FSU and Clemson are getting out. The matter at hand is how much it will cost. The case doesn't need to be over for FSU or Clemson deciding to leave. Yes, the case is in its infancy. Yes, the case will last another year or two. Yes, the appeal will continue at least another year or two after that. The test is not the case. The test is how ACC responds to losing their deal with ESPN after 2026. That is what will determine whether or not ACC results have more in common with Pac12 or Big12.
I don't know why anyone thought this thing was gonna happen this year. We live in a country with a broken justice system. It's not about who's right, but who has the most money to file appeals. This is pudding proof, we're getting appeals and challenges before the trial is even starting. Assume things finally happen, both sides have the option to appeal further and further up appellate courts.
@@tpp0230 But then ACC could appeal and draw it out even further, not sure if courts allow them to leave if there's an appeal about whether they actually can
Of course, any ACC member can pay the stated exit fee and leave. As things stand, the question would be to go where? Neither the SEC nor B1G would invite without the rights to home games. The BIG12 might. That leaves indy?
Kenton being ACC dude didn’t have his facts correct. SMU joins the ACC July 1, Calford joins Aug 2. Also no team having left a conference has not left and not taken their tv rights. I don’t see FSU & Clemson leaving without a settlement and not until the 2026 season. IMO the key to this is if ESPN renews the media deal and if ESPN wants FSU & Clemson to stay under their umbrella in the SEC. Also ESPN does not their ACC media contract exposed in FL court. If ESPN wants FSU & Clemson in the SEC then they have to private the SEC to take them and that comes in 3 ways. a. ESPN covers cost of paying Clemson & FSU at full shares b. ESPN also covers full shares cost to also add UNC & UVA. c. With 4 more schools, SEC will demand that ESPN pay more for 9th conference games and will want ESPN to match B1G per team tv payout. ESPN will then partner with TNT on the added SEC tv inventory to help cover the addition SEC cost. B1G will then have to decide , if Miami, Duke or GT are worth adding and or if they can convince ND to join with then. If at least 2 more ACC schools leave for B1G after 4 go to SEC, then 4 more will leave for the B12. ACC will then be on verge of collapse. With 7 schools left, ESPN & TNT will then encourage the ACC to expand and get to 12. 14 or 16 and keep ACC P4. ACC would try to get WSU/OSU, SDSU, CSU, Air Force, Tulane, Memphis, USF and UTSA,
I agree with you about Kenton Cal & Stanford do not join the ACC until August. Assuming there is no settlement, when it comes to the ACC and the ESPN contract there are four scenarios. 1: ESPN extends as is. 2: ESPN walks away. 3: ESPN & the ACC renegotiate to a lower number: 4: ESPN & the ACC agree to defer until all lawsuits end. This I think is the most likely option. Why? It gives ESPN a better idea of what the ACC value is.
@@tarheel7406ACC schools would only go to the B12 if the SEC & B1G take enough schools to destabilize the conference, lower future per school payouts than the B12 and they don’t want to be in a conference restocked with G5 schools. If its’s just Clemson & FSU leaving, and ESPN renews the ACC media deal and they backfill with USF, Tulane & Memphis and possibly an SDSU, they will stay P4.
I do not agree. Why? If the AVC gets lucky snd only loses Clemson & FSU, there is no need to expand. Why? If you go back to the additions of Cal, Stanford & SMU, UNC ( with Clemson & FSU) voted no. You don’t want to aggravate UNC by adding more schools
@@Mr.Ed_Wayner a) To where is CLEMSON going if FSU is the only other leaving? b) Not sure how you missed it, but the ACC has already preemptively backfilled with CAL+2. c) If Tier 2 ACC flight risks also go to the SEC/B1G (a heavy depletion), then what the then P5 remainders (including the then BIG12) do won't matter at the top-level for football. Those remainders should still amicably realign into smaller 9-12 member regionals.
