|
Replies: 50
| visibility 5817
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 45943
Joined: 2012
|
TNET: ESPN report: Clemson, FSU set to vote on settlement of ACC lawsuits
4
Mar 3, 2025, 10:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Paw Master [16890]
TigerPulse: 93%
51
Posts: 16438
Joined: 2004
|
Re: TNET: ESPN report: Clemson, FSU set to vote on settlement of ACC lawsuits
1
2
Mar 3, 2025, 10:54 AM
|
|
Good news! Glad that stuff is over!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14654]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 15377
Joined: 2010
|
Re: TNET: ESPN report: Clemson, FSU set to vote on settlement of ACC lawsuits
1
Mar 3, 2025, 11:10 AM
|
|
Better make a deep run in the CFP or NCAA tourney or I don't see how this helps the revenue gap at all. Doubtful this helps bridge the gap. Guess we can look ahead 4 years around 2029 when Clemson, FSU and UNC serve notice of intent to leave in 2031.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14327]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23487
Joined: 2004
|
This was a pretty big win IMO. It's not meant to keep us in
10
10
Mar 3, 2025, 11:19 AM
|
|
the ACC permanently. We are going to be in this league until 2030 and then we're gone. This helps with the revenue disparity until that time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29082]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
That is my kneejerk reaction as well.
9
9
Mar 3, 2025, 12:03 PM
|
|
I was hoping FSU and Clemson would get out realirer, 2026 or 2027. But, things tend to move slower than I would like.
Pure speculation on my part:
1. Due to TV contracts, the SEC and B1G have decided that they will wait until the new contracts come up to officially form their SuperLeague and break away from NCAA governance at least on football.
2. With the decrease in the buyout being significant after the 2030 season then FSU and Clemson will be very capable of paying the buyout and joining the SuperLeague.
3. With the potential increase in revenue between now and 2030 it will make the deficit between their revenue and the SEC/B1G revenue small enough that the can stay competitive until they leave the ACC and head to the SuperLeague.
But, just look at the changes the last 4 years. 2030 is a long way off. Lot's can happen between now and then.
My knee jerk reaction is this is good news for FSU and Clemson. Instead of worst case scenarion being they are left in the ACC till 2036 and possibly left out of the P2 completely and the best case scenario being able to get out of ACC in 2031, it now appears the worst case scenario is getting more money between now and 2031 and definitley getting out of the ACC by 2031, landing in the SuperLeague.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [713]
TigerPulse: 73%
22
|
Re: That is my kneejerk reaction as well.
Mar 3, 2025, 2:17 PM
|
|
Re: #1
This ACC proposal will likely kill the ACC (so to speak) & lead us into the B1G/SEC stuff; it's not like FSU or Clemson are going to the BIG12 like we had originally planned, but losing the ACC likely results in the "superleague" you mentioned rather than it being what they wanted & we're just falling in line is all.
A lot can happen between now & 2030, true, but I'm curious, what do you think the other possibilities are? A resurgent ACC in spite of most of the teams making less revenue than ever under this contract seems inescapably unlikely, for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29082]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
My premise has been for a few years....
1
Mar 3, 2025, 3:08 PM
|
|
... a group of schools will break football away from the NCAA and set up their own governing body for the sport of football. (This is what I am calling the SuperLeague.) I don't like it. But, if it is gonna happen I want Clemson and FSU to be part of that group.
As for ACC, it will cease to exist in it's current form. And, if it doesn't just dissolve completely, it will be nothing more than a current G5 conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7812]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1328]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: TNET: ESPN report: Clemson, FSU set to vote on settlement of ACC lawsuits
Mar 3, 2025, 9:28 PM
|
|
Only the lawyers made money...we are still in our historical home with a little more money thrown our way...we signed the GOR and still have to live with it! Let's make a win out of us and the savages putting lipstick on Phillips rear end! Should have never thrown in...now our signature and our word can't be trusted...most Tigers should not like that! It's OK for FSU...expected from them...we should have stayed out of it...Dabo is a #### sight better than that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [465]
TigerPulse: 91%
18
|
Poor Heister
3
Mar 3, 2025, 11:27 AM
|
|
He must be devastated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5062]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Shakes head***
1
Mar 3, 2025, 11:38 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49519]
TigerPulse: 77%
58
Posts: 36359
Joined: 2003
|
I view this as a win for us.
