think he is "connected" and being fed information by people who truly know is naive, IMO.

 

[batchaps4me]

There are two ways that FSU leaves early - they break the GOR which is highly unlikely, or they try to buy their way out.

You said a third way was if ESPN decided not to exercise their option in or around 2025 - that's when they have to do it by. I disagreed, but in our back and forth have admitted we don't know what they GOR says about the relationship between the GOR and the ESPN contract. It's possible, as you point out, that the two are tied at the hip and if ESPN chooses not to exercise their option, the GOR is over. It's also possible, as I have pointed out, that the GOR and the ESPN contract, while related, are two different agreements. It's possible that even if ESPN decides not to exercise their option that the ACC still owns FSU's rights until 2036.

Right. I am saying that from what I have heard/read is that the ACC holds the GOR until the ESPN contract is ended. I am not denying it is possible that the ACC did get FSU locked in until 2036 either way. I just don't believe that is the case and the GOR, going by what I have heard/read. We shall see.

As to your second point, people who make millions of dollars don't wink and talk off the record to Pate-like people about billion-dollar litigation. If they want to manage the narrative and get something out, they will call a press conference. Obviously sports writers have sources and get inside info all the time. But this is about as big a deal as there could be. If the ACC found out that an AD was releasing information like you say Pate has, he or she would fired. What a lot of these people have are innuendo, rumor, and some inside whispers from low-level people, from which they make assumptions just like we are doing here. But, to put all your trust in one person because you think he is "connected" and being fed information by people who truly know is naive, IMO.

Fair enough.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Again ACC without Clemson and FSU the ACC is worthless to ESPN. They would be a losing money on the ACC.

Think about this: ESPN could pay four teams SEC money and it still would be cheaper that the ACC deal per year. Now which do you think is more profitable from a TV revenue standpoint, Clemson/FSU/NC/Miami playing the remaining ACC team or a SEC slate?

Which will be more profitable, maintaining the ACC when the SEC/BiG leave the ACC or getting the value out of four teams now and having leverage as those two conferences bail on the NCAA? Look at it as a whole instead of isolated occurrences. Short or long term, ESPN makes more money dumping the ACC and helping the few ACC schools that are profitable for ESPN get into a super conference?

I think you are grossly underestimating what the programming for ACC content is even without Clemson and FSU and seem to think it is zero and that is not the case because the ND away games have tremendous value on their own.

You are also aren't factoring in the lost content which ESPN needs in order to fill time slots on all their channels to generate ad revenue.

It’s not like the value goes to zero the second the FSU and Clemson leave. It’s also not like FSU and Clemson are worth north of what they would bring in at 100mm. The most economical scenario for ESPN is to keep the ACC together at a bargain price. I don’t see them to be motivated to end that prematurely.

 

[CoalTrain]

The idea that Ole Miss and Vandy, founding members of the SEC would be kicked out of the SEC is absurd. There is no one saying this right now. No one is even thinking about it. I'll concede that if they ever just go to new leagues - Nike and Amazon - that teams like Vandy would be left out. But that scenario is even more absurd. It's like you aren't even thinking about what makes CFB special and valuable. Sure, we know it's about money, but your scenario and those who keep bringing this up aren't even giving a single thought that no one would like what you suggest. Sure, there is a ton of change, but none of it has changed to the foundation of what CFB is - student athletes - yes, a huge percentage of the players are still student-athletes and want to go to the school of their choice, fans that are fans because they attended the school, tradition (yes, it still exists, even with teams moving), bands, cheerleaders, etc. If that goes away, so do most of the fans, including me.

No, the mid schools will not want to become the bottom schools. That's obvious. So they won't vote for the mess you are laying out. It's why the SEC won't add FSU and Clemson ... more schools don't want to make it harder to get into the CFP, go to a bowl game, or possibly win the league. Hell, why would UTjr want to bring in FSU and Clemson, two losses for you? You haven't sniffed a NC or an SEC championship in almost 30 years (not being an asshole, just pointing out that while you are talking about Vandy and the Mississippi schools, the top teams think the same thing about your team these days). Why would you want to bring in two schools better than yours making that harder? You wouldn't and your school won't vote for that. We saw this first hand last year when the mid and lower schools in the SEC said hell no to going to a 9th SEC game.

