Clemson files Grant of Rights language lawsuit against the ACC

As @ajoseph mentioned, the ADs likely know that the universities directly paying players is coming.

Even if it isn't, there are still other repercussions:

Coaching salaries. If an SEC school can pay an OC and DC $2M+/yr and an ACC team can only afford $750k, due to a difference of $35M+ a year, who do you think the best coaches are going to go coach for? How many more off field coaches, high school / portal recruiting scouts can be paid with that difference? What about more nutritionists? FSU already lived through this with Jimbo to A&M.

Facilities upgrades. You can pay for a lot of nice renovations every couple years when there is a delta of $70M every two years. And that frees up money from alumni and fans that can go to NLI collectives to pay players more.

This all ends up with a two tiered system of the Haves and the Have Nots. If you are only making $35M when everyone else is making $70M, then you are going to be a Have Not. At that point, your coaches and players that do well are going to be the ones that the Have go after first when the season ends. In my opinion, this is what the UNC Trustee meant by this statement @coleg posted: "but instead, it's really representing the bottom tier of the membership at the expense of the top tier, which is why Clemson and Florida State are doing what they're doing. I think that's just obvious." The bottom tier of the ACC are happy to be Have Nots and they are dragging down FSU, Clemson, and UNC with them.

 

I see no reason to keep expanding the conference. Winning the SEC is such an important and exciting thing. The more teams we add, the smaller our chances get to ever win the conference again. It's almost like you have to win the national championship to win the conference. No more teams, please.

 

I hear ya, but if you win the SEC championship for the last two decades, it’s almost a guarantee for a national championship.
it just means more

 

True. I guess that kind of goes along with my point. They're almost one-in-the-same thing now. Not always, but, often. And, they will get even closer to being the same thing as the conference keeps bloating. I don't think it benefits us in the long run.

 

I like it better than being an acc champion and not being respected because your record is tainted. Many would rather schedule 10 wins than earn them. Our schedule is rough the next couple years so our record should count more than some teams that don’t play any good teams. How many top forty( schools that actually try to win) wins do teams have. Beating teams outside the top 40 shouldn’t count as those games shouldn’t be scheduled.

 

I agree with that, too, but, I don't feel like there is anything else to gain by adding numbers to the SEC. The strength is already there.

 

The only thing I see that could be a problem for the sec is Clemson and FSU going to the Big 10 and winning national championships and tilting the balance of which conference is best and gets the biggest tv deal. Right now the sec has won many more than any conference but all this movement is about changing that. Keeping the easier path has been a failure for the acc as tv doesn’t want to pay for the few decent games that conference generates with the lack of true championship quality programs.
Scooping up teams that win championships is where it’s at for the conferences whether we like the teams or not.

 

The ACC did not intentionally “keep an easier path” in football. The majority of its members school made the decision not to invest in football and make it the priority over all other sports. The head of the ACC had to publicly remind the ACC schools that football is supposed to be the priority and majority of school just ignored it. Syracuse is a example of a school not interested in investing in football. Someone asked their coach about their depth this year and he said it is all on other teams rosters. All of the school that are willing to invest in football, vultured the best players away from Cuse.

This is not intentional by the ACC Office but it is intentional by a majority of the member school. It is why FSU and Clemson and likely UNC want out as they do not want to be dragged down by Cuse, UVA, BC, Duke, etc.

 

It’s also why fsu joined in the first place.

 

Generally, I agree with your post except for this point. I don't think the ACC, as a conference, ever did anything to try to "keep an easier path". FSU certainly chose what they felt was an easier path to a national championship when they joined the ACC in 1991, but the ACC has tried it's best to do everything it could do to be a top conference.

The problem for the ACC is it had some inherent flaws, particularly having 4 schools from North Carolina. That really limited the conference's TV revenue potential. Then you have the footprint, prior to FSU joining, that was limited to NC, VA, MD, SC and GA. 5 total states in basketball country and the only major football TV market was Atlanta, but they had the distant number 2 team in the market. That's a really limited footprint for a conference. But it was what it was.