1
11
11
Mar 3, 2025, 11:40 AM
|
|
A greater (more equitable) share of conference revenue plus decreasing severity of penalties for leaving the conference early.
This is likely what our attorneys hoped to get out of this lawsuit.
I also like the idea of staying in the ACC for now. We can continue to see what happens in college athletics over the next few years and gives ourselves a chance to survey our options better. You don't want to switch conferences based on a hasty decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5062]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Can we please make sure we actually read the contract this time?
9
9
Mar 3, 2025, 11:40 AM
|
|
Maybe we should even you know, GET A COPY.
Ughhh. I can’t wait to leave this conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8166]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
So we get more games on CW and ACCN?
1
Mar 3, 2025, 11:51 AM
|
|
Unrated ACCN? Does that mean they don't know how many people are watching games on ACCN? Or streaming ACCN+? So we get could get screwed if the powers that be say "Nah, we don't want FSU v Clemson on primetime ABC/ESecPN. Put them on ACCN or CW."
Seems like there should be some sort of guarantee of X amount of national broadcasts to make it worth while. Hard for "brand initiative" to be beneficial if no one sees the brand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17745]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 11081
Joined: 2008
|
Re: So we get more games on CW and ACCN?
1
Mar 3, 2025, 12:41 PM
|
|
I don't understand that comment. We were once a Nielson household and they monitored EVERYTHING that we watched or listened to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4369]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1536]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: So we get more games on CW and ACCN?
2
Mar 3, 2025, 2:53 PM
[ in reply to So we get more games on CW and ACCN? ] |
|
Nielsen and the other rating services do not calculate ratings for game on the ACC or sec network. Nor do they take ratings on streaming services like peacock either.
Regarding the number of games that are broadcast on the conference networks or regular networks, that's not up to the conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14654]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 15377
Joined: 2010
|
Re: So we get more games on CW and ACCN?
1
Mar 3, 2025, 4:23 PM
|
|
Lets be honest. Our biggest football games aren't on ACCN. That's usually when we play the Charlotte's the Furman's or sucky ACC teams Probably a good thing those ratings aren't counted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1328]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: So we get more games on CW and ACCN?
Mar 3, 2025, 9:35 PM
[ in reply to So we get more games on CW and ACCN? ] |
|
When you can't pan the stands with a camera because few butts are there then why should you expect the same money as Auburn, Texas, or Florida...winning ain't everything but an empty stadium ain't nuthin! ACC needs winning crowds as well!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [14037]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 13241
Joined: 2001
|
In other words, we fall light years behind by the ESPN and B1G conferences by
2
Mar 3, 2025, 11:56 AM
|
|
the time we ever get out. If we ever get out. This is a big loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14327]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23487
Joined: 2004
|
I think perhaps you had unrealistic expectations
7
7
Mar 3, 2025, 11:59 AM
|
|
Short of finding some magical loophole that allowed us to get around the exit fee, this was one of the best outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [100858]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 29821
Joined: 2005
|
Sounds encouraging -- and hate to be a Debbie Downer -- but what if
8
8
Mar 3, 2025, 12:02 PM
|
|
OSU, Michigan, Penn State, and Oregon demand a larger share of revenue than Northwestern, Purdue, Illinois, etc? And what if UGa, Bama, Tennessee, & Texas demand a larger share of revenue than Vanderbilt, Miss State, Kentucky, etc?
Wouldn't the revenue disparity still be substantial between Clemson and those top-tier teams?
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7812]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Sounds encouraging -- and hate to be a Debbie Downer -- but what if
6
6
Mar 3, 2025, 12:54 PM
|
|
That's not a "What if" but rather a question of "when will they".
