OT: New ACC Deal To Reward Clemson and FSU?
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
Money for FSU, last place in conference and overall 2-10?? Sympathy case?? 🤣
There is already precedent in college athletics that certain conferences are more important that others and deserve more revenue (see individual media revenue deals for conferences).
The logical next step is to extend that to individual teams within conferences.
If the NCAA (and the entire college athletics world) recognizes that not all teams are equal in terms of revenue, then why wouldn’t conferences too?
The logical next step is to extend that to individual teams within conferences.
If the NCAA (and the entire college athletics world) recognizes that not all teams are equal in terms of revenue, then why wouldn’t conferences too?
Well, since we root for a program that is basically the welfare recipient of the BIG we definitely don’t want to see this happen.
People always worried about being kicked out or some superconference forming but I didn’t think those were realistic things.
I do think some uneven revenue distribution within a conference, including the B10 and SEC, is something that could happen somewhere down the line.
Very true.
But its a little hypocritical to say "Big Ten/SEC shouldn't share our revenue with ACC or AAC or or MWC or Big East. We're more valuable so we should get more" but then push back against Alabama, Georgia, OSU and UM applying the same reasoning within the conferences.
Now someone could say "but it's all the same conference, it should be equitable".
The response would be "the NCAA is all the same league - should it be equitable?"
The answer would be a very quick no.
If one of the main tenents of college athletics "not all conferences are equal" - why would teams within a conference be equal?
As I stated a few months ago, this was a likely outcome if leaving was not in the best interest of the dissatisfied schools
It’ll be a win-win as FSU and Clemson will get more money per year based on different metrics, and the buyout will be significantly reduced by five years, cutting it until 2031 for far less money
It’ll be a win-win as FSU and Clemson will get more money per year based on different metrics, and the buyout will be significantly reduced by five years, cutting it until 2031 for far less money
Carrying that sorry ass conference and making them somewhat relevant despite, corruption, greed, lies, piss poor Management and shitty football schools
Yes, the deal will likely include significantly more money (and a reduced buyout a number of years on the grant of rights) based on different metrics for the top schools, including FSU and Clemson
From football scoop
>ESPN has agreed to pick up its option to continue broadcasting ACC sports through 2036 in a move that will secure the near-term future of the conference, according to multiple reports on Thursday.
the conference has agreed to deliver more "value adds" in its scheduling. In short, this likely means more Notre Dame-Clemson football games, and less Notre Dame-Wake Forest. Yahoo reported the Fighting Irish are expected to play two of Florida State, Miami or Clemson each season.
the ACC will hold aside a percentage of its ESPN paychecks in what will be called a "brand fund." This will be reserved for the schools that generate the most revenue in the major TV sports. While the formula has not been finalized, this is basically a way for the ACC to pay Florida State, Clemson and North Carolina beyond what their conference counterparts make. In 2023, the ACC launched a "success initiative" to heap extra money to schools who succeed on the field.
Between the brand and success initiatives, it is expected that the ACC schools that maximize both revenue streams could close the gap with Big Ten and SEC schools to as little as a few million annually.
In exchange, Florida State and Clemson are expected to drop their lawsuits against the conference<
( go to football scoop for whole story, this is an edited version)
My take: Notre Dame is playing a big role and like Clemson and FSU will be getting an equal share of the "brand fund" with Miami,FSU & Clemson.
The other members will not raise a fuss over it because like the Football Scoop implied, they are scared of what happened to the PAC will happen to the ACC and don't want their conference to break up
>ESPN has agreed to pick up its option to continue broadcasting ACC sports through 2036 in a move that will secure the near-term future of the conference, according to multiple reports on Thursday.
the conference has agreed to deliver more "value adds" in its scheduling. In short, this likely means more Notre Dame-Clemson football games, and less Notre Dame-Wake Forest. Yahoo reported the Fighting Irish are expected to play two of Florida State, Miami or Clemson each season.
the ACC will hold aside a percentage of its ESPN paychecks in what will be called a "brand fund." This will be reserved for the schools that generate the most revenue in the major TV sports. While the formula has not been finalized, this is basically a way for the ACC to pay Florida State, Clemson and North Carolina beyond what their conference counterparts make. In 2023, the ACC launched a "success initiative" to heap extra money to schools who succeed on the field.
