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

[duckboy33]

Don't want to get in trouble for not taking this to the politics forum, but it sure looks like schools (to use the ones you and I cited) like Ohio State and Alabama are subsidizing schools like Purdue and Vanderbilt when it comes to media value. I know a lot of people that rant and rave about the act of subsidizing.

I will say this for the new Big 12. I don't see any of the schools subsidizing the others regarding media value. They don't have schools that have any significantly higher media value than the others. The only two that had significantly more media value than any of the others are in the SEC now.

You're right but I don't expect that to change.

As for the Big 12, you're right again. That has provided the conference stability (ironically) in turbulent times.

 

[Thiefery]

You're right but I don't expect that to change.

As for the Big 12, you're right again. That has provided the conference stability (ironically) in turbulent times.

they got scared in 2011.. I know Tech, okie light were ok because they were part of the 4 who were going West.. but the rest of the schools?

They heeded that warning, got everyone to vote for equal revenue with it's tier 1 and 2 rights.. they put that money into coaching and facilities (stadiums too)..

PAC was naive as fuck.. they should have taken notice too

 

[duckboy33]

they got scared in 2011.. I know Tech, okie light were ok because they were part of the 4 who were going West.. but the rest of the schools?

They heeded that warning, got everyone to vote for equal revenue with it's tier 1 and 2 rights.. they put that money into coaching and facilities (stadiums too)..

PAC was naive as fuck.. they should have taken notice too

In 2011 the original plan for the PAC was to add Colorado, Oklahoma, OSU, Texas, Aggie and Tech. Aggie balked at the idea pretty quickly and turned towards the SEC. Kansas was discussed as 16 for a bit but, of course, the deal never went through. Colorado jumped anyways and the PAC rounded out with Utah (who turned out to be a pretty good addition).

 

[Goldbug]

Schools can get pretty damn pathetic when it comes to joining a new conference. SMU agreed to accept no television revenue from the ACC in its first nine years in the conference. Clemson and FSU would not do something like that but they would certainly take a lesser amount of payout to join a thriving conference. I shudder to think what schools like Oklahoma State would agree to in order to get a seat at the Big Boys table.

 

[duckboy33]

Schools can get pretty damn pathetic when it comes to joining a new conference. SMU agreed to accept no television revenue from the ACC in its first nine years in the conference. Clemson and FSU would not do something like that but they would certainly take a lesser amount of payout to join a thriving conference. I shudder to think what schools like Oklahoma State would agree to get a seat at the Big Boys table.

It's all about leverage. USC and UCLA had leverage because the Big Ten had to do something to keep pace with the SEC and adding the LA market before their next TV contract was important. In contrast, the ACC didn't have to add anyone so the schools that wanted to join had no leverage. Same thing with Oregon and Washington with the Big Ten. The Big Ten's contract was already set, they didn't have to make a move. Obviously OR and WA got a better deal than SMU but that's because OR/WA had PAC and Big 12 offers. Big Ten had to at least match that and they did. SMU didn't have any non-G5 offers so they had even less leverage.

FSU and Clemson would be willing to grease the skids in order to get into the Big Ten IMO. The only leverage they could potentially have is if the SEC is also interested in them. Then they would have offers to both P2 conferences which would increase their leverage.

As for Oklahoma State, I don't think there's much hope for them getting into the P2. But that doesn't have to be a death sentence. They have a better chance of winning the newest form of the Big 12. They've been the most consistent winner in that conference over the last 15 years.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

history shows, that they can get mad or they can take their reduced share and be happy with it.. u know.. like the PAC schools outside LA

PAC had equal revenue sharing.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

As for Oklahoma State, I don't think there's much hope for them getting into the P2. But that doesn't have to be a death sentence. They have a better chance of winning the newest form of the Big 12. They've been the most consistent winner in that conference over the last 15 years.

More consistent than Oklahoma?

 

[Thiefery]

PAC had equal revenue sharing.

talking about how the schools going to the BiG this season are taking less to join.... for now

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

talking about how the schools going to the BiG this season are taking less to join.... for now

Oh...well that is only a couple of the PAC schools. You made it sound like it was all 10 (outside LA).

 

[Deep Creek]

They've been the most consistent winner in that conference over the last 15 years.

More consistent than Oklahoma?

Okie Lite has been pretty consistent for sure. But I'd have to say OU has been more consistent and at a higher level in that time frame. Outside of OU, it looks like Okie Lite, Baylor and KSU have been the most consistent.

2023 - Texas (OU 2nd, OSU 2nd)
2022 - K-State (OU 7th, OSU 5th)
2021 - Baylor (OU 3rd, OSU 2nd)
2020 - OU (OSU 4th)
2019 - OU (OSU 3rd)
2018 - OU (OSU 5th)
2017 - OU (OSU 3rd)
2016 - OU (OSU 2nd)
2015 - OU (OSU 2nd)
2014 - Baylor/TCU (OU 4th, OSU 7th
2013 - Baylor (OU 2nd, OSU 2nd)
2012 - OU (Co champs with KSU) (OSU 3rd)
2011 - Oklahoma State (OU 3rd)
2010 - OU (But 5 way tie for 1st OU, OSU, Mizzou, Nebraska and A&M)
2009 - Texas (OU 5th, OSU 3rd)

 

[Thiefery]

Oh...well that is only a couple of the PAC schools. You made it sound like it was all 10 (outside LA).

well guess you can say the same for the rest as well lol

all taking hits

 

[ralphiewvu]

A seat at the table with a smaller share of the revenue already exists. That's what the Big 12 is. I don't think the SEC and Big Ten really want to break away. As long as they continue to get larger shares, I think they will let others sit at the same table.