So then in 1991, they added FSU, which was without a doubt a major coup for the ACC and gave them major Florida team and a lot of momentum. Then in 2004, when the Big East fell apart, the ACC pulled off what appeared at the time to be a major coup by picking off Miami and VT. While those 2 additions made the conference better at football, the unforeseen problem was that they really did very little for their TV footprint.

You might remember, at the time, there were a lot of people arguing that the ACC was the best conference of all. But they were still only in 6 states and did not have a dominant TV school in any state outside of NC, SC, VA and MD. This flaw was unforeseen because nobody really knew what was coming next. From that point, the Big-10 and SEC ate the ACC, and everyone else's lunch.

Nobody realized it at the time, even them, but the Big-10 purchased a failing cable TV network (I can't remember which one) but effectively ended up with a national cable TV network overnight. Around the same time, The Big-12 was having problems and the Pac-12 grabbed Colorado and Utah, and the SEC grabbed Texas A&M and Mizzou. But at the same time, the Big-10 grabbed Nebraska and later Maryland (an original ACC member) and Rutgers. All 3 conferences made moves that expanded their footprints and made themselves stronger. And at the same time, the Big-10 and SEC were starting to get huge revenues from their TV deals.

The thought at the time was that the Big-12 was going to completely implode with Texas and OU likely going to the Pac-12, along with maybe 2 others. Instead, Texas recommitted to the Big-12 and there was talk about the Big-12 taking Notre Dame, FSU and Clemson. Notre Dame backed out but the flirtation with FSU and Clemson really destabilized the ACC.

This is where the ACC miscalculated. To counter this destabilization of the ACC, the conference kind of panicked. They felt they had to add members to keep up and got Notre Dame to "align" with them but then added 3 metro schools (Pitt, BC and Syracuse). These were arguably the best programs available at the time. Their thought was that they'd get the same TV statewide carriage deals the SEC and Big-10 had in PA, NY and MA and their existing markets. They were completely wrong. Instead they actually made the conference weaker competitively and pissed off their best members with the GOR, which they did as a panic move when the conference was on the verge of complete implosion.

The point in all of this is just to point out the the ACC didn't make a conscious choice for an "easier path". They were doing everything possible to try to keep up the Big-10 and SEC moves and stay alive. There just weren't any expansion candidates out there for them. They were outmaneuvered at every point by the SEC, Big-10 and even the Big-12. And didn't understand the TV money.

 

The thing is today that geography doesn’t matter nearly as much and if you dump money into your football program and make the playoffs everybody in the country is watching. Ohio State Michigan game I have not missed and I don’t know how many years and I don’t live anywhere near there.

 

Big national rivalries have ALWAYS driven national college football viewership.

Yes, the environment has changed once again. Once upon a time, before conference TV deals and networks, all the conferences were VERY regional.

Then in the era of early 2000s realignment, the model changed. One of the major factors in that was the change in the NCAA Div 1 enrollment requirements at a time when the major state schools had capped enrollment and all these smaller state universities and metro universities enrollment exploded.

I will still argue that new schools like UCF, Boise State, Louisville, Houston and others was a major factor in the realignment. The traditional state land grant universities who built the college football brand didn't like these new upstart programs getting equal treatment. But geography absolutely mattered for the conference TV networks, most notably the Big-10 and SEC Networks. The ACC thought it would automatically get carriage, it didn't. The Big-12 never really got a network and while the Pac-12 had a network, it couldn't get any carriage fees.

Once the Big-10 and SEC effectively put themselves at a whole new level in the past few years and secured their huge TV deals, I believe we're again seeing another change where at least for the Big-10, geography is going to be less of a concern. A big part of that change is NIL, which may ultimately hurt college football.

To your point, the schools outside the SEC and Big-10 really don't have the same money to invest. Schools like BC, Syracuse, Louisville, Wake Forest, Duke, Miami, GT and Pitt really don't have the athletic department financial resources to compete. That's the real problem. When the ACC was forced to expand, who was available? Notre Dame was about it and they weren't ever really going to join the ACC.