Between the brand and success initiatives, it is expected that the ACC schools that maximize both revenue streams could close the gap with Big Ten and SEC schools to as little as a few million annually.
In exchange, Florida State and Clemson are expected to drop their lawsuits against the conference<
( go to football scoop for whole story, this is an edited version)
My take: Notre Dame is playing a big role and like Clemson and FSU will be getting an equal share of the "brand fund" with Miami,FSU & Clemson.
The other members will not raise a fuss over it because like the Football Scoop implied, they are scared of what happened to the PAC will happen to the ACC and don't want their conference to break up
Works for me. I'm happy with the 18 teams the B1G has. Circle back around 2029 or so once the next B1G Media deal is up and kick the tires on UVA/UNC then.
Cliff Notes…
Immediate entry into the Big Ten or SEC was preferred
For a variety of reasons, well that wasn’t deemed possible or pragmatic at the moment, Plan B was hatched, which has been talked about four months
Above is what Plan B is, which is certainly not the first option, but the next best thing and win-win for all parties involved
It cuts the yearly money gap significantly, and shorten the grant of rights, as well as as the buyout amount for that
I had thought about tagging you in my OP, thinking that you would say this. I think I agree, but I don't want to agree because we might not even have a seat at the kids table. Maybe the ACC should change their name to the Animal Farm Conference.
And @NickRU714 -Change the Big Ten to the Pig Ten, Big 12 to Pig 12 and SEC to the Swine Eating Chow conference. Orwell would be so proud.I had thought about tagging you in my OP, thinking that you would say this. I think I agree, but I don't want to agree because we might not even have a seat at the kids table. Maybe the ACC should change their name to the Animal Farm Conference.
Greedy, money hungry entities will always take/want more of the pie even if it's at the expense of it's own conference mates who have made deals to receive equal shares? This doesnt surprise me one bit.
My understanding of the NCAA house settlement is that the $20 million revenue share was explicitly intended to level the competitive playing field among the programs. So it’s good to know that somewhere someone inside the room cares about fairness and competition even a little.
Obviously anyone that’s not Ohio State and Michigan and maybe even Penn State would resist this in the Big Ten and hopefully collectively they’d have enough influence to force it not to happen. At some point for college football to survive there has to be some interest in watching the games and not have 9/10 games be a stomping by daddy Warbucks.
Obviously anyone that’s not Ohio State and Michigan and maybe even Penn State would resist this in the Big Ten and hopefully collectively they’d have enough influence to force it not to happen. At some point for college football to survive there has to be some interest in watching the games and not have 9/10 games be a stomping by daddy Warbucks.
When conference mates and specifically, conference leadership, don’t live up to their end of the bargain, those that carried the conference and made it remotely relevant, Despite all of the immense challenges, they faced, deserve to be adequately rewarded.
Eh. Most of the time when all that value was being built, this was supposed to be amateur sports and a level playing field. The value that you’re talking about getting built was essentially the cheaters cheating. The conference was supposed to be creating a level playing field. If there’s no attempt to create a level playing field for the stuff that actually happens on the field in a conference, honestly, I don’t think it’s a conference we should be in. I’d rather be in the patriot league with a chance to compete than in the big time where we are systematically and contractually locked out from competing.
Right now we’re somewhere in the middle, but at least we have a shot build. But if the conference money now also gets distributed so the rich get richer, I might be done.
You are in a unique spot with Rutgers/FSU. Both ends of the conference totem pole.
What if OSU, UM and PSU proposed something similar in the Big Ten?
But why stop at the conference level?
Does it not matter that the conference is in a league (NCAA) that is set up so that the rich get richer?
This is my earlier point.
Many are fine with the league being unequal. But don't dare make the conference unequal.
This is always the end of a conference moves. The BE, old B12, placating certain teams never ends well.