This isn’t about keeping FSU/Clemson anymore. There is no patching up this relationship and a $$ settlement will come eventually. This is about scaring UNC and Miami in place as they have been timid through this process. Then leveraging them to build something that might compete against the B12 for the best tier 2 conference. And stalling …buying the ACC time to adjust and survive
I wouldn't even assume it's to scare Miami. I think it's far more likely Miami is either idle if not actively assisting the ACC. The conference money teams in the B1G and SEC have looks great, but do you think they're giving equal value to all new members? At this point in the game? At best Clemson and FSU get deals like USC and the rest of the Pac 12 got. What's not talked about enough is that those teams are getting $30 million, with stacked increases until the end of their current deal (2029-2030) that still won't get them to the $60 million current members receive (yes lowly Indiana will receive twice as much as Oregon in media rights money. That's a best case scenario for FSU and Clemson. Miami is not Clemson or FSU despite their brand recognition. They're not getting more from the SEC/B1G even if those conferences did want Miami. The Big 12 might be in a weaker negotiating position where that move makes sense, but not with the grant of rights in place. For Miami just sitting makes sense. They're getting more than some of the best teams in the country in media rights money. I don't know that the numbers for Texas/Oklahoma were revealed in the same way as the Pac 12 teams in the B1G were, and Big 12 is already behind the ACC despite having what should be a better contract. There was something like a $200-300 million difference between Big 12 and ACC, and that was with Oklahoma and Texas still in the conference. Even if that wasn't enough, clearly Miami at least feels comfortable with the investments from their NIL collectives. They also don't have to invest in lengthy and expensive lawsuits. From their perspective the increasing gaps isn't actually looking that bad as plenty of teams WITHIN the B1G will be feeling that pressure for at least the next 5 years as well. I don't know that they care about FSU or Clemson staying in the conference, them out makes an auto bid already negotiated that much easier to achieve. Plus FSU and Clemson are the only teams in any conference asking for unbalanced revenue, so the rest of the conference is probably like, yeah go'an git.
@@jpDragna a) While the B1G sees expansion as a charity, the SEC sees expansion as a mutual honor and has no history of partial shares. b) No school of high interest to both the SEC and B1G is likely to be offered a partial, as that risks losing the target to the other. c) As things stand, UNC and CLEMSON will likely get full SEC shares once UNC is able to move. FSU likely only has the B1G as a P2 buyer, so I can easily see only a partial to emphasize where FSU would be in the order of status in that conference. d) MIAMI appears to have allied with ND for a future package when/if ND is willing and able.
UNC has not been timid; they need approval from the Board of Governors to pursue litigation or reach a settlement with the ACC. In my opinion, there is no harm in UNC waiting until a settlement is reached before taking that route. It is just more complicated in North Carolina.
@@brandonstrickland580 In the delusional world of FSU, I suppose TX, OK, USC and UCLA were all "timid". FSU is loud because it doesn't know any better.
The contract states 500 million, ACC commish said no short cuts. Why would the ACC let arbitration settle for them after what fs and Clemson caused hardship and disruption within the conference .
ACC needs to focus on growth financial and expansion. We know FSU and Clemson are done. The bottom line product is the acc must play program considered the best and win. That's what make the money. Jim Phillips wake up.
@@terryrich4889 a) To where is CLEMSON going if only FSU is also leaving? b) There are no feasible additive expansion options until the ACC depletes out to the SEC/B1G, after which the baseline drops. What has Phillips failed to do that would have been both feasible and effective?
ESPN states 15 members to maintain the contract. He need to have teams line up, to add on. I would have took Oregon st and Washington state, kansas or unlv, thier all D1, with some value.
@@jansonroberts2616 worded it in a way he’ll never technically never be wrong because that’s just what people do now, but his whole thing was that he “wouldn’t be surprised” if the announcements for teams leaving the conference and basically ending it occurred before kick off.
To be fair, NCSTATE is a solid football competitor and has improved in both academics and overall athletics over the years. UNC is just the far bigger brand, so NCSTATE likely needs for the SEC and B1G to go to ~24 each to make the cut.
@@jenifersantinole Just a reminder that FSU pushed for the expansions with VATECH, BC, CUSE & PITT. FSU also agreed to tentpole ACC football when it joined.
