ESPN.com: Clemson, Florida State expected to settle with ACC

[PonyPride]

From ESPN.com:

Sources: FSU, Clemson expected to reach settlement with ACC
Andrea Adelson, David Hale and Pete Thamel

Florida State and Clemson will vote Tuesday on an agreement that would ultimately result in the settlement of four ongoing lawsuits between the schools and the ACC and a new revenue-distribution strategy that would solidify the conference's membership for the near future, sources told ESPN on Monday.

The ACC Board of Directors is scheduled to hold a call Tuesday to go over the settlement terms. In addition, Florida State and Clemson plan to call meetings of their own respective boards Tuesday to present the settlement terms. All three boards must agree to the settlement for it to move forward, but sources throughout the league expect a deal to be reached.

According to sources, the settlement includes two key objectives: Establishing a new revenue-distribution model based on viewership and a change in the financial penalties for exiting the league's grant of rights prior to its conclusion in June 2036.

To read this article in its entirety, CLICK HERE.

[Dukie]

Good news for near-term stability, and possibly for longer-term stability.

[BillgoCU]

Agreed, this is good news.
Clemson and FSU, schools with fewer big-money grads, but plenty of loyal fans, get money more consistent with their SEC neighbors, and the conference stays together. I don't want a world that is "just SEC and Big10"
I'm cool with it.

[bubba pony]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... 162058007/

this author states FSU didn't have a landing spot. Which I suspected.

Big Ten ..."and wasn’t interested in adding the Seminoles, which the league deemed a “bad partner” that was trying to break up the ACC in search of greener financial pastures."

[Graceland Tar Heel]

Agreed, this is good news.
Clemson and FSU, schools with fewer big-money grads, but plenty of loyal fans, get money more consistent with their SEC neighbors, and the conference stays together. I don't want a world that is "just SEC and Big10"
I'm cool with it.

My views:

1. BT and SEC clearly want there to be just 2 Major conferences, which will allow them to have control over nearly 100% of the post-season money that is part of D1A (FBS)

2. By 2036 there will be either just 2 or maybe 3 accepted Major conferences.

3. Either ACC (better chance if it has the stomach to save itself) or Big 12 could be a 3rd major, but only 1 can remain Major. The one that gets that slot must take real value from the other.

4. I think the ACC to save itself as true Major must dump its dead weight and expand beyond 17 members. That likely requires the ACC finding a sugar daddy who wants to get into Major college sports broadcasting and will pay for the rights to the new larger ACC inventory. Bezos/Amazon and Cook/Apple have both shown that they want much more live sports programming.

5. 17 of 18 BT members are state Flagship and/or Land Grant schools. 15 of 16 SEC members also meet that criteria. The ACC has only 3 Flagships, none with a football history in recent decades worth talking about, and only 3 Land Grants. WE also have FSU, which is neither but has a statewide fan base like a Flagship or Land Grant. We have too many private schools, especially in areas that do not turn out a lot of top recruits. We have 2 private schools located in the far northeast, which is easily the most dead weight region in the country for CFB talent production and fans. We also have Wake, which since the death of the SWC has been the smallest school In a Major conference. NC cannot adequately support 4 schools in a Major conference.

So the most dead weight is obvious. Also obvious is what the the ACC needs more of: state Flagship and/or Land Grant schools with some football history over the past 30 years or so; other large state schools with some football history in this century; schools located in states that produce a whole lot of talent; schools located in states that watch a lot of CFB; schools with boosters with proven histories of investing in their school's football.

[Dukie]

Agreed, this is good news.
Clemson and FSU, schools with fewer big-money grads, but plenty of loyal fans, get money more consistent with their SEC neighbors, and the conference stays together. I don't want a world that is "just SEC and Big10"
I'm cool with it.

My views:

1. BT and SEC clearly want there to be just 2 Major conferences, which will allow them to have control over nearly 100% of the post-season money that is part of D1A (FBS)

2. By 2036 there will be either just 2 or maybe 3 accepted Major conferences.

3. Either ACC (better chance if it has the stomach to save itself) or Big 12 could be a 3rd major, but only 1 can remain Major. The one that gets that slot must take real value from the other.