You are totally wrong about the NFL. It's designed to drive parity. The draft, scheduling, salary cap, revenue sharing, are all designed to drive parity so that the worst teams can have a chance to get decent and maybe win. Sure, the better teams will win more, but look at New England these days, Dallas, etc. That level of parity doesn't and can't exist in CFB. You can't force players to go to a school they don't want to go to, the scheduling is all over the place and with 134 teams v. 32 you can't schedule parity, and certain teams will always have geographical, financial, and other advantages that can't be smoothed out. So, no, IMO CFB isn't ever going to be like the NFL due to built-in inherent aspects of it that can't or won't be changed.

Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Tennessee
LSU
Florida
OU
Texas
Texas A&M
FSU
Clemson


Ohio State
Michigan
Notre Dame
USC
Penn State
Michigan State
Nebraska
Oregon
Washington
UNC
Miami


Bottom line, these conferences or some form similar will bring the most money and in this era, THAT rules EVERYTHING else, not founding members, not tradition, not what's best for the student athlete, not even what a lot of alums and fans think. Unless there is a major shift (which is possible but not likely) in fans and our passion, we'll go / watch / support the big brand teams regardless of records, ratings prove that. Players are going to cost more and more money, not only the stars and not only in football, collective bargaining and all that it brings is on the doorstep, it all points to the need for more and more money and schools that CAN make the most money are going to HAVE to do what they have to do and if/when the media partners say that programs ________ are not worth keeping around, then the haves are going to do whatever they deem necessary to. End of the day, I'm with you and hope I'm dead wrong but I don't think I'm very far off, the previous moves in realignment all seem to be moving to this final end game super conference type of conference with the mid/low tier leftovers just doing anything they can to even have a program.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Let's back up for a minute. I said:

There are two ways that FSU leaves early - they break the GOR which is highly unlikely, or they try to buy their way out.

You said a third way was if ESPN decided not to exercise their option in or around 2025 - that's when they have to do it by. I disagreed, but in our back and forth have admitted we don't know what they GOR says about the relationship between the GOR and the ESPN contract. It's possible, as you point out, that the two are tied at the hip and if ESPN chooses not to exercise their option, the GOR is over. It's also possible, as I have pointed out, that the GOR and the ESPN contract, while related, are two different agreements. It's possible that even if ESPN decides not to exercise their option that the ACC still owns FSU's rights until 2036.

Let's assume ESPN doesn't exercise their option, and the GOR is no longer in place. FSU and Clemson can pay an exit fee of about $125 million and be gone, assuming they have a landing spot. The exit fee is not related to the GOR or the ESPN contract.

As to your second point, people who make millions of dollars don't wink and talk off the record to Pate-like people about billion-dollar litigation. If they want to manage the narrative and get something out, they will call a press conference. Obviously sports writers have sources and get inside info all the time. But this is about as big a deal as there could be. If the ACC found out that an AD was releasing information like you say Pate has, he or she would fired. What a lot of these people have are innuendo, rumor, and some inside whispers from low-level people, from which they make assumptions just like we are doing here. But, to put all your trust in one person because you think he is "connected" and being fed information by people who truly know is naive, IMO.

I read something quite a while ago that had the ACC, agreement that was based off the Big 12s agreement, and was very simplistic and the argument was that was done purposely to make it tough to break or to figure out venue.

There is a reason Texas and OU paid out 50mm each plus 13mm total in combined basketball revenue and it wasn’t because these agreements are easy to break. Texas has a top law school if the GOR could be broken they would have done it.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Tennessee
LSU
Florida
OU
Texas
Texas A&M
FSU
Clemson


Ohio State
Michigan
Notre Dame
USC
Penn State
Michigan State
Nebraska
Oregon
Washington
UNC
Miami


Bottom line, these conferences or some form similar will bring the most money and in this era, THAT rules EVERYTHING else, not founding members, not tradition, not what's best for the student athlete, not even what a lot of alums and fans think. Unless there is a major shift (which is possible but not likely) in fans and our passion, we'll go / watch / support the big brand teams regardless of records, ratings prove that. Players are going to cost more and more money, not only the stars and not only in football, collective bargaining and all that it brings is on the doorstep, it all points to the need for more and more money and schools that CAN make the most money are going to HAVE to do what they have to do and if/when the media partners say that programs ________ are not worth keeping around, then the haves are going to do whatever they deem necessary to. End of the day, I'm with you and hope I'm dead wrong but I don't think I'm very far off, the previous moves in realignment all seem to be moving to this final end game super conference type of conference with the mid/low tier leftovers just doing anything they can to even have a program.