If it was going to happen in the B1G, it would have happened a long time ago. Real conferences don't make these moves. It's a desperate attempt to keep teams from leaving. It never works long or even medium term.
If it was going to happen in the B1G, it would have happened a long time ago. Real conferences don't make these moves. It's a desperate attempt to keep teams from leaving. It never works long or even medium term.
I had thought about tagging you in my OP, thinking that you would say this. I think I agree, but I don't want to agree because we might not even have a seat at the kids table. Maybe the ACC should change their name to the Animal Farm Conference.
College Atheltics is a prime example of the "First They Came" poem.
It "seemed" so innocent before NIL, but now "it" is all out in the open, and the big pigs will muscle their way for a prime spot at the trough.
As far as the house settlement and the $20 million revenue share, AFAIK, there is nothing stopping the top teams from using collectives to raise and spend more NIL money than their peers. But if they are raising more money because of years of built in advantages of being blue bloods, should they receive more media money too?
That's a holier than thou attitude. If it's seen through, it will only create more holiness for some and greater inequity within the conference.
One of the main purposes of a confernce is to bring similar schools together and coordinate so you have have a reasonable level of competition among a group of teams that are similar. There is a reason Vassar is not in a conference with large flagship state schools.
So, no, I don't think this idea of equality applies outside of a conference. Ohio State benefits from, and has a certain duty, to ensure that they are in the same competitive stratosphere as Northwestern and the rest of the conference. There isn't the same obligation to the other 3,000 (or whatever the number is) colleges.
Using revenue and tv viewership it would seem that Clemson, FSU, Miami, Louisville and UNC would get some more money(Stanford would be in here, but they are taking lower shares initially)...
I wonder if it is percentage based given revenue and viewership or just a lump for a certain percentage of schools. In other words is everyone making a different amount.
Through 2031
You could see the top 3rd of the ACC be at 60-75% of what the Big10 is making (Clemson, FSU, Miami, Louisville, UNC)
The mid tier at 40-50% ( Pitt, Virginia Tech, Duke )
The bottom tier at 25-40% (Wake, Boston College, CAL - Maybe Syracuse / Virginia)
And of course they will try Private Equity to close the gap.
Big10 and SEC will try scheduling agreement, among other stuff to further the gap.
I wonder if it is percentage based given revenue and viewership or just a lump for a certain percentage of schools. In other words is everyone making a different amount.
Through 2031
You could see the top 3rd of the ACC be at 60-75% of what the Big10 is making (Clemson, FSU, Miami, Louisville, UNC)
The mid tier at 40-50% ( Pitt, Virginia Tech, Duke )
The bottom tier at 25-40% (Wake, Boston College, CAL - Maybe Syracuse / Virginia)
And of course they will try Private Equity to close the gap.
Big10 and SEC will try scheduling agreement, among other stuff to further the gap.
Last edited:
This elminates any chance of FSU, Clemson or others coming to the Big Ten in the future. There is no way they would get the necessary votes from any school that is not Ohio State, Penn State, or Michigan, because the other members know what they pushed. They have pretty much sealed their fate in the ACC.
I don't think it has any impact. Doesn't mean they will come.
Top teams realized they were stuck through 2036.
Mid and bottom Tiers realized that it was going to be 10 years of pain, so they decided to give some money up. Some more than others.
Come Early 2030s, there will be rumblings again...
FSU, Clemson, and a couple of others will never stop trying to get into the P2.
So what's the purpose of FBS football and D-1 CBB?
Is it not "bring similar schools together and coordinate so you have have a reasonable level of competition among a group of teams that are similar"?
Why isnt there the same duty when everyone is in the same league and competing for the same championship?
Im not a fan of unequal revenue sharing
It’s shortsighted & not sustainable
We played nice (entirely too nice) in the sandbox for 30 years and are now 40/50 mil year behind peers due to negliance of confetence leadership and conference mates not living up to their end of the bargin
May not be the worse thing for us. With the amount of eyeballs we bring in from NY and Phli I think we'd be fine. The whole BIG West would be screwed. They would all take a huge cut.
Well it is hypocritical lol
but we don’t want it to go that way for Rutgers .