This agreement shows a path. The only thing left is to hammer out the numbers for the B1G and the SEC.
Winners will be Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan. This is bad news for schools like Northwestern, Rutgers, Vandy, South Carolina and Mississippi State.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24025]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 24421
Joined: 2003
|
Everyone just go independent. And then civilizations starts anew.
2
Mar 3, 2025, 1:09 PM
|
|
Small local conferences will emerge from the rubble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7237]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: TNET: ESPN report: Clemson, FSU set to vote on settlement of ACC lawsuits
1
Mar 3, 2025, 12:03 PM
|
|
Gives us some extra cash right away and let's us leave in a few years if we want. Not ideal but not terrible either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29082]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Just an observation.
7
7
Mar 3, 2025, 12:20 PM
|
|
We were told by many folks that the ACC did not want discovery and if discovery ever started the ACC would be extremely concerned.
Well, less than 2 weeks after discovery was ordered to begin in Florida, there is an alleged agreement. Hmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5062]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
But why settle? Why not stay aggressive?***
3
Mar 3, 2025, 12:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [713]
TigerPulse: 73%
22
|
Re: But why settle? Why not stay aggressive?***
1
Mar 3, 2025, 12:58 PM
|
|
It seems implicitly aggressive, though.
For example, I'm not sure we've ever seen a financial penalty system like this from an existing contract, even regardless of the remarkably large revenue differences in these changes outright (ex., the extra money alone will likely pay the entire grant-of-rights exit fee).
Conceptually, we could actually make more in extra revenue with a deep playoff run than many teams in power leagues make outright, all while most other teams in our league make up to 60% less than the existing distribution model.
It seems inescapably aggressive, just never seen anything like it before, you know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [69114]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 90573
Joined: 2001
|
There is always a difference...
1
Mar 3, 2025, 1:01 PM
[ in reply to But why settle? Why not stay aggressive?*** ] |
|
between what you sue for and the realistic expectations, not to mention the cost in legal fees/expenses incurred throughout that process. In this case, there is not an infinite pool of money and you can't get blood from a turnip. On that basis, I don't think either FSU or Clemson expected the ACC to pay them comparably to what teams in the SEC and BIG are receiving. The intent was to not only close the gap but reduce the buyout amount for those team who may choose to leave at some point. We won't know to what extent either of those two things was achieved until we see the specifics of the actual settlement agreement assuming the specific terms are disclosed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7812]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7812]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Just an observation.
Mar 3, 2025, 1:08 PM
[ in reply to Just an observation. ] |
|
Bret, this is EXACTLY what I expected to happen. In Florida, the suit would be public information. ESPN is NOT OK with that. I knew a settlement would not take long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2215]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Yawn.... good ole boys in NC want to keep the gravy train running
3
Mar 3, 2025, 12:29 PM
|
|
for another 5 years. Make sure they have enough money to get good seats to UNC/Duke basketball games and laugh among themselves about how they bought all those banners....
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7812]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Yawn.... good ole boys in NC want to keep the gravy train running
1
Mar 3, 2025, 1:24 PM
|
|
True. But 5 years with increased revenue during those 5 years is much better than 11 years with no change in revenue.
One is a bumpy road. The other is a cliff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [713]
TigerPulse: 73%
22
|
Well, there goes the league. :(
1
Mar 3, 2025, 12:52 PM
|
|
Gonna enjoy the last few years of the ACC while we still have it, but without sounding too pessimistic (I've been hopeful), this sounds like 2031/32 is the end of the ACC as we know it.
Money, as they say, changes everything.
Still, I'm sincerely curious about the penalty part; has there ever been a case like this where teams in a league restructure to get significantly less money because of viewership alone? It's fascinating, albeit a bit heartbreaking to watch it for the money part alone (I admit, I don't want the ACC to die & always wanted it to thrive instead), but I'm legitimately curious about the penalty part. 2031 seems like a good ways out, but this restructuring plan will very likely only make the rest of the league that much less competitive as a direct side effect in the meantime.