It's like you've never been to a college football game and don't understand what drives the numbers. This is laughable. You just wiped out 112 teams out of 134. You really think TV ratings for 22 teams playing each other will be better than what we have now? In this scenario, Tennessee is the new Vanderbilt winning 4 games a season. You really want to be the cellar dweller in the new division? UNC is the new Rutgers. Nebraska is the new Kansas. Teams that win 10 games per year are now going to win 2-3 games per year and you think they will vote for this? None of what you say makes a lick of sense. Not from a school's perspective, not from a TV perspective, not for what actually makes the money in the sport. SMH.

 

[rfjeff9]

I think you are grossly underestimating what the programming for ACC content is even without Clemson and FSU and seem to think it is zero and that is not the case because the ND away games have tremendous value on their own.

You are also aren't factoring in the lost content which ESPN needs in order to fill time slots on all their channels to generate ad revenue.

It’s not like the value goes to zero the second the FSU and Clemson leave. It’s also not like FSU and Clemson are worth north of what they would bring in at 100mm. The most economical scenario for ESPN is to keep the ACC together at a bargain price. I don’t see them to be motivated to end that prematurely.

Totally agree. The ACC deal ESPN has is a bargain for themnright right now. They'd be nuts to do anything to blow it up prematurely. I think ESPN extends to 2036.

 

[Deep Creek]

Like I said, most of what I am saying was from Josh Pate podcasts. I am trusting him because he is connected well enough to accurately "predict" timelines and near-term actions within weeks of it happening. The ACC contract is locked down and not public from all I can see or tell. IF I am recalling incorrectly, that is on me but I don't think I am. He is convinced that ESPN is the driver of the realignment and CFP expansion and is wielding their financial might to get their version of what NCAAF should be.

And all this time I thought Sankey and Petitti were dictating all of this.

 

[batchaps4me]

And all this time I thought Sankey and Petitti were dictating all of this.

Money, follow the money.

 

[Deep Creek]

Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Tennessee
LSU
Florida
OU
Texas
Texas A&M
FSU
Clemson


Ohio State
Michigan
Notre Dame
USC
Penn State
Michigan State
Nebraska
Oregon
Washington
UNC
Miami


Bottom line, these conferences or some form similar will bring the most money and in this era, THAT rules EVERYTHING else, not founding members, not tradition, not what's best for the student athlete, not even what a lot of alums and fans think. Unless there is a major shift (which is possible but not likely) in fans and our passion, we'll go / watch / support the big brand teams regardless of records, ratings prove that. Players are going to cost more and more money, not only the stars and not only in football, collective bargaining and all that it brings is on the doorstep, it all points to the need for more and more money and schools that CAN make the most money are going to HAVE to do what they have to do and if/when the media partners say that programs ________ are not worth keeping around, then the haves are going to do whatever they deem necessary to. End of the day, I'm with you and hope I'm dead wrong but I don't think I'm very far off, the previous moves in realignment all seem to be moving to this final end game super conference type of conference with the mid/low tier leftovers just doing anything they can to even have a program.

Two questions.

1. Why have the true "revenue generators" been willing to pay the lesser "revenue generators" the same amount?

2. Would the beloved "charter" members be willing to accept unequal shares just to stay at the big boy table?

 

[Deep Creek]

Money, follow the money.

“The answer to all your questions is money."
The late Don Ohlmeyer

 

[OlyDuck]

You are also aren't factoring in the lost content which ESPN needs in order to fill time slots on all their channels to generate ad revenue.

They have enough contracts with enough conferences to fill those slots. what are we really talking about here 1 or 2 slots?
week 5 last year ACC had an ESPN friday night game
2 ABC
2 ACCNW
1 CW

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I think you are grossly underestimating what the programming for ACC content is even without Clemson and FSU and seem to think it is zero and that is not the case because the ND away games have tremendous value on their own.

You are also aren't factoring in the lost content which ESPN needs in order to fill time slots on all their channels to generate ad revenue.

It’s not like the value goes to zero the second the FSU and Clemson leave. It’s also not like FSU and Clemson are worth north of what they would bring in at 100mm. The most economical scenario for ESPN is to keep the ACC together at a bargain price. I don’t see them to be motivated to end that prematurely.

Clemson and FSU leaving is not as bad as OU and TX leaving. FSU has been down for years ... their TV numbers were not good until last year. And Clemson has been down the last few years due to Dabo's stubbornness. All that said, it will impact the value of the ACC, and if FSU and Clemson get out then others may follow.