4. I think the ACC to save itself as true Major must dump its dead weight and expand beyond 17 members. That likely requires the ACC finding a sugar daddy who wants to get into Major college sports broadcasting and will pay for the rights to the new larger ACC inventory. Bezos/Amazon and Cook/Apple have both shown that they want much more live sports programming.

5. 17 of 18 BT members are state Flagship and/or Land Grant schools. 15 of 16 SEC members also meet that criteria. The ACC has only 3 Flagships, none with a football history in recent decades worth talking about, and only 3 Land Grants. WE also have FSU, which is neither but has a statewide fan base like a Flagship or Land Grant. We have too many private schools, especially in areas that do not turn out a lot of top recruits. We have 2 private schools located in the far northeast, which is easily the most dead weight region in the country for CFB talent production and fans. We also have Wake, which since the death of the SWC has been the smallest school In a Major conference. NC cannot adequately support 4 schools in a Major conference.

So the most dead weight is obvious. Also obvious is what the the ACC needs more of: state Flagship and/or Land Grant schools with some football history over the past 30 years or so; other large state schools with some football history in this century; schools located in states that produce a whole lot of talent; schools located in states that watch a lot of CFB; schools with boosters with proven histories of investing in their school's football.

This is all pretty much true, though there are schools that meet neither the flagship nor land-grant criteria that are still valuable (Georgia Tech). And I'm not even sure it's required for the ACC to boot any members--the new revenue deal will cut the earnings of Wake and BC and they'll just deal with it, much as being a junior member in an expanded ACC is still going to be way better for them than joining whatever version of the American there is in the future. But the ACC should definitely be looking, by the 2030 timeframe, to get Cal and Stanford off of their lonely island by basically trying to get the Four Corners flagships plus Kansas in the boat, decapitating the "Big" "12". However, I share your doubt about whether the ACC schools are savvy and/or mercenary enough to do it.

[Graceland Tar Heel]

Agreed, this is good news.
Clemson and FSU, schools with fewer big-money grads, but plenty of loyal fans, get money more consistent with their SEC neighbors, and the conference stays together. I don't want a world that is "just SEC and Big10"
I'm cool with it.

My views:

1. BT and SEC clearly want there to be just 2 Major conferences, which will allow them to have control over nearly 100% of the post-season money that is part of D1A (FBS)

2. By 2036 there will be either just 2 or maybe 3 accepted Major conferences.

3. Either ACC (better chance if it has the stomach to save itself) or Big 12 could be a 3rd major, but only 1 can remain Major. The one that gets that slot must take real value from the other.

4. I think the ACC to save itself as true Major must dump its dead weight and expand beyond 17 members. That likely requires the ACC finding a sugar daddy who wants to get into Major college sports broadcasting and will pay for the rights to the new larger ACC inventory. Bezos/Amazon and Cook/Apple have both shown that they want much more live sports programming.

5. 17 of 18 BT members are state Flagship and/or Land Grant schools. 15 of 16 SEC members also meet that criteria. The ACC has only 3 Flagships, none with a football history in recent decades worth talking about, and only 3 Land Grants. WE also have FSU, which is neither but has a statewide fan base like a Flagship or Land Grant. We have too many private schools, especially in areas that do not turn out a lot of top recruits. We have 2 private schools located in the far northeast, which is easily the most dead weight region in the country for CFB talent production and fans. We also have Wake, which since the death of the SWC has been the smallest school In a Major conference. NC cannot adequately support 4 schools in a Major conference.

So the most dead weight is obvious. Also obvious is what the the ACC needs more of: state Flagship and/or Land Grant schools with some football history over the past 30 years or so; other large state schools with some football history in this century; schools located in states that produce a whole lot of talent; schools located in states that watch a lot of CFB; schools with boosters with proven histories of investing in their school's football.