I am no lawyer, but having dealt with multiple corporation lawsuits, It would better for the party filing to break ties with the party being sued to prevent further damage. Plus 95% of the lawsuit never make it to a court case. I am pretty sure there is a back door settlement on the table as long as FSU and Clemson don't leave before Jun 30th look in deadline. If not, why wouldn't FSU and Clemson leave and just blow up the ACC.
The problem with what’s being said here is that ESPN has to sign a new contract with the ACC soon why would the ACC allow that to happen while still in court with both FSU and Clemson and uncertainty surrounding the ACC
I'm sorry I'm still trying to figure out why Clemson is relevant in these conversations, and who the hell does Clemson think wants to share their revenue with a podunk little school in the backwoods of upstate South Carolina. They caught lightning in a bottle with Dabo the last decade and took advantage of a weak ACC to propel them to national relevance because they were the only thing worth looking at in the ACC for a while last decade. But where were they before Dabo and, more importantly, where will they be after? They have historically been terrible at basketball as well, so what do they have to offer a big conference long term. Their TV market sucks. They are not in a major TV market and South Carolina is the 23rd most populous state and the SEC already has it. They are a state school that is not even the state’s flagship university. When we are talking about Florida St., while the SEC already has their state as well, we are talking about the 3rd most populous state in the country. When we are talking Virginia, we are talking the 12th most populous state that neither the Big Ten or SEC has as well as the DC Metro area. When we are talking about UNC, we are talking about one of the Top 5 basketball programs in the country and the 9th most populous state and a huge TV market in Raleigh-Durham, in fact I think UNC is that best prize of all in the ACC right now. Those three bring something to the table. Clemson brings the final years of Dabo Swinney, who now won’t even recruit out of the portal…haha, and that is about it.
First, just a reminder that the "weak" ACC still prepared CLEMSON to win playoff games and a couple of championships, something that the BIG12 failed to do for OK. Second, I generally agree about CLEMSON. It's not a blue in football but rather a lite blue. It's a low brand inertia #2 in a smaller SEC flagged state with no notable academics nor overall sports. The good news is that I suspect CLEMSON realizes this and that its best chance is allying with UNC and selling the package and synergies to the SEC, something that I maintain is the strategy. Third, fortune appears to also be on CLEMSON's side, as I suspect FSU's scorched earth tactics has effectively eliminated it from SEC consideration, increasing the chances for CLEMSON.
@@tarheel7406 Tarheel I am confused why are you half-defending Clemson and why you put their name in all caps. I am not fan of the Big 12/Allstate 12, whatever they are nowadays. But as far as football is concerned, which I wouldn't think you would care about as much, the ACC was weak last decade. I mean you have to admit that Miami, Fla St. VT all struggled greatly. What prepared the taters were those $17mil checks they got for going to the Orange Bowl as the ACC lone rep in the NY6 bowls. They took that money and spent it on coordinators, Chad Morris & Brent Venables, who were the highest paid coordinators in college football at that time. They kept that momentum going and Dabo, even though he is a cornball, was a great salesman in recruiting. That turned into 2 natties last decade. I wouldn't say it was because the ACC prepared them. Your team is probably going to the SEC and I think you're going to paired with Kansas because the SEC's next agenda is to grow their basketball brand. I hear Fla St. is going to the Big Ten, maybe with Virginia or maybe with ND, I also hear they might be indie for a while like the Golden Domers. But neither the Big Ten or SEC want to add a lot of new teams because they don't want to share that money pot. Illinois' AD came out and essentially said they are worried that some of the lesser brands in the big conferences are concerned they might be lopped off in the coming years. If you don't bring something to the table they don't want you.
@@steveaustin3125 a) I'm intellectually honest, so I defend accordingly. b) I put schools and conferences in ALL CAPS to differentiate. Something I decided on early in this story due to some confusion. c) Measured by the 4-team playoff, the ACC was #2 coming into this realignment. d) CLEMSON won playoff games when the BIG12 (and PAC) teams generally did not. OK was 0-4? e) A windfall of some delay is that UNC is now leaning SEC when it would have gone B1G ~1 year ago or before. f) I maintain that the SEC has agreed to take CLEMSON to secure UNC. UVA is the other top target. DUKE or KANSAS would be a +1. g) UVA has gone dark. Not sure what its position is currently. h) ND is too entangled to leave the ACC in the near foreseeable. Not a firm position, but I can see the B1G standing pat until ND, UVA and/or UNC is either secured or lost. I'm near 100% confident that the SEC stands pat until UNC is either secure or lost.
