|
Replies: 39
| visibility 51
|
Associate AD [825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 574
Joined: 4/20/15
|
I'm Okay With CalStan, I Think
6
6
Aug 19, 2023, 6:21 AM
|
|
I was a hard "no" two weeks ago. I can fully understand why folks still feel that way. But hear me out.
I have to assume no team is willing to take on the PAC 2 - 4 and possibly SMU without getting something worthwhile in return. Surely the 4 no votes from last week are leveraging their votes into being in a better position going forward.
Let's face it. For at least a while longer we are stuck in the ACC. If anyone thought the GOR could be successfully challenged, they would have done it. Just think about Texas and OU. They announced they were leaving the Big 12 three years ago, yet there they are, still in the Big 12 and paying $100 million each next year to get out a year early. You know good and well Texas, of all schools, would have challenged the GOR if it thought it could win. Clemson and FSU are in the same boat except our GOR is 3 times longer at this point.
So, what to do? If all the other ACC members want the PAC 4 and SMU, then let them have them. Just extract something significant in return now that you have some kind of bargaining chip. That could be any of the following:
1. ND to join in football
2. Negotiate the GOR down to 2030
3. Higher annual payouts to each school
4. A big pool of money for high performers
5. Buying time to get closer to the end of the GOR so the buyout is cheaper
In sincerely doubt 1 happens.
2 is unlikely but ESPN offered $30 each to the PAC 12 a year ago, so it must see some value, and it gets more inventory, so maybe it will agree to a modification.
You would think 3 is a certainty. I read the other day CalStan and SMU would generate another $200 million, less expenses. If they are willing to forego or largely forego payouts, perhaps that gets each school another $10 million a year. That's not chump change.
Then take some of the rest, combine it with the concessions agreed to in the spring on unequal distribution, and create a big pool for the high performers in football (primarily) and basketball. Could that net them another $10 million or more each? Who knows? But that would seem doable to me. Now Clemson has an extra $20 million if we excel in football and make a basketball run (yeah, I know), and has closed the gap on the B1G and SEC, although not completely bridged it. Plus I think the payout each year under the current deal was going to grow naturally, so that would be additional money.
5 is likely to happen. Adding CalStan and SMU isn't going to "hurt" the ACC. There are some drawbacks of course, but it isn't like the ACC will be worse off with them. Worst case, outside the increased money, is it is a net neutral. So, we have more money and if we don't like it, then in a couple years we announce we are leaving in 2030, assuming 2 doesn't happen, when it is much more affordable and we have had 5 - 6 years in advance to prepare. And there is always the possibility it actually works out and improves out situation overall.
Seems like it is worth a shot.
|
|
|
|
 |
Commissioner [997]
TigerPulse: 63%
Posts: 959
Joined: 6/20/01
|
If Clemson could leverage it as a. Bargaining…
2
Aug 19, 2023, 6:43 AM
|
|
Tool to exit early? And, I mean much much earlier? Say…2024 or 2025 as the latest? While also having an invite in hand from the B1G? I’d be for it…
I agree with you on ND never joining…ain’t happening. Although, I’d love to see them frozen out of everything after this brazen lobbying effort despite not joining themselves.
Since we all know the TV Network execs are actually the ones running the Conferences anyway, I’m not sure this entire current struct doesn’t fall apart under its own weight sooner than later.
We need to go to a “Football only” system of the top 48 or 56 teams and then restructure Olympic sports back to a regional system for travel etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3408]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2748
Joined: 11/14/14
|
Re: If Clemson could leverage it as a. Bargaining…
5
5
Aug 19, 2023, 7:02 AM
|
|
ESPN is falling apart. They have jettisoned any employee that had a high paying contract. Disney is in trouble financially and is cutting back on expenses.
There is no extra money coming from ESPN . So what that means is by adding three more teams to the conference, everyone gets a smaller share with higher expenses.
This is another deal like the GOR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 574
Joined: 4/20/15
|
Re: If Clemson could leverage it as a. Bargaining…
3
Aug 19, 2023, 7:31 AM
|
|
Respectfully, this is the kind of argument that is being made that is incorrect. First, there is zero chance the 4 "no"votes are going to change unless they get more money from the deal. They have no reason to do that. Second, I refer you to an article by the writer in NC (I think) that was on here the other day that fully explains where the new $200 million (less expenses) comes from. I don't recall the details enough to try to restate them, but the addition of CalStan and SMU generates additional revenue from the ACCN, which is co-owned by ESPN and the ACC, that then goes to ESPN and the ACC, so they both make more.