Consider it though; if we're making $15-30m extra per year, that $100m buyout in 2031/32 will essentially have already paid for itself rather than us having to play for no TV money like SMU is doing now. It's legitimately fascinating, & seems inescapably likely, too. What do y'all think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [713]
TigerPulse: 73%
22
|
A correction
1
Mar 3, 2025, 2:46 PM
|
|
Mea culpa.
Note that while we will likely be able to afford the exit fee from extra revenue alone if it reduces to $100m or less by 2031, the exit fee only gets programs out of the conference.
Crucially, it does not reclaim those media rights, meaning we would instead be essentially just like SMU in that we'd be unable to claim TV-generated revenue (rather than uniquely unlike SMU as I mentioned above).
It may be incidental, or, just an an example, it could mean we leave the league in 2033 or even all the way through 2036 rather than immediately in 2031, the latter of which may actually become favorable if we're making upwards of $30m in extra revenue every year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29082]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29082]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Warchant.com reaction to the alleged settlement.
Mar 3, 2025, 1:09 PM
|
|
Warchant is the largest FSU website, by far. Gen Williams, the guy in the middle of the trio, is the founder. He founded it back in the 1990s when websites were in their infancy.
Just posting it for information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gt9q-bd2zM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [148]
TigerPulse: 100%
11
|
Re: Warchant.com reaction to the alleged settlement.
Mar 3, 2025, 1:14 PM
|
|
What happens if Clemson says yes and FSU says no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7812]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Warchant.com reaction to the alleged settlement.
1
Mar 3, 2025, 1:26 PM
|
|
They won't say no. It would not have gotten to this point without a meeting of the minds first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [713]
TigerPulse: 73%
22
|
FSU is not saying no
Mar 3, 2025, 1:27 PM
[ in reply to Re: Warchant.com reaction to the alleged settlement. ] |
|
I just can't imagine why FSU would say no to potentially tens of millions of extra revenue & a vastly decreased penalty to leave the grant-of-rights in 2031, meaning they can pay it off & immediately earn revenue through another league's TV contract (rather than the grant-of-rights preventing them from earning any TV money for a few years if they left, similar to what SMU is doing now).
In all sincerity, this was very likely by FSU's design rather than something they would say no to, know what I mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [69114]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 90573
Joined: 2001
|
Let's just hope...
1
Mar 3, 2025, 1:53 PM
|
|
it really is tens of millions of extra revenue and a vastly decreased penalty to leave the grant-of-rights in 2031.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29082]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Clemson and FSU would not agree to the settlement...
Mar 3, 2025, 3:13 PM
|
|
... if it were an agreement of "business as usual." The figures being bandied about may not be precisely accurate. But, I gotta believe that the agreement does 2 things:
1. Gives FSU and Clemson the ability to get out of the ACC by 2031 (maybe even a year or two earlier) at a GREATLY reduced price and will also free them from the GOR.
2. Gives FSU and Clemson enough money to remain competitive until they leave the ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8166]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Do you think there is enough dirty laundry for the ACC to agree
Mar 3, 2025, 3:16 PM
|
|
to a deal that could essentially kill the conference in a few years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [713]
TigerPulse: 73%
22
|
Sortof?
Mar 3, 2025, 3:20 PM
|
|
"A few years" will likely still mean 2036 as the grant-of-rights remains solid through that date (the reduced exit penalty is only for leaving the league but does not include those media rights).
It may, however, consequently mean the ACC doesn't make it past 2036, or adds other teams that may likely not help it be sustainable as a power league if Clemson, FSU and others leave regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29082]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
I think the SEC and B1G have made it abundantly clear...
Mar 3, 2025, 3:42 PM
[ in reply to Do you think there is enough dirty laundry for the ACC to agree ] |
|
.... that every other conference will be relegated to tier 2 or lower. B1G and SEC will be the equivalent of what we now call FBS and every other conference will be the equivalent of FCS.