This is all pretty much true, though there are schools that meet neither the flagship nor land-grant criteria that are still valuable (Georgia Tech). And I'm not even sure it's required for the ACC to boot any members--the new revenue deal will cut the earnings of Wake and BC and they'll just deal with it, much as being a junior member in an expanded ACC is still going to be way better for them than joining whatever version of the American there is in the future. But the ACC should definitely be looking, by the 2030 timeframe, to get Cal and Stanford off of their lonely island by basically trying to get the Four Corners flagships plus Kansas in the boat, decapitating the "Big" "12". However, I share your doubt about whether the ACC schools are savvy and/or mercenary enough to do it.

The BT and SEC have made the economy of Major CFB a brutal one that aims to destroy. In such a situation, only the rich can afford to support pure charity cases, especially when the number is more than 1. The simple fact is that WVU vs anyone is going to draw more TV viewers than Wake vs the same schools. Dittonwith BC. BC vs ND or PSU will get the highest numbers for BC< but PSU and ND vs WVU will still draw more viewers.

To survive as Major and be able to cut the revenue gap a bit, the ACC must drop dead weight, and then replace with schools that will draw more TV viewers than the dead weight. I think the ACC also must become super sized. That almost certainly requires ESPN partnering with another entity like Amazon or Apple which will televise a certain number of ACC games from the larger league inventory.

Drop BC, Cuse, and Wake. Buy them out in some form. Add UofA, AZ ZSt, Utah, and Colorado. All 4 are large AAU schools. All 4 have much more academically in common with Calford and the ACC's old guard than with anything in the current Big 12. The 2 AZ schools have massive numbers of students from CA and alums living in CA, which will increase the ACC TV numbers in CA. Having all 4 will mean that the ACC can advertise across MT that the ACC is the only Major conference with teams located in MT. The area is sparsely populated, but at least the ACC would own it. And that would provide the very valuable bridge between TX and CA.

Then secure as much of DFW as possible. I would add TCU to have the only two DFW located schools in a Major conference. I also would add Baylor and TTU. The former because per capita Baylor alums have as much clout in TX politics as UT alums and because Baylor is located just south of the DFW TV market. The latter because TTU is a large state university with a healthy athletics department (much more so than Houston) with successes in both revenue sports in recent years. Best of all, the TV market with the largest number of TTU alums is DFW. Right now, ESPN pays full carriage to the ACC only for DFW because of SMU's location. Adding TTU and Baylor would mean getting that for the Lubbock and Waco markets as well, while also, along with adding TCU, significantly strengthening the ACC presence in the VERY important DFW market.

Then I would finish off ACC football by adding WVU and Cincy. WVU is both flagship and land grant, though the state is very small. However, WV people living elsewhere have an unmatchable loyalty to the state of their ancestry and to WVU teams. The Backyard Brawl is a major college sports blood rivalry. WVU fans travel in amazing numbers anywhere within 4 or 5, even 6, hours drive of WV, and they fill Pittsburgh when playing there. That fiery passion is captured on TV, and the ACC needs a whole to more of that in football.

Cincy, a very large state school, is Louisville's most played rival in both revenue sports and is located 100 miles away in football obsessed and football recruit filled OH.

In addition to having that ability too assert in ads that the ACC is the only Major conference with NT teams, the ACC that I would love to see also could assert over and over that it is the only conference ever to have at least 1 team in each of the 5 states that annually produce the most D1 football recruits: CA, TX, GA, FL, and OH.

23 teams would mean 22 league foes. I would have each play 4 annual rivals. That would leave 18 members to be played. I would have them divided into 3 groups of 6 and rotated, meaning each team would play 10 ACC games per year. And face each league member at least once every 3 years. That league schedule would diminish the need to play BT and SECV OOC while making certain games are interesting enough to get better TV numbers than the ACC has ever drawn.

Also, all games vs 1AA (FCS) teams would be banned.