I just think folks need to quit with the knee-jerk "this is a terrible idea" and actually analyze the pros and cons. I am glad no deal was reached a week ago. It was moving too fast and not well thought through. The additional time has, it appears, given those 4 some leverage they simply did not have 2 - 3 weeks ago to generate more revenue. If reports are true, it appears they are now using that leverage to cut a better deal. If they weren't, this would have ended yesterday. Let's see what the deal is before we declare failure. If what I said in the OP turns ought to be correct, Clemson comes out in a much better position than it was before the collapse of the PAC 12, and isn't that what we all want?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5049]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6066
Joined: 10/9/08
|
Clemson getting out of the ACC is the best for Clemson, not
4
Aug 19, 2023, 8:48 AM
|
|
This nonsense. All this concern about what is best for the ACC needs to stop now. The ACC has done more harm to Clemson in the last 30 years while Clemson along with FSU have made the ACC relevant on football. And football is generating the most money of any sport by 100 times! GET OUT NOW!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1047]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 646
Joined: 1/9/16
|
Egad! You’ve Solved It!
2
Aug 19, 2023, 9:32 AM
|
|
We’ll just get out now! Why didn’t anyone else think of that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 574
Joined: 4/20/15
|
Re: Clemson getting out of the ACC is the best for Clemson, not
1
Aug 19, 2023, 9:34 AM
[ in reply to Clemson getting out of the ACC is the best for Clemson, not ] |
|
The problem with the " get out ow" argument is that you can't. Wanting it and being able to do it are 2 entirely different things. See Texas and OU. Also, see FSU. Now, it might be possible if we had $120 million yo pay the exit fee, and another $500 million to buy out of the GOR, assuming that could be done. Maybe a little less with some negotiating and time value of money arguments.
But realistically that just isn't happening now. Maybe in a few years when the price comes down, but definitely not now.
So. Why say no to at least trying to see if adding CalStan and SMU might put Clemson in a better position? That's all I am saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6861]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6503
Joined: 10/7/07
|
Im still waiting for any actual pros of adding these teams
Aug 19, 2023, 11:39 AM
[ in reply to Re: If Clemson could leverage it as a. Bargaining… ] |
|
These reason no one has heard any is because there are none. So if anyone needs to stop doing anything its advocating for more dead weight for a conference that already has far too much of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 574
Joined: 4/20/15
|
Re: Im still waiting for any actual pros of adding these teams
1
Aug 19, 2023, 11:54 AM
|
|
That's a legitimate point. But some pros have been pointed out in the OP. All of those would be pros. We have no idea if any of them will happen, but if all of them happened (or if ND refused but agreed to add a 6th ACC game) then that would likely mitigate in favor of cutting the deal. The only way to find out is to negotiate to see if you can get those concessions. Ot never hurts to talk. Well, most of the time anyway.
I disagree, though, that Stanford would be dead weight. It has a good football history (not at the moment) and is as good as it gets across the entire athletic department. Cal has problems. SMU has the resources to become a legitimate player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6861]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6503
Joined: 10/7/07
|
Those are not pros. They are wishful thinking.
1
Aug 19, 2023, 12:00 PM
|
|
And, to reiterate an obvious point, this entire discussion is about football. I dont care if they are perennial national champs in every single other sport they have. Its wholly irrelevant to any of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 574
Joined: 4/20/15
|
Re: Those are not pros. They are wishful thinking.
1
Aug 19, 2023, 12:27 PM
|
|
Not sure I can agree with that. While football dominates the discussion, as it should, the other sports create additional inventory for ESPN, which is what it values and which is the entire basis for the ACCN. Plus Stanford is very competitive in men's and women's basketball, which can be profit centers, and historically a power in baseball, which isn't a profit center but still important to Clemson fans.