@@tarheel7406 OK, but Clemson isn't going to the SEC except for maybe one reason. The SEC doesn't need to secure anybody to bring someone else aboard. I don't know what part of North Carolina you are from, but I know Tarheels don't want to play with a bunch of Yankees in the Big Ten and never did. I know there has been an influx of said Yankees into the Golden Triangle lately, but that fanbase's core is pure vinegar based southern! The only reason Clemson does go to the SEC is if ESPN convinced the SEC that they might as well take them while they are still living off the fumes of last decade, because it will all be a moot point anyway in a few years because they plan to introduce relegation into college football to get rid of the lower tier teams already in the conferences that way ESPN can make even more money, which is a discussion for another time.
@@steveaustin3125 a) UNC will have a P2 choice, so it has some leverage to name reasonable +1(s). b) UNC has been leaning B1G for decades when/if. That isn't really in dispute notwithstanding fan/donor preferences. c) Chapel Hill is on the vinegar side of the Burlington BBQ "wall". I would have preferred it be a West Berlin in that context. d) Again, the SEC takes CLEMSON at the request of and to secure UNC. e) I see no relegation or kicking of members. A VANDY may opt out of this new environment.
This big-12 gaslighting has gone in- sane. No, the big-12 is not the 3rd best conference nor has the big-12 ever had any sustained periods of stability after always being unstable with a revolving door of P5 teams leaving & G5 teams added. Stability because nobody else wants these schools? Brett Yormark must be great at marketing. If you just keep saying things alot it must be true. The big-12 had the least 1st round and total NFL draft picks of any P5 conference. Lowest aggregate revenue as a conference and self owned network. The Division I Directors' Cup Standings indicates just one big-12 school even made it into the top 25. Only one. This is the metric school athletic departments are judged on in totality.
BIG12 fans completely discount things like overall athletics (easily measured by the D-Cup) and academics while the other P4s do value to some material degree. I haven't updated for this season: 2023 Final D-Cup Standings: ACC: 3 Top 10, 7 Top 20 (includes ND & STANFORD) B12: 0 Top 10, 0 Top 20 (excludes Texas) B1G: 2 Top 10, 5 Top 20 (includes USC and UCLA) PAC: 0 Top 10, 0 Top 20 (excludes USC, UCLA & STANFORD) SEC: 5 Top 10, 8 Top 20 (includes Texas) Schools that finished 8x or more in the D-Cup Top 10 (1993/4 - 2022/23) ACC: 4 (STANFORD, UNC, UVA, CAL) SEC: 3 (TEXAS, FLORIDA, GEORGIA) B1G: 5 (UCLA, MICH, USC, OHSTATE, PSU) B12: 1 (ARIZ)
@@tarheel7406 The Directors Cup is a likely indicator of the total strength of the Schools Athletics program, Budget, management of resources and spending power based on programs that they can afford to field. big-12 schools often have the least amount of programs, lowest athletic budgets, lowest endowments and lowest academic prestige. Not disparaging these schools it's just the truth.
@@rx2878 I measure prestige as the number of upper right members, i.e. schools that are top-level in both academics and overall sports. Having a lot of highly competitive non-revenue sports tends to correlate with high academics. The BIG12 has no upper right members with the loss of TEXAS. The Wiki lists the schools that have finished Top 10 D-Cup 8x or more, which I admittedly separate into the blues (20x or more) and lite blues (8-19x). The blues are either STANFORD, an original public ivy, or a current OPI equivalent (FLORIDA). I see that the Wiki list has been updated, so I will check again for the 2023-24 official results.
