How much is it worth to silence a supposed partner?
That is not rhetorical. It’s a real question the ACC needs to consider — especially now, after news broke late Tuesday night that the league and its two loudest schools, Florida State and Clemson, are discussing a proposal in which both universities would drop their lawsuits against the conference . All the ACC has to do to make it so?
Oh, you know. Nothing too wild Just adjust its revenue formula (again), adopt another unequal distribution model and channel as many dollars as possible to its schools 1) with the biggest brand values and 2) that drive the biggest TV audience…
In other words, the two schools are actively suing the league.
During a regularly scheduled meeting of ACC presidents and chancellors on Tuesday, there were discussions (among other topics) about alternative revenue models, a person briefed on the meeting confirmed. Hours after that meeting, ESPN and Yahoo! Sports both reported that FSU and Clemson would be open to staying in the league if financial adjustments — more like concessions — are made. Gee, how kind of them.
Then there’s the second part of Clemson and FSU’s alleged pitch, reported by ESPN: possibly shortening the league’s rights, possibly to 2030, which coincides with the expiration of the Big Ten and Big 12’s media contracts.
So just to be clear: The Seminoles and Tigers are floating that they are considering staying in the ACC – the league to which they are contractually bound, which owns their media rights, through their concession of rights, until at least 2027 (and probably. 2036) ? Uh… who wants to tell these guys the bad news? That date will likely extend to 2036 come February, after the ACC and ESPN have a “look-in” period regarding their television agreement; if that option is taken up – which is the widespread industry expectation, how The Athletics reported earlier in September — then FSU and Clemson basically have two options:
Stay, or pay a bunch of money to get out early.
Define “gobload?” Sure thing! The ACC’s current withdrawal penalty is approximately $140 million. But FSU’s lawyers estimate that, even factoring in the cost to buy back the school’s media rights over a decade-plus, it could cost about $542 million for the Seminoles to leave the ACC early.
GO DEEPER
As conference realignment rolls around, is ACC vulnerable or okay (for now)?
FSU and Clemson, shocker, don’t want to pay that. Why would they? (It’s not like every school that ever prematurely withdrew from a conference had to pay their way out…right?) So, instead, Door #2: sue the league to get around that pesky concession of rights. Only, nine months into what would almost certainly be a year-long legal battle, the only thing FSU has won in court is a healthy number of attorney billable hours. The same goes for Clemson’s six-month slog in court. There was no indication that either school had a legal leg to back their respective arguments — and even if they did, the ACC made it clear that it would proverbially kick the can as far as it could, through time-consuming appeals and rebuttals. suits
It’s almost as if FSU and Clemson should have thought more, and “barked” less, before sinking thousands and thousands of dollars they supposedly need to compete in long legal Hail Marys.
Which brings us back to the latest developments. Since when are FSU and Clemson the ones with the leverage here?
This new revenue proposal — which stemmed from a court-mandated mediation in Florida — isn’t too dissimilar from what Clemson and Florida State offered their ACC brethren years ago, if we look into the not-so-distant past. (Also, importantly, these discussions are so premature, so early, that they are more like… the concept of a plan.) Clearly, however, at the time there was no appetite for such a structure; the ACC instead settled on its current “success initiative” — which distributes new revenue, mostly from the expanded College Football Playoff, based on schools’ on-field and on-court success — as a way to close the growing revenue gap with the SEC. and Big Ten. That initiative, in theory, should have benefited Clemson and Florida State more than anyone, as the league’s top football powers. But when you start 0-3, like the Seminoles have, or when you get your clock cleaned by Georgia on national television, like the Tigers did, that set of “hit” dollars suddenly isn’t so guaranteed.
Of course, FSU and Clemson aren’t proposing a new revenue distribution plan until after a few weeks of games. This is about continuing to climb for status, for comparable resources, against the kinds of schools those two consider equals: Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, etc. Really, it’s just a small-scale example of modern college athletics, where money — and more of it, always — matters more than regional rivalries, or geography, or history, or anything else.
So, tell me again: What reason does the ACC have to acquiesce to some of those demands from those schools when they are realistically powerless to change their situation for anywhere from three to 12 more years?
It doesn’t have one. Or, it shouldn’t. Because FSU and Clemson were, strictly speaking in professional terms, bad partners. They complained, loudly, about perceived mistakes. They took a “family” business and made it public, messy, with no apparent profit in sight. They were trying to avoid a bill that historically and currently many other schools have paid, including Oklahoma, Texas, USC and UCLA in the last three years. And now, perhaps the most ironic sin of all: missing out on the football field, the one thing driving their entire behavior in the first place.
This is not a situation where the ACC must, or should, extend an olive branch to FSU and Clemson to convince them to stay, for the sake of stability or simply to end the public clash. Now, if you’re Commissioner Jim Phillips, infighting is not a good look. It has of course turned the league into something of a laughing stock, a constant PR nightmare from which there is no clear solution. And while that may eat at Phillips, you know who else it definitely eats at? ESPN… who, yes, is probably coming into that February 2025 “preview” with some serious questions.
So if a revenue model based on branding and TV viewership – ignoring all the nitty-gritty details of deriving such things – silences all the noise? If it gives the ACC an easier sales job come February? Well, then you can at least understand curiosity on the part of the league office, even if certain league members — looking at you, Boston College — probably won’t be too pleased.
But the facts remain the same. The ACC holds every ounce of leverage, and Clemson and FSU say they will stay in the league. only under their conditions is the ultimate pedestrian back, despair play. Which in turn means that if the ACC continues, it only offers those schools the dollar-lined off-ramp they desperately seek.
So, what is it worth to silence a supposed partner?
It depends on which side of the courtroom you stand on.
(Photo: James Gilbert/Getty Images)