Half measures cannot save the ACC as a Major conference past 2036, maybe past 2031. The ACC will either go big or go home. And I do NOT want UNC in either BT or SEC.

[BillgoCU]

I don't like the idea of going nationwide even more than now, but I do see your point.
One thing you brought up and I do think this is worth mentioning, is that the 1AA schools are going to be the eventual losers in all of this. Ultimately I think the "other" sports at those schools will be cut without the football teams bringing in enough money from playing a big school. In SC where I live, Furman has already cut its baseball program. If schools like Furman, Wofford, Western Carolina, East Tennessee State, etc can't land a big football payout game every year, the eventual loser in all of this will be the non-revenue sports at those schools.

But if you are getting more TV/streaming investors, they will want to broadcast the bigger-name games.

One other thing: I think people still like inter-conference games, so I do not like the idea of a 10 game conference slate. You already have 4 ACC schools with SEC in-state rivals, Pitt and SMU with a rival in the Big 12, etc. Those games should be played.
In addition, Clemson also keeps a healthy rotation of local SEC opponents on the schedule like Georgia, Auburn. FSU does the same with Alabama, LSU, etc. Then there is Notre Dame which fills an ACC slot more times than not.

At least for the short term, we appear to still have 4 major conferences. I hope it can stay that way.

[Graceland Tar Heel]

I don't like the idea of going nationwide even more than now, but I do see your point.
One thing you brought up and I do think this is worth mentioning, is that the 1AA schools are going to be the eventual losers in all of this. Ultimately I think the "other" sports at those schools will be cut without the football teams bringing in enough money from playing a big school. In SC where I live, Furman has already cut its baseball program. If schools like Furman, Wofford, Western Carolina, East Tennessee State, etc can't land a big football payout game every year, the eventual loser in all of this will be the non-revenue sports at those schools.

But if you are getting more TV/streaming investors, they will want to broadcast the bigger-name games.

One other thing: I think people still like inter-conference games, so I do not like the idea of a 10 game conference slate. You already have 4 ACC schools with SEC in-state rivals, Pitt and SMU with a rival in the Big 12, etc. Those games should be played.
In addition, Clemson also keeps a healthy rotation of local SEC opponents on the schedule like Georgia, Auburn. FSU does the same with Alabama, LSU, etc. Then there is Notre Dame which fills an ACC slot more times than not.

At least for the short term, we appear to still have 4 major conferences. I hope it can stay that way.

The SEC is playing hard to get the BT to agree to league wide OOC games between them each year. That will severely reduce the possibility of mist AC teams getting any SEC OOC games. I think the ins0state games would continue but say, UNC would behave an ever harder time getting any SEC series than we have across this century.

But my view is that for the ACC to start drawing TV numbers much closer to SEC numbers, all league members must be worth something assuming they are 6-6 or better and all must play a very top level schedule. 100 games plus ND or an SEC or BT team and then 1 G5 team will do that. We would see ACC numbers start climbing, and as ACC teams have success in the playoffs, those numbers would keep climbing.

The better that Clemson is, the less Auburn etc will ant to play. They too will assume the old SEC attitude: we are too rough to bother playing you, unless you are really weak so we can get the easy as pie W on th way to finishing near the top of the SEC.

I do not believe 4 Major conferences can last long. No later than 2036, more likely after 2031. Either ACC or Big 12.

[Graceland Tar Heel]

Most of the time I do not care for Denis Dodd, but I think he has interesting things to say about the ACC settlement.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/acc-settlement-paradox-is-one-of-strength-and-futility-but-college-sports-will-eventually-tear-itself-apart/

[BillgoCU]

Some of the ACC schools not getting an SEC or BT game would be a shame, because I feel some games, for instance NC v SC really make sense and I'd like to see that happen on a regular basis. Same with Clemson v Georgia, VT vs Tennessee, Pitt vs Penn State, and soforth. I know Clemson has a home/away with LSU this year, and has Oklahoma on the future schedule for the same, as well as several games with Georgia lined up (the schools are only 75mi apart and have collectively won 4 of the last 10 national titles...that series NEEDS to happen). Florida is playing Miami. These types of games help add some interest, and many of them are now early-season neutral site games, which helps add some extra fun to the whole experience. I'd hate to lose all that.