It’s not quite the same thing. Payouts are only going to go up for the P2. Unless it’s a fixed exact rate per year it’ll likely be more plus you don’t have to worry about a break away.

The amount of people that would trade places with Oregon/Washington at a lesser rate for forever is everyone not in the P2.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Why WOULDN’T a school like Ohio State and Alabama want to entertain the idea of paying schools different rates based on their media value?

Because CFB is cyclical. Bama hasn't always been on top in the SEC. They weren't for the better part of 25 years in the 80s, 90s and early 00s.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Don't want to get in trouble for not taking this to the politics forum, but it sure looks like schools (to use the ones you and I cited) like Ohio State and Alabama are subsidizing schools like Purdue and Vanderbilt when it comes to media value. I know a lot of people that rant and rave about the act of subsidizing.

I will say this for the new Big 12. I don't see any of the schools subsidizing the others regarding media value. They don't have schools that have any significantly higher media value than the others. The only two that had significantly more media value than any of the others are in the SEC now.

In the new media world we live in, they clearly subsidize them. This wasn't always the case because that isn't how the conferences/teams made money.

I've said this often ... the SEC is a club, and the club is happy to have lesser teams that they can beat up on. Vanderbilt provides academic gravitas, and is good at other sports. For now, once you are in the club you stay in the club. It's why we don't pay some teams more than others ... we are brethren. I cam confident it will last that long as long as the SEC exists. It will be interesting to see how some conferences do where some teams are seen as lesser teams. SMU in the ACC seems the most egregious of these scenarios. They literally raised enough money to pass on ACC money of a long time.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Schools can get pretty damn pathetic when it comes to joining a new conference. SMU agreed to accept no television revenue from the ACC in its first nine years in the conference. Clemson and FSU would not do something like that but they would certainly take a lesser amount of payout to join a thriving conference. I shudder to think what schools like Oklahoma State would agree to in order to get a seat at the Big Boys table.

What SMU did was insane.

I have no idea how they can afford to run their program, raise money for NIL, increased travel budget and not take TV money.

Desperate times bro.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

It’s not quite the same thing. Payouts are only going to go up for the P2. Unless it’s a fixed exact rate per year it’ll likely be more plus you don’t have to worry about a break away.

The amount of people that would trade places with Oregon/Washington at a lesser rate for forever is everyone not in the P2.

CFP money went up for every, considerably.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Here are some thoughts about ACC teams:

B1G adds Clemson and FSU, SEC stands pat.

Alabama	Ohio State
UGA	Clemson
LSU	Michigan
Oklahoma	FSU
Texas	PSU
Florida	USC
Auburn	Oregon
Tennessee	Washington
Texas A&M	Wisconsin
Ole Miss	Michigan State
Kentucky	Iowa
Arkansas	UCLA
South Carolina	Northwestern
Miss State	Nebraska
Missouri	Minnesota
Vanderbilt	Illinois
Rutgers
Maryland
Purdue
Indiana

SEC adds Clemson and FSU, B1G stands pat

Alabama	Ohio State
UGA	Michigan
LSU	PSU
Clemson	USC
Oklahoma	Oregon
Texas	Washington
FSU	Wisconsin
Florida	Michigan State
Auburn	Iowa
Tennessee	UCLA
Texas A&M	Northwestern
Ole Miss	Nebraska
Kentucky	Minnesota
Arkansas	Illinois
South Carolina	Rutgers
Miss State	Maryland
Missouri	Purdue
Vanderbilt	Indiana

SEC adds UNC and UVa, B1G adds Clemson and FSU

Alabama	Ohio State
UGA	Clemson
LSU	Michigan
Oklahoma	FSU
Texas	PSU
Florida	USC
Auburn	Oregon
Tennessee	Washington
Texas A&M	Wisconsin
Ole Miss	Michigan State
UNC	Iowa
Kentucky	UCLA
Arkansas	Northwestern
South Carolina	Nebraska
Miss State	Minnesota
Missouri	Illinois
UVa	Rutgers
Vanderbilt	Maryland
Purdue

 

[Deep Creek]

Because CFB is cyclical. Bama hasn't always been on top in the SEC. They weren't for the better part of 25 years in the 80s, 90s and early 00s.

No doubt how good teams are is cyclical. But the ability to draw viewers in down years isn’t. Teams like TCU in ‘22 drew some but they don’t in years like ‘23. Whereas USC draws even in crappy years.

 

[Red_Alert]

No doubt how good teams are is cyclical. But the ability to draw viewers in down years isn’t. Teams like TCU in ‘22 drew some but they don’t in years like ‘23. Whereas USC draws even in crappy years.

Exactly.

Even Nebraska ranked #15 in average viewership and they haven't had a winning season in 7 years.

 

[Deep Creek]

Exactly.

Even Nebraska ranked #15 in average viewership and they haven't had a winning season in 7 years.

That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to get across.