Clemson joins FSU in suing the ACC
Clemson just launched the next fight in leaving the ACC. They are arguing that the GoRs does not apply if they leave the conference and that the ACC is interfering with ability to negotiate with other conferences. I'm guessing the playoff money disparity was the last straw.
No formal news reports yet, as this is breaking news.
More here: https://twitter.com/RossDellenger
(I'm not going to link to Thamel)
March 19th, 2024 at 12:20 PM ^
Surprised it took them so long
March 19th, 2024 at 12:21 PM ^
And the other shoe drops.
March 19th, 2024 at 12:52 PM ^
In the words of Sol Rosenberg, "sue everybody." Also, "I'll bring all my shoes and my glasses, so I'll have them."
March 19th, 2024 at 12:22 PM ^
Have to imagine this is the beginning of the end for the ACC.
March 19th, 2024 at 12:27 PM ^
These lawsuits ..... admittedly I'm not a lawyer, but I really don't understand.
It seems to me Clemson (and Florida State, and any other ACC school for that matter) can attempt to regain control of their broadcast rights at ANY time prior to the end of the term (2036). Yes, Clemson assigned their rights away, but they could at least TRY to regain them, right?
The thing is getting them back would undoubtedly involve repurchasing them --- e.g., spending $$$. But they want a way out without spending $$$.
Do they really think that's going to work?
March 19th, 2024 at 12:34 PM ^
I don't know if they think it will work. I think it's calculated. I think it's worth it to them to hire some lawyers to find out IF they can get out without spending $$$. I would guess they think there's high upside if they CAN leave for free. And if they are not able to leave for free, then they're no worse off than they were before (minus the attorney's fees).
March 19th, 2024 at 12:36 PM ^
They are trying build pressure for a negotiated settlement IMO. Also, they have some dirt on the conference to indicate the ACC did not act in the schools best interests (chiefly the commissioner giving games to Raycom which his kid ran and was the only P5 providing inventory to a regional channel and the poor advice/negotiation for the ACC deal).
March 19th, 2024 at 12:45 PM ^
This
True on Raycom .... but Raycom doesn't exist any more (and hasn't existed for a good 5 years). That shouldn't have anything to do with anything going forward.
I just don't see the endgame here. The ACC Network exists, of course, owned by ESPN and started up right when Raycom died. It cost ESPN a good deal of $$$ to start the ACC Network. And everyone knows the ACC Network (and ESPN) is only making $$$ with FSU, Clemson and UNC (to a lesser extent) in the conference.
So they're going to try to get out of the ACC deal, cost the ACC Network and ESPN tons of $$$, and then jump to a conference (SEC*) that's big-time in bed with ESPN? Why would ESPN be on board with that all happening? Like it or not, ESPN is the most powerful force in college sports these days.
------
* I don't believe for a second the B1G would ever consider Clemson. MAYBE FSU, but even that's a stretch. IMO, it's SEC or nothing for those two.
If it frees up ND and UNC, the B10 will feast on those schools.
March 19th, 2024 at 12:50 PM ^
This still feels like uphill sledding to me. You did a deal; in (pretty quick) hindsight it turned out to be a crappy deal. That doesn't mean you get to walk away. And, in the legal world, the idea that you are giving a GoR for only the time you are in the conference -- which could end the day after you sign -- feels pretty illusory to me.
March 19th, 2024 at 12:59 PM ^
Simply signing a deal doesn't make it enforceable - nor immune from being dissolved in court.
Yes, something people who don't work with contracts assume is that once something is signed its done. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most contracts don't make it until term unless both parties are content. Which is quite obviously not the case here.
They are going to be at such a competitive disadvantage in all sports they have to at least try. The gap is only going to widen over time. If you aspire to achieve a natty in any sport once the schools start paying players, you have to figure out a way to leave.
March 19th, 2024 at 12:56 PM ^
I don't hate them for doing this. I hate the Big Ten and SEC for trying to close the shop.
Can you imagine 20 years ago, as Miami was 2 years removed from one of the greatest seasons ever and joining the ACC, someone telling you a super conference would form and it would leave them out? And in fact the only Big East school in it would be RUTGERS?
Or heck, 10 years ago, when Clemson was coming off an Orange Bowl pasting to WVU, if someone told you they'd be the last domino to legitimize the Super 2?