The value of the others, be it SMU, Cal, WSU or OSU, is really the additional inventory. I admittedly do not understand it all, but the mere fact that there would be ACC schools in Texas and California creates $100 million of additional revenue according to the article that was on here the other day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5049]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6066
Joined: 10/9/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1695]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1108
Joined: 10/10/08
|
Re: If Clemson could leverage it as a. Bargaining…
3
Aug 19, 2023, 9:54 AM
[ in reply to Re: If Clemson could leverage it as a. Bargaining… ] |
|
Disney/ESPN has a huge problem, it's called WOKE! I NEVER turn on ESPN unless Clemson is playing and I can't watch the game anywhere else. Their talking heads are WOKE, and therefore don't interest the majority of Americans. Believe it or not, most Americans aren't WOKE and in reality oppose anything WOKE. I live in Florida and Disney World suffers more each day, their prices and Wokeness will put them out of business, sooner rather than later. Lots of folks down here won't miss them at all.
ESPN is falling apart. They have jettisoned any employee that had a high paying contract. Disney is in trouble financially and is cutting back on expenses.
There is no extra money coming from ESPN . So what that means is by adding three more teams to the conference, everyone gets a smaller share with higher expenses.
This is another deal like the GOR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 574
Joined: 4/20/15
|
Re: If Clemson could leverage it as a. Bargaining…
1
Aug 19, 2023, 10:24 AM
|
|
Okay, I get that you don't like ESPN and won't watch unless Clemson is on. I rarely watch it anymore, but it isn't because of wokeness. I just prefer other channels.
That said, what does that have to do with this? The ACC has a deal with ESPN/ABC. Not Fox, not CBS, not Apple. So that's your viewing option if you want to see Clemson play for the next 13 years, woke or not. Would you rather watch Clemson on ESPN/ABC for more money if we can get it, or less money? The answer is pretty obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3047]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3687
Joined: 11/15/09
|
Re: If Clemson could leverage it as a. Bargaining…
1
Aug 19, 2023, 7:05 AM
[ in reply to If Clemson could leverage it as a. Bargaining… ] |
|
Unfortunately, I pretty much agree with what you said. Stanford is now saying they will not demand media money for several years if they can join the ACC. If we are stuck in the ACC, we should work to make it stronger. More TV viewers may push ESPN to pay more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5049]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6066
Joined: 10/9/08
|
ESPN is not paying more $… so forget that…
2
Aug 19, 2023, 8:26 AM
|
|
We just have more mouths to feed and more expenses. Just a dumb move all the way around. These folks pushing for this remind me of Biden voters. 🙄
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5049]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6066
Joined: 10/9/08
|
I agree with you on this…
2
Aug 19, 2023, 8:22 AM
[ in reply to If Clemson could leverage it as a. Bargaining… ] |
|
And I m not sure this will be a neutral thing in terms of the current payouts if the distribution remains the same. ESPN isn’t going to pony up more $$. If this dilutes the current payout even $1 then it should be a hard no unless we get most of the concessions mentioned above.
What about the member votes going forward? What if those are diluted even more too and it requires even more votes to dissolve the conference? Just too many negatives for me to get on board unless I’m missing some fundamentally big benefit for Clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6500]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10136
Joined: 11/2/03
|
Re: I'm Okay With CalStan, I Think
4
Aug 19, 2023, 7:12 AM
|
|
Hear me out! I don't want those two hard left Communists in the Conference if they Pay 290 million a piece a year to join.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10400]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5714
Joined: 9/29/05
|
Re: I'm Okay With CalStan, I Think
4
Aug 19, 2023, 8:00 AM
|
|
Yep the next time there’s a BS virus they will take their ball and stay home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5049]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6066
Joined: 10/9/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [132]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 51
Joined: 1/7/22
|
Reasons Why We Don't Want CalStan:
7
7
Aug 19, 2023, 8:07 AM
|
|
- CalStan were not considered B1G or SEC material (or Big 12 material either), and so their goals will not be aligned with Clemson and FSU when voting in the ACC
- No CalStan means it's easier for the ACC to collapse or vote to dissolve after Clemson and FSU leave, making the GOR null and void.
- Remember the group of 8 who constituted a majority and were rumored to be considering leaving? The added votes by CalStan would squash that escape route.
- I also agree that the elitism and cultural marxism of these universities is problematic. Just look at the decline in SF, which is a direct result of social policies directly emanating from these universities. People and companies are fleeing CA too. And you want to give make these universities voting members of the ACC?!?