[Graceland Tar Heel]

Some of the ACC schools not getting an SEC or BT game would be a shame, because I feel some games, for instance NC v SC really make sense and I'd like to see that happen on a regular basis. Same with Clemson v Georgia, VT vs Tennessee, Pitt vs Penn State, and soforth. I know Clemson has a home/away with LSU this year, and has Oklahoma on the future schedule for the same, as well as several games with Georgia lined up (the schools are only 75mi apart and have collectively won 4 of the last 10 national titles...that series NEEDS to happen). Florida is playing Miami. These types of games help add some interest, and many of them are now early-season neutral site games, which helps add some extra fun to the whole experience. I'd hate to lose all that.

In the SoCar athletics history, the only two foes that they basically all just purely hate and so want to beat at any cost all the time are Clemson and UNC. So, yes, I've always said that SoCar never should have left the ACC. And for OOC, I wish UNC could play SoCar every year in football, basketball, and baseball. But now the SEC is going to turn even more SEC money inward. The SEC is going to 9 games with the next TV deal. And it will be asked by ESPN to go to 10 league games.

The larger points you make about OOC games for all are 100% correct. All that is why I say that bets for the game and thus all college athletics is that we end up with at least 3 Major conferences, ad the Major conferences all play a lot of OOC games. If all Major conferences agree to ban playing any 1AA teams, that will help. And if there is a separation, then it almost has top happen as G5 schools will be in something other.

And the bug picture for me then is that the ACC will either get tough as Hell and act in order to survive as Major, our by the Timothy dust settles, there will irony be 2 Major conferences.

[Nedward]

NC Tarheal, I do appreciate your attention to detail. Have you ever acknowledged the fact that you cannot "kick out" other conferences?

If that was remotely possible, do you think the B10 or SEC wouldn't have done it years ago?

I do enjoy reading your fever dreams and the following streams. But cmon man?!

[Graceland Tar Heel]

NC Tarheal, I do appreciate your attention to detail. Have you ever acknowledged the fact that you cannot "kick out" other conferences?

If that was remotely possible, do you think the B10 or SEC wouldn't have done it years ago?

I do enjoy reading your fever dreams and the following streams. But cmon man?!

[Graceland Tar Heel]

NC Tarheal, I do appreciate your attention to detail. Have you ever acknowledged the fact that you cannot "kick out" other conferences?

If that was remotely possible, do you think the B10 or SEC wouldn't have done it years ago?

I do enjoy reading your fever dreams and the following streams. But cmon man?!

Somehow the post I wrote disappeared, but the quote to which it replied was kept.

Let's see if I can recall:

No, neither BT nor SEC would have done so years ago. That would have forced everyone to see their utter ruthless desire to destroy all other Major conferences far too early. WE all then would have been warned fully and so begun acting to stop that. But today is a far different matter. Now, the Pac is permanently reduced into something that is more important than the now reduced MWC only in historic name. And, if you have all the many mainline CFB writes since the ACC settlement, you will have seen about 3 of them stress they think that indeed both SEC and BT eventually will find a way to get shed of a member or two.

When a crisis is existential, life or death, only the entity with at least a passive death wish will not act with as much force as can be mustered to survive. If, for example, a man has gangrene in his foot and ankle, either he will amputate before that gangrene moves into his trunk, or else he will die. I see Wake, BC, Cuse, and perhaps Pitt as ankles and feet. They are not required to survive, and in fact are not even required to walk.

I don't know if you are an SMU fan, or a fan of any old SWC school, but think about that league. Rice was dead weight worse than Wake and BC are to the ACC now. Houston, because it had no fans worth having, was worse dead weight than any ACC state school is. If the SWC could have booted both and replaced with Ole Miss and Miss St, the SWC would have deserved to die if it had rejected that move.