If you look at the conferences outside the SEC and Big-10, there are really only a handful of viable candidates. We're really talking about is the Pac-12 (which is gone), Big-12 (which has been picked clean), and the ACC. Name another program, not named Notre Dame, who could help the ACC. I don't think there are any.

I still think that when the Big-10 and SEC expand further, there are only a handful of school out there the Big-10 and SEC will be interested in. Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson, UNC are the only clear candidates. UVA and NCSU maybe as well. Are there ANY schools beyond that who the SEC and Big-10 would be interested in? I don't think so.

It doesn't matter how much money a school like UCF or Louisville dumps into their program, even if they win and get to the playoffs, they will not be attractive to the Big-10 or SEC.

 

I still think that when the Big-10 and SEC expand further, there are only a handful of school out there the Big-10 and SEC will be interested in. Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson, UNC are the only clear candidates. UVA and NCSU maybe as well. Are there ANY schools beyond that who the SEC and Big-10 would be interested in? I don't think so.

It doesn't matter how much money a school like UCF or Louisville dumps into their program, even if they win and get to the playoffs, they will not be attractive to the Big-10 or SEC.[/QUOTE]

Here's an article that lends great credence to your assertion: https://footballscoop.com/news/ever...attractive-theyd-be-in-conference-realignment

 

There’s no denying that. Bowden admitted it

 

Those rankings are kind of a joke but it's at least a decent attempt to quantify something very nebulous.

I've stated in other posts that I don't think any conference is ever going to kick any current member out without cause. I still believe that. It would be a horrible precedent to set.

That said, I have also stated that if what will be the new top level of college football wanted to leave some current SEC and Big-10 members out, the schools heading to this new level would probably need to leave the SEC and Big-10 to form a new entity. I can see that happening.

I could see the TV Networks not wanting to pay some smaller schools like Northwestern and Vandy.

Maybe they orchestrate a new power conference and pull teams mostly from the Big-10 and SEC, and have all of them leave their conferences. Basically completely blow up the SEC and Big-10 to start a new superconference. Then add Notre Dame and a small handful from the ACC. Maybe just a group of 24-30 schools total. I wonder if that's already going on behind the scenes with FSU, Clemson and maybe UNC fighting the GOR. Maybe they know something we don't.

 

While football is king, this time of year reminds us that basketball is queen. And not just men's basketball. The Iowa-LSU game drew in over 13.2 million viewers, a record for a women's basketball game. And while Reese vs Clark won't happen again in college, they will continue to meet in the WNBA, and the floor for the women's tournament in terms of viewership has likely been raised.

If the SEC and B1G are to create a football only conference, what happens to March Madness? Do schools like Duke, Kansas, and Arizona agree to be locked out of the football playoffs but let MM continue unabated? What about schools like UCONN?

While a football playoffs with just B1G and SEC schools would work, it wouldn't in all other sports, including both men's and women's basketball, which are the next two money makers for schools after football. It would be interesting to run the numbers to see if B1G and SEC schools would make a net profit if they broke off for football, but were left out of MM? I honestly don't know.

I think this is why the BIG12 pined so hard for Arizona. Arizona and Kansas in the same conference, as two MM staples, along with schools like Baylor and Houston makes the BIG12 a power BB Conference. Might not get them a full seat at the table, but it may force the B1G and SEC to pull up the piano bench for them.

 

Here's the problem with your argument. Schools like Duke, Kansas and Arizona don't determine who's invited to play in March Madness, the NCAA does. And I think the TV Networks have a big say as well. I personally don't believe being threatened with missing out on March Madness is going to sway the Big-10 and SEC.

The NCAA is probably going to do whatever makes the most money. A March Madness without the Big-10 and SEC, which includes some of the biggest programs with the most fans, is probably going to make a LOT less money. And if the SEC and Big-10 are forced to make their own tournament, they'd probably cannibalize about half of the March Madness fans. Both tournaments would probably suffer and everyone loses.