With CalStan, they will probably require ACC players to wear pride uniforms during Pride week, and punish those who don't comply (don't believe me? ask the NHL).
Keep politics out of sports. Keep CalStan out of the ACC!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 574
Joined: 4/20/15
|
Re: Reasons Why We Don't Want CalStan:
1
Aug 19, 2023, 8:19 AM
|
|
I think most of these are legitimate concerns. There are definitely cons out there. These and a few more, like travel/logistical issues. Like I said, I can certainly understand the hard "no" votes. And if it doesn't happen, then that doesn't trouble me at all since it probably means Clemson could not leverage it into something more advantageous than the current situation.
But, there are certainly a lot of pros, or at least possible pros. And if Clemson gets what it needs to remain successful going forward, then I would be good with that as well, especially if it is just a bridge to get us to equal positioning with the B1G and SEC down the road, either as members or as part of a 48 or 64 team league.
Before everyone declares it a failure, let's see if a deal is cut and then what we get out of it.
I did think of another negotiating point, and that would be to require ND to add on a 6th ACC game since it would be getting 2 Cali schools it wants. It needs to have some skin in the game too, even if not football membership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [219]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 122
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Wait 'till a deal is cut to see what is in it for us
1
Aug 19, 2023, 8:43 AM
|
|
You sound like Nancy Pelosi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 574
Joined: 4/20/15
|
Re: Wait 'till a deal is cut to see what is in it for us
3
Aug 19, 2023, 9:27 AM
|
|
HA! No one that knows me would ever accuse me of that, but I get the analogy and think it is funny.
Problem is, no one is going to ask us to review and approve any potential deal, so we are all just guessing.
Some things, like communism and pride patches are silly and of no legitimate concern. Geez, just look around the ACC now if you want to see political and academc liberalism at work. And that includes Clemson.
On the other hand, dilution of a voting block is a legitimate concern I think. But I also think that folks seized on this whole "1 more vote and we can dissolve the ACC" back in the spring and I don't think any of us really know if that is true or not, much less whether it would void the GOR.
I am just interested in separating fact from fiction, and sense from nonsense. I feel comfortable that unless Clemson ends up substantially better off, then it won't agree to any potential deal. On the other hand, if it agrees, I think it is reasonable to assume it will be because it gets placed in a much better position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5049]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6066
Joined: 10/9/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11602
Joined: 6/29/01
|
They are 3,000 miles away and they are not football
1
Aug 19, 2023, 8:46 AM
|
|
schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5049]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6066
Joined: 10/9/08
|
^^^ This is all you need to know ^^^***
Aug 19, 2023, 8:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [52977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23091
Joined: 10/10/11
|
Re: I'm Okay With CalStan, I Think
2
Aug 19, 2023, 9:43 AM
|
|
If it costs Clemson $300k to travel to FSU, imagine what it would cost to travel to CA. That expense has to be considered in any deal that pops up regarding the PAC-4.
Still awaiting that $300k reimbursement, FSU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10516]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7770
Joined: 12/5/15
|
Re: I'm Okay With CalStan.
3
Aug 19, 2023, 10:05 AM
|
|
I’m not. I’ve been there. It’s a freak show. To each his own, but I’m not inviting a freak show into my house. They’re not football schools, they’re the antithesis of southern, they’re as far away as they could possibly be and then you have the freak show culture with a bonus of elitist snobs. Cal & Stanford make Duke, UNCheat & UVA look like down to earth good ol’ boys.
Do they have big money? Yes. Will Clemson benefit from that in any way? No.
Rescuing elitist snobs from the consequences of their decisions and actions is a dead in the water non-starter.
I’m a hard NO!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16071]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24600
Joined: 5/14/02
|
I think if they are worth an extra $5-$10 million more for
Aug 19, 2023, 9:55 AM
|
|
Clemson, then there is no reason to say no. I don't like the fact that ND is leading the charge but "don't cut off your nose to spite your face".
This is all about money so if it gets us more then why would you say no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-99]
TigerPulse: 38%
Posts: 1731
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I'm Okay With CalStan, I Think
1
Aug 19, 2023, 10:14 AM
|
|
Saying yes to anything with the ACC is saying no to the future of Clemson football IMO
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5166]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2280
Joined: 6/8/06
|
Re: I'm Okay With CalStan, I Think
Aug 19, 2023, 10:38 AM
|
|
I like your out of the box thinking.