The G5 level will essentially become the FCS, and the ACC, Big 12, AAC, CUSA, PAC 12, etc. will be in the FCS level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [713]
TigerPulse: 73%
22
|
To be clear
Mar 3, 2025, 3:18 PM
[ in reply to Let's just hope... ] |
|
To be clear, the decreased penalty is only to leave the league; crucially, it does not include or rescind the TV-generated revenue from media rights that will still run through 2036.
It could mean several things, such as FSU & Clemson leave in or around 2031 for a price that now may be paid-off exclusively by the extra revenue by then but would still not be able to garner TV-based revenue until 2036 like how SMU is doing it right now.
It could also mean (long shot?) the revenue becomes enough to stay through that 2036 grant-of-rights date, or potentially something even more extreme, so to speak (i.e., staying in the league if it does end up thriving).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [713]
TigerPulse: 73%
22
|
I hate to see the ACC die
Mar 3, 2025, 1:43 PM
|
|
I know a lot of us hate the ACC outright & I may be mostly alone in savoring our opponents & the travel we've gotten accustomed to the last several decades, but I always wanted the ACC to thrive instead of die & for us to be able to stay in the league AND be financially top-shelf.
This feels like a deathstroke to the league in spite of the optimism I had watching teams like Louisville, GT & Syracuse become competitive or Miami to start looking like they could get back on the board.
At least we'll have more money than ever & don't have to worry about being "left out," but I can't pretend I'm thrilled to lose the ACC forever outright & will try to enjoy these last few years anyway, but it does kinda sting, sincerely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7812]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: I hate to see the ACC die
1
Mar 3, 2025, 2:27 PM
|
|
There's no guarantee we will leave the ACC. FSU, probably. Being the lynchpin of the ACC may be better than middle of the SEC. Certainly better than the bottom of the SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [713]
TigerPulse: 73%
22
|
You're right
Mar 3, 2025, 3:26 PM
|
|
I may have gotten a bit pessimistic there, I admit. I just don't want to see the ACC die while a vast number of voices seem gleeful about just the idea of it.
To your point, & I'm admittedly being optimistic about this, the grant-of-rights for TV-generated revenue continuing through 2036 could mean Clemson finds staying in the ACC worthwhile up to at least 2036 & potentially even beyond that with these new revenue changes (& perhaps even consequently from the diminished competitiveness across most of the league as a result).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10496]
TigerPulse: 59%
45
Posts: 13586
Joined: 2006
|
Re: TNET: ESPN report: Clemson, FSU set to vote on settlement of ACC lawsuits
1
Mar 3, 2025, 2:03 PM
|
|
Just remember that we are not lacking in money and that university administrators make decisions that are for the good of the university. The suit was only helping the attorneys and was not going to help us unless circumstances drastically changed. Another $10-15 million in revenue would put us close to $60 million a year and that is nothing to sneeze at. Settling the suit with changes that benefit us is a great result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16355]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
|
Re: TNET: ESPN report: Clemson, FSU set to vote on settlement of ACC lawsuits
2
Mar 3, 2025, 5:46 PM
|
|
No one knows what college football will look like in 5 more years. No one knows which teams or leagues will have been successful from 2025 to 2030.
Arkansas and SC have been SEC teams for 30+ years and won nothing. Nebraska and Penn State have been members of the Big10 for decades and have nothing to show for it.
80-90% of the teams in those 2 leagues would kill to have the success Clemson has had for the last decade. Texas has a big name. Clemson has a better record with more wins more championships and more Natty’s than Texas over the last 50 years.
I am not in step with Clemson fans who so desperately want to be fans of other leagues and seem not to appreciate who we are.
I like us. I like our leadership . I will support Clemson going forward.
I think FSU sucks and do not like being lumped together with the Noles.
UNC has sucked at football forever and the SEC and Big10 both like UNC?
Go Tigers!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 50
| visibility 5817
|
|
|
50