There may be threats and negotiations, but in the end, I think the TV Networks will ultimately be the ones to decide how to handle it.

I'm just guessing, but I don't believe that's how it would work. My guess is that whatever form the future SEC and Big-10 take, football will kind of be a "one-off" in terms of possibly a separate playoff. I think for all the other sports, things will largely remain the same ... but who knows.

 

The BIG12 and ACC schools not invited into one of top 2 conferences will fight football being a one-off, and being left out. This will include schools like Kansas, Duke, and Arizona, which aren't football powers by any means, but are basketball powers that have all had football teams win 10+ games in a season before. The power these schools have is March Madness. As you say, a B1G/SEC MM won't make as much money. The question for the P2 is going to be, can they make enough money from a one-off football only with these two conferences only to make up for the loss of March Madness?

Yes, having a non P2 MM will also make less money. But being left out of football playoffs would be the death blow for all former P5 schools that aren't included. Making a little less from MM at that point wouldn't mean that much, because the loss of football revenue would be massive. Lose football playoffs and might as well become FCS and drop down a full level.

The BIG12 and ACC schools are going to fight tooth and nail to remain relevant in football and be part of the playoffs. And the only card they can really play that may have any effect is MM. Men's MM alone generates hundreds of millions, and women's MM is growing. The question, again, is can the P2, NCAA, and TV make more from football only?

 

Sure they'll fight, but they have little to no leverage. Those schools you're talking about don't determine who's in the NCAA Tournament. The NCAA does. The NCAA represents ALL the schools and isn't going to sabotage their basketball tournament to punish the SEC and Big-10.

In addition, the SEC and Big-10 (in whatever form) is likely to pull out of the NCAA for football. They've made that clear they don't want the NCAA to control their playoffs. The NCAA will likely have no authority over what they do for football or whatever playoff they put together, but it may still be that the Big-10/SEC will set up a path for schools from other conferences to be included. A lot depends on what the TV networks want.

As for the Big-12, they're already second tier of college football. But I think we'll see a whole new round of conference realignment with the remaining ACC grabbing programs like USF, Memphis, UConn and whoever else they can find, to remain a second tier conference as well. But once that's done, I'm not sure it will really change that much for the second tier schools. They'll still have big TV contracts, big rivalry games and big crowds. And I think they'll probably have comparable TV ratings, minus of course the loss of FSU, Clemson, UNC and whoever else.

Think about it. If the Big-10 and SEC split off, it's not really likely to create more games. You're basically going to have the same number of teams and games on TV each week. Texas and OU games become SEC inventory and Pac-12 games will become Big-10/ACC/Big-12. But in the end, the number of games each week will be the same. Big-12 and ACC fans will still watch their team play and the games will still be entertaining.

I don't think the revenues for the Big-12 teams is going to drop as much as you may think. The Big-12 has been very smart with it's additions and other than already losing Texas and OU, they're not likely to lose anyone else. The ACC may not be in the same position.

I actually think that there will be a lot of people, including maybe myself, that will prefer the second tier games because it will probably be more like traditional college football, where the Big-10/SEC may become more like semi-pro.

Plus there will probably be a 2nd/3rd tier playoff, which more teams will be included in. So there may be even more money there.

So to your point, I think the second tier of college football will still be relevant and still make a lot of revenue.

 

If you play professional football but not in the NFL, does anyone know your name? Does anyone care? If the SEC and B1G break off for football, everything else becomes FCS level.

The BIG12 has more leverage than you think. Again, MM. The BIG12 also now has 5 schools in the Mountain Time Zone. The B1G has 4 in the Pacific. 4th window games aren't as profitable as the first three, but they are still profitable. If Colorado at Arizona has playoff implications, it will draw a decent number of fans, even at a 10P Eastern start. If it's only for the 2nd tier playoffs, it will draw like North Dakota State at South Dakota State. Which is a premiere FCS match-up...that nobody, and I'm ean nobody cares about outside the fans of the two schools.