One issue not being discussed is how much worse CalStan will be in FB when they are getting less money than their competitors. They are terrible now and with less money only get worse. Cal has massive athletic department dedt. There maybe some short-term gain by adding them but not worth the risk. If Clemson had a definite exit plan in place then it might be worth it to use as leverage. Just the thought of being associated with them is nauseating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 574
Joined: 4/20/15
|
Re: I'm Okay With CalStan, I Think
2
Aug 19, 2023, 11:02 AM
|
|
Yeah. Cal seems to be far less desirable. I was thinking of them as a package deal. But perhaps that isn't the case.
On the other hand, Stanford has a good football history. Certainly far better than half the ACC, and was recently very good. It seems to want to continue to be and has apparently told the other 3 it will leave for the ACC if it gets the chance. Personally I don't think expanding by only 1 team makes much sense though. Maybe in that case you talk to SMU.
I really don't think this is a long term solution. I just want a better situation for Clemson for at least the next several years, until a permanent solution is reached.
Obviously they don't have the votes yet. They probably won't get them. But it is worth having the discussion. And if Clemson, and others, can get some good concessions, like those I mentioned earlier, it may be the thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13579]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8958
Joined: 8/30/18
|
Re: I'm Okay With CalStan, I Think
1
Aug 19, 2023, 12:04 PM
|
|
They only need one and it kind of feels like someone may be about ready to cave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18808]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12837
Joined: 11/30/95
|
Clemson should negotiate a yes to add CalStan....
Aug 19, 2023, 12:03 PM
|
|
in exchange for a future easier exit out of this horrible conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1788
Joined: 7/14/04
|
I agree. I'm a hard No to adding them, but
Aug 19, 2023, 8:04 PM
|
|
If Stanford, with $36 Billion in endowments, wants in bad enough to pay the exit fees for us and FSU, then let them in and they can even bring in their other west coast playmates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Cub [10]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 15
Joined: 8/13/20
|
Re: I'm Okay With CalStan, I Think
2
Aug 19, 2023, 12:04 PM
|
|
I think his approach is a reasonable outlook to take on what is best for the ACC including Clemson over the next 5-6 years. First, it’s understandable that some fans want to get out of the ACC. In fact, for some , this has been a wish for 20 or more years. But really, where is Clemson going? The SEC? There are some questions in that regard. Does ESPN have the funding capacity or the willingness to increase its annual payout to the SEC each year by $120 million ( Clemson and FSU) when they already have both schools today at a much lower cost? Do the top teams in the SEC want Clemson in league? It’s difficult enough for Ga, Alabama and LSU to get into the playoffs now. What about mid tier programs like Florida, Auburn, Texas A&M? They already have to think about playing Texas and Oklahoma next year. Would they want to add games against Clemson/FSU to their schedule in trying to reach the SEC Championship game? I wonder if between those two factors is a move to the SEC a real possibility. It might be better to see how the latest realignment works out. Clemson is in a better position today than most to not just make the expanded playoffs but to also receive a priority seed. I’m not sure that changes over the next 5-6 years. If, as some project, 40 or so teams break out to form a Tier 1 football only division, Clemson will still be part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12065]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 12678
Joined: 7/14/05
|
I like your thinking, but don't see ESPN budging on GOR or $
1
Aug 19, 2023, 12:46 PM
|
|
And I don't see the schools like Wake, BC, etc ever budging on tying the payout to TV revenue, which is really what Clemson and FSU need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3452]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5046
Joined: 4/12/01
|
Re: I'm Okay With CalStan, I Think
1
Aug 19, 2023, 2:12 PM
|
|
ACC missed the boat by not adding/merging with some B12 teams. Five of them were higher on the 2022 Most Watched list by quite a bit than the 3rd ranked ACC school, NCSU. A 6th was 1k more. TCU would've ranked 2nd with 2.2m. Not excited AT ALL about adding StanCal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14122]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7906
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Clemson should only agree to additions
1
Aug 19, 2023, 8:49 PM
|
|
if the GOR is null and void (for Clemson) after 2023.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 39
| visibility 51
|
|
|
50