@@rx2878 BAMA isn't on the list of 8x or more Top 10. The SEC also sponsors the fewest number of sports among the P5 (now P4). I did update my Top 10 & 20 for the past 2 seasons: 2022/23 - 2023/24 Final D-Cup Standings: ACC: 6 Top 10, 14 Top 20 (includes ND, STANFORD & CAL) B12: 0 Top 10, 1 Top 20 (excludes TEXAS & TXAM) B1G: 4 Top 10, 9 Top 20 (includes USC and UCLA) PAC: 0 Top 10, 0 Top 20 (excludes USC, UCLA, STANFORD & CAL) SEC: 10 Top 10, 16 Top 20 (includes TEXAS & TXAM) FYI... My general reference for overall sports and athletics (which doesn't change much or quickly) is the graph at the ~11-minute mark in the vid titled: "Big 12 Expansion Stats and Facts Breakdown | Conference Realignment | Tony Altimore x 365 Sports" If I draw the academic line at TEXAS and the athletic line at WASH, the upper rights per conference: ACC (6): UVA, UNC, ND, DUKE, CAL, STANFORD B1G (5): WISC, MICH, UCLA, USC, WASH SEC (2): TEXAS, FLORIDA
Tar Heel at least you acknowledge Florida St will have a home so that is an improvement. As for Clemson, they are in better shape then your Tar Heels. Unless ESPN j helps them get to the SEC, UNC looks like they will be stuck in the ACC for at least another five years.
@@davidbrown386 a) I have FSU 50/50 to the B1G or BIG12. The latter is a downgrade. b) CLEMSON is in far worse shape than UNC. CLEMSON likely has no interest from the B1G and needs a coattail by UNC to the SEC. UNC will have its choice when/if.
When and if are the correct words. It might very well be the ACC until the 2030’s for UNC. Why? ESPN can keep televising UNC football & more importantly basketball games at a far lower price then they would in the SEC. As for the Big 10 when it comes to expansion, they get one pick and Fox gets one pick. So it might be the Big 10 takes FSU & Fox Clemson:
@@davidbrown386 a) UNC's value is high and diversified, unlike FSU and very unlike CLEMSON. UNC can tolerate the revenue gap better and longer ~and~ both the SEC and B1G will always make room. b) Both FSU and CLEMSON would likely wither on B1G islands. FSU is arrogant and doesn't see this. CLEMSON is likely far wiser. c) No broadcaster will be able to force an unwanted forever expansion. I see next to zero chance that the B1G takes CLEMSON.
@@davidbrown386 B1G isn’t expanding anytime soon. Neither is the SEC. There is a reason why no ACC institutions have officially announced their intention to leave the conference. The court cases will have to play out and eventually the official announcements will come. Some fan bases have worked themselves into a frenzy but that doesn’t change how this plays out in any meaningful way.
Two thoughts on why the SEC is publicly claiming it does not want FSU (but would take some of the Triangle schools): (1) The powers that be in the SEC don’t want to further loosen their grip on conference hierarchy by bringing on FSU. Only ND rivals FSU’s football power rating on a national level. Claims that FSU doesn’t add to the bottom line is rank pretense. UNC, by contrast, is a lightweight so no harm in accommodating them to counter the swelling B1G even if such a move doesn’t make economic sense. The “new state” model is a head fake - it’s a stale metric given how college football is consumed. FSU is a national brand with top 10 eyeballs on a consistent basis. Viewership for FSU/LSU the past two years says it all. If you believe the SEC doesn’t want to own that, then I have a bridge to sell you. (2) ESPN can’t afford to take on premier football programs given its financial troubles (especially after taking on TX and Okla). UNC - which is currently a financial and organizational mess - comes cheap whereas FSU commands top dollar. The ESPN/SEC media machine will never admit this but it deserves attention.
a) The SEC has rejected FSU many times over a number of decades. Its position isn't new and has been known since Day 1 of this story. b) It's very likely that UNC will get a full share in either the SEC or B1G, while FSU will have to settle on a partial.
@@tarheel7406 Oh you don't know anything... Bowden turned down the SEC not the other way around.. And UNC who has never done anything in football. UNC can't even average a million viewers. Pathetic
@@fface5727 a) Bowden had a voice, not a vote. b) UNC has passed on SEC and/or B1G overtures for decades. FSU has been rejected or not even contacted. Again, this is a problem for FSU and its fans. They don't know where FSU actually stands or viewed by the major players.