Dennis Dodd wrote an article today that really hit on the idea that he isn't overly confident that FSU and Clemson have landing spots. it was an interesting read. I'll see if I can find it.

And then what? Plans for Florida State, Clemson remain unclear if rivals successfully exit ACC

The two ACC giants are exploring an exit from the league, but what could happen afterwards remains a mystery

www.cbssports.com

 

[Wild Turkey]

Clemson and FSU leaving is not as bad as OU and TX leaving. FSU has been down for years ... their TV numbers were not good until last year. And Clemson has been down the last few years due to Dabo's stubbornness. All that said, it will impact the value of the ACC, and if FSU and Clemson get out then others may follow.

Dennis Dodd wrote an article today that really hit on the idea that he isn't overly confident that FSU and Clemson have landing spots. it was an interesting read. I'll see if I can find it.

And then what? Plans for Florida State, Clemson remain unclear if rivals successfully exit ACC

The two ACC giants are exploring an exit from the league, but what could happen afterwards remains a mystery

www.cbssports.com

To be honest, I don't think the SEC needs anyone else and I would be fine staying where we are.

I think it would be a huge mistake for the B1G to take them for the following reasons:
1. Geographically what they have created is a nightmare
2. They are pushing the limits on size versus scheduling as it is
3. Neither is an AAU member
4. Culturally its not a fit

Clemson's value is in the SEC because those are their historic rivals like Georgia, South Carolina and Auburn plus if you added FSU they keep that one. All of those games would be money games every year that they played and it would be the same with Alabama since they have recent history. There is initial value in games with teams like Michigan. Penn State and Ohio State but those aren't long term games that are going to excite the fanbase for long because all of them have other established rivals. Eventually, they end up like Missouri and Arkansas that work in order to try and create rivals.

FSU is about the same but they do bring the Florida market in for B1G recruiting and I imagine all the B1G teams are going to want to play in the state for the recruiting advantage. But for the teams and the fanbases it's just a payday relationship.

Then there is the SEC and do they want the B1G to have a footprint in Florida and potentially two with both FSU and Miami? That will be a big point of discussion.

So it's definitely not a slam dunk but it would get fans excited and it would protect the existing footprint for the SEC so I believe they would pull the trigger. They could get the money to do it.

The B1G needs to focus on landing ND and bringing one team with them like UNC, Virginia or whoever they may want Stanford in order to get ND and help with the West Coast issue. ND is the big prize on the board and the selling point is the playoff is going away and if you want a piece of the P2 Super Division this is the only way.


Wild Card is UNC - We have different opinions on that but I've always heard going back years they are a target and while they aren't a must-have the tires are going to get kicked and if it becomes problematic then no biggie. Personally, I would love UNC and Duke in the conference because that makes us the undisputed premier basketball league in the country and the SEC officially is the leader in all the major sports that matter at that point.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

To be honest, I don't think the SEC needs anyone else and I would be fine staying where we are.

I think it would be a huge mistake for the B1G to take them for the following reasons:
1. Geographically what they have created is a nightmare
2. They are pushing the limits on size versus scheduling as it is
3. Neither is an AAU member
4. Culturally its not a fit

Clemson's value is in the SEC because those are their historic rivals like Georgia, South Carolina and Auburn plus if you added FSU they keep that one. All of those games would be money games every year that they played and it would be the same with Alabama since they have recent history. There is initial value in games with teams like Michigan. Penn State and Ohio State but those aren't long term games that are going to excite the fanbase for long because all of them have other established rivals. Eventually, they end up like Missouri and Arkansas that work in order to try and create rivals.

FSU is about the same but they do bring the Florida market in for B1G recruiting and I imagine all the B1G teams are going to want to play in the state for the recruiting advantage. But for the teams and the fanbases it's just a payday relationship.

Then there is the SEC and do they want the B1G to have a footprint in Florida and potentially two with both FSU and Miami? That will be a big point of discussion.

So it's definitely not a slam dunk but it would get fans excited and it would protect the existing footprint for the SEC so I believe they would pull the trigger. They could get the money to do it.

The B1G needs to focus on landing ND and bringing one team with them like UNC, Virginia or whoever they may want Stanford in order to get ND and help with the West Coast issue. ND is the big prize on the board and the selling point is the playoff is going away and if you want a piece of the P2 Super Division this is the only way.