All of these are just incredibly short-sighted moves. Not only do they kill the small-time upsets that make the sport memorable - including the Horror - they completely ignore that despite what you've been told, the powers that be in this sport HAVE consistently changed. Maybe not as frequently as in the pros, but certainly with regularity.
Conferences are adventitious anyway - the larger schools don't truly *need* them and never have.
I was barely around and definitely don't remember the days when all the best "eastern" teams were independent. But I do imagine it was a fun time - in the 1980s you had BC, Cuse, Pitt, WVU, FSU, SMU, ND, PSU and the U all finishing in the top 5, and the latter 4 claiming national titles. All but SMU were independents. Only ND (and maybe Pitt?) were considered "powers" in the decade before. It really must have felt like College Football was wide open, that anyone could win it.
Now? Pretty much all of those schools except PSU are in the ACC, which by my understanding wasn't a major conference until the late '70s, and is on the verge of being returned to mid-major status, along with all of those schools. 1980s CFB seems really weird compared to now and to the decade or so before it. But that weirdness looks like it was critical to getting the sport to where it is now. Completely closing off the smaller schools or the regions that aren't as CFB-crazy (which are still NFL and HS FB crazy) seems shortsighted.
It seems fun. Putting a playoff in THAT era would've probably saved everybody grief and superconferences. Or maybe it was inevitable we'd consolidate. I still think it's a bad decision tho.
Folks occasionally get on Notre Dame today because "they get to make their own schedule!!!", but in the late 80s-early 90s (right before PSU joined the B1G), all those Independents were really in a good situation. There were more than enough of them such that it was easy to make a schedule, and they could design things so that nearly all of their games were either regional or interesting or a rivalry.
There were no "PSU vs Minnesota" or "Michigan vs Rutgers" games that had to be simply because they were in the same conference.
It will never happen, but I think it would be a lot of fun if ALL 130+ FBS teams were independent. Each of them could agree to play 8 schools to play annually, home-and-homes with 2 other schools, 1 OOC cupcake and 1 game "assigned" by a college football commissioner, trying to match-up teams of equal strength.
For Michigan: it could look something like (1) MSU, OSU, ND, NW, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota and Iowa annually, (2) 10 different home-and-homes with the likes of PSU, Purdue, Maryland, Texas, Oklahoma, UCLA, UConn, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Virginia over a 10-year period, (3) one of the xMUs at home, and (4) some other team, based on how good/bad U-M was in recent history.
Tough schedule, but likely a metric ton of fun.
my dumb proposal
The Problem
1) Super Conferences are forming because big, rich, football schools drive more viewership and want more money
2) Fans hate it because it's killing traditional matchups and rivalries, killing memorable, season altering upsets, and make the sport more anodyne
3) Also it feels unfair that these leagues are based on earnings, rather than on-field results
my dumb answer
1) Form super conferences, BUT
2a) make them small so there are multiple OOC matchups
(like 7-team conferences)
2b) keep the playoff open to non-Super teams
(autobids can be based on a combo of non-super power conf champs and wins against "P5" teams)
3) promote/relegate into SC based on playoff results and/or SC championships*
*you can limit it so none of the P5 gets demoted to the G5 unless yadda yadda financial considerations a la Temple
networks get games between the best teams, fans and networks get rivalry games and meaningful upsets and more
UNC is on the clock.....
College sports is becoming a lot like a bunch of people crammed into a slow-moving Volkswagen Bug. This may be working for Big Ten and SEC football for now, but all this change is beginning to suffocate everything else.
The money's so big now that the path seems inevitable, but I worry that the fallout is going to affect the 99.9% of college athletes who don't play major college football.
What will college sports look like ten years from now if we don't separate major college football from everything else?
I think the current state and the future we are on path for are both worse for most athletes and make college sports more anodyne. But I don't think splitting football off will make things better - it could potentially threaten the status of other sports while also making college football more anodyne.
I think a workable model involves treating football affiliations different, but not separate. I think super leagues in FB that have the playoff open to all and promote/relegate based on playoff performance is something workable, let's big schools be richer, let's smaller programs have opportunity for epic upsets. If the super league is small enough every traditional rivalry can be preserved.
I'm rooting for this if only to see UNC (and to a lesser extent NCSt, Duke, Wake) absolutely shit themselves.
The ACC is known as the "All Carolina Conference" to the rest of the league, so it would be funny watching the good 'ole boys that ran themselves into the dirt freak out and likely circle the wagons around UNC, UVa, Duke, and the leftovers from the Pac12 of all places.