I agree with Kenton that Clemson & Florida St are not leaving until 2026 at the earliest. The problem becomes when and if all of the “Dirty Laundry” comes out. Swofford & RAYCOM & the ESPN contract as examples of this.Unless the ACC KNOWS not THINKS, KNOWS they can hold them until 2036, the question becomes is it worth keeping Clemson & Florida St for an extra year or two? I think the answer is no.
a) Is the ACC acting in a way that it's worried about any "dirty laundry"? b) Again, to where is CLEMSON going if FSU is the only other member leaving?
I've been saying that forever. Especially if it;s SEC. The SEC schedule is already set for this year and 25 at 8 conference games. Now CU and FSU could serve notice or settle to leave by Fall 26 at any time. Announcing a notice and actually leaving are two different things.
@@davidbrown386 a) For how long and by how many reporters must it be reported that the SEC sees CLEMSON and FSU as disposable and not the top expansion priorities? b) The B1G will invite a low brand inertia #2 in a smaller state already flagged by the SEC with no notable academics nor overall sports?
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - สาวสอง ( มีมี่ของอ้าย ) ft. ตาต้า,ต้องเต [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mqlMjnP08XI/mqdefault.jpg)
Go NOLES 🔥🏈🏆
FSU and Clemson are getting out. The matter at hand is how much it will cost. The case doesn't need to be over for FSU or Clemson deciding to leave. Yes, the case is in its infancy. Yes, the case will last another year or two. Yes, the appeal will continue at least another year or two after that. The test is not the case. The test is how ACC responds to losing their deal with ESPN after 2026. That is what will determine whether or not ACC results have more in common with Pac12 or Big12.
The ACC isn’t losing their deal with ESPN. ESPN has the SEC, the ACC and a share of the Big12. That’s it for content.
Why would ESPN not renew the deal?
CAL+2 would not have been added without ESPN approval and assurances.
I don't know why anyone thought this thing was gonna happen this year. We live in a country with a broken justice system. It's not about who's right, but who has the most money to file appeals. This is pudding proof, we're getting appeals and challenges before the trial is even starting. Assume things finally happen, both sides have the option to appeal further and further up appellate courts.
They will be in another conference in 2025
He acts like the case has to be over in order for FSU and Clemson to give notice they are leaving. Which isn’t true
But giving notice and literally leaving are not the same thing
@@LockedOnCollegeFootball right but they give notice by Aug 15th, they are gone for the 2025 season. Lawsuit can still continue.
@@tpp0230 But then ACC could appeal and draw it out even further, not sure if courts allow them to leave if there's an appeal about whether they actually can
Of course, any ACC member can pay the stated exit fee and leave. As things stand, the question would be to go where? Neither the SEC nor B1G would invite without the rights to home games. The BIG12 might. That leaves indy?
Kenton being ACC dude didn’t have his facts correct. SMU joins the ACC July 1, Calford joins Aug 2. Also no team having left a conference has not left and not taken their tv rights. I don’t see FSU & Clemson leaving without a settlement and not until the 2026 season. IMO the key to this is if ESPN renews the media deal and if ESPN wants FSU & Clemson to stay under their umbrella in the SEC. Also ESPN does not their ACC media contract exposed in FL court. If ESPN wants FSU & Clemson in the SEC then they have to private the SEC to take them and that comes in 3 ways. a. ESPN covers cost of paying Clemson & FSU at full shares b. ESPN also covers full shares cost to also add UNC & UVA. c. With 4 more schools, SEC will demand that ESPN pay more for 9th conference games and will want ESPN to match B1G per team tv payout. ESPN will then partner with TNT on the added SEC tv inventory to help cover the addition SEC cost. B1G will then have to decide , if Miami, Duke or GT are worth adding and or if they can convince ND to join with then. If at least 2 more ACC schools leave for B1G after 4 go to SEC, then 4 more will leave for the B12. ACC will then be on verge of collapse. With 7 schools left, ESPN & TNT will then encourage the ACC to expand and get to 12. 14 or 16 and keep ACC P4. ACC would try to get WSU/OSU, SDSU, CSU, Air Force, Tulane, Memphis, USF and UTSA,
I agree with you about Kenton Cal & Stanford do not join the ACC until August. Assuming there is no settlement, when it comes to the ACC and the ESPN contract there are four scenarios. 1: ESPN extends as is. 2: ESPN walks away. 3: ESPN & the ACC renegotiate to a lower number: 4: ESPN & the ACC agree to defer until all lawsuits end. This I think is the most likely option. Why? It gives ESPN a better idea of what the ACC value is.