Wild Card is UNC - We have different opinions on that but I've always heard going back years they are a target and while they aren't a must-have the tires are going to get kicked and if it becomes problematic then no biggie. Personally, I would love UNC and Duke in the conference because that makes us the undisputed premier basketball league in the country and the SEC officially is the leader in all the major sports that matter at that point.

I don't think mid teams in the SEC like UF and UTjr will want FSU and Clemson. Why bring in 2 more guaranteed losses?

UNC, UVa make more sense from that perspective - they deliver wins. But they don't come close to delivering money, and are SEC teams really going to take a $5-10 million hit per team per year to bring them in? Why would they?

I truly think that the B1G and the SEC are hoping the ACC stays together. Clemson and FSU are really stupid. They should be staying in the ACC, giving them a sure path to the CFP every year, and then negotiating a finance split that rewards teams for winning. They can't make up the gap between them and the SEC/B1G, but they could put a dent in it.

 

[Thiefery]

I think it would be a huge mistake for the B1G to take them for the following reasons:
1. Geographically what they have created is a nightmare
2. They are pushing the limits on size versus scheduling as it is
3. Neither is an AAU member
4. Culturally its not a fit

I think FSU and Clemson would be a good fit in the BiG.. They need matchups.. they have a lot of schools that struggle, so adding a much improved FSU and a solid Clemson school does not harm them. Rutgers, MD, MN, NW, Purdue, IL, NU have struggled.. WI and Iowa look like they could be struggling too.. Add incoming UCLA which has a rebuild on their hands.. Who knows how MSU performs in the next couple seasons as well.. Those schools can feed tosu, um, oregon, SC, psu.. they can do the same for Clemson and FSU.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I don't think mid teams in the SEC like UF and UTjr will want FSU and Clemson. Why bring in 2 more guaranteed losses?

UNC, UVa make more sense from that perspective - they deliver wins. But they don't come close to delivering money, and are SEC teams really going to take a $5-10 million hit per team per year to bring them in? Why would they?

I truly think that the B1G and the SEC are hoping the ACC stays together. Clemson and FSU are really stupid. They should be staying in the ACC, giving them a sure path to the CFP every year, and then negotiating a finance split that rewards teams for winning. They can't make up the gap between them and the SEC/B1G, but they could put a dent in it.

I can teams like SC and FL bitching because they don’t want to compete within their state and conference.

I can see teams like KY, Miss State and Missouri complaint because it’s hard enough to win.

Truth is with as many teams as the SEC has the schedules should be pretty balanced strength wise.

If it happens what I’m curious about is do they pair Clemson and Georgia as permanent opponents? That would give Georgia potential, Clemson, Auburn and Florida as their perms. I imagine Kirby goes full Saban bitching about that.

 

[Thiefery]

I can teams like SC and FL bitching because they don’t want to compete within their state and conference.

I can see teams like KY, Miss State and Missouri complaint because it’s hard enough to win.

Truth is with as many teams as the SEC has the schedules should be pretty balanced strength wise.

If it happens what I’m curious about is do they pair Clemson and Georgia as permanent opponents? That would give Georgia potential, Clemson, Auburn and Florida as their perms. I imagine Kirby goes full Saban bitching about that.

Yeah I'm sure Kirby is really worried about playing Auburn and FL every year... one with a question mark HC and the other with a deadman walking HC..

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I can teams like SC and FL bitching because they don’t want to compete within their state and conference.

I can see teams like KY, Miss State and Missouri complaint because it’s hard enough to win.

Truth is with as many teams as the SEC has the schedules should be pretty balanced strength wise.

If it happens what I’m curious about is do they pair Clemson and Georgia as permanent opponents? That would give Georgia potential, Clemson, Auburn and Florida as their perms. I imagine Kirby goes full Saban bitching about that.

ATM won't have any sympathy for UF and USCjr, that's for sure.

I think the fact that the mid- to lower-level teams kiboshed the 9-game schedule tells you what you need to know about their position on bringing in 2 more losses. They won't agree to it, especially if they have to give up revenue. "Hey, Ole Miss, we want to bring in 2 teams that will likely beat you when you play them, and to do so, we are going to take a $5 million hit in revenue." Nah, they won't vote for that.

If the go 3-6-6 (which will be screwed up by adding two more teams, by the way), I think top teams get two tops, 1 mid/bottom. Don't think we would get Clemson, Auburn, and UF.