There is no purpose for an even larger and wider Tier 2 BIG12.
@@tarheel7406ACC schools would only go to the B12 if the SEC & B1G take enough schools to destabilize the conference, lower future per school payouts than the B12 and they don’t want to be in a conference restocked with G5 schools. If its’s just Clemson & FSU leaving, and ESPN renews the ACC media deal and they backfill with USF, Tulane & Memphis and possibly an SDSU, they will stay P4.
I do not agree. Why? If the AVC gets lucky snd only loses Clemson & FSU, there is no need to expand. Why? If you go back to the additions of Cal, Stanford & SMU, UNC ( with Clemson & FSU) voted no. You don’t want to aggravate UNC by adding more schools
@@Mr.Ed_Wayner
a) To where is CLEMSON going if FSU is the only other leaving?
b) Not sure how you missed it, but the ACC has already preemptively backfilled with CAL+2.
c) If Tier 2 ACC flight risks also go to the SEC/B1G (a heavy depletion), then what the then P5 remainders (including the then BIG12) do won't matter at the top-level for football. Those remainders should still amicably realign into smaller 9-12 member regionals.
This isn’t about keeping FSU/Clemson anymore. There is no patching up this relationship and a $$ settlement will come eventually. This is about scaring UNC and Miami in place as they have been timid through this process. Then leveraging them to build something that might compete against the B12 for the best tier 2 conference. And stalling …buying the ACC time to adjust and survive
Don't mistake being publicly quiet as much as possible with being timid.
I wouldn't even assume it's to scare Miami. I think it's far more likely Miami is either idle if not actively assisting the ACC. The conference money teams in the B1G and SEC have looks great, but do you think they're giving equal value to all new members? At this point in the game? At best Clemson and FSU get deals like USC and the rest of the Pac 12 got. What's not talked about enough is that those teams are getting $30 million, with stacked increases until the end of their current deal (2029-2030) that still won't get them to the $60 million current members receive (yes lowly Indiana will receive twice as much as Oregon in media rights money. That's a best case scenario for FSU and Clemson. Miami is not Clemson or FSU despite their brand recognition. They're not getting more from the SEC/B1G even if those conferences did want Miami. The Big 12 might be in a weaker negotiating position where that move makes sense, but not with the grant of rights in place.
For Miami just sitting makes sense. They're getting more than some of the best teams in the country in media rights money. I don't know that the numbers for Texas/Oklahoma were revealed in the same way as the Pac 12 teams in the B1G were, and Big 12 is already behind the ACC despite having what should be a better contract. There was something like a $200-300 million difference between Big 12 and ACC, and that was with Oklahoma and Texas still in the conference. Even if that wasn't enough, clearly Miami at least feels comfortable with the investments from their NIL collectives. They also don't have to invest in lengthy and expensive lawsuits. From their perspective the increasing gaps isn't actually looking that bad as plenty of teams WITHIN the B1G will be feeling that pressure for at least the next 5 years as well. I don't know that they care about FSU or Clemson staying in the conference, them out makes an auto bid already negotiated that much easier to achieve. Plus FSU and Clemson are the only teams in any conference asking for unbalanced revenue, so the rest of the conference is probably like, yeah go'an git.
@@jpDragna
a) While the B1G sees expansion as a charity, the SEC sees expansion as a mutual honor and has no history of partial shares.
b) No school of high interest to both the SEC and B1G is likely to be offered a partial, as that risks losing the target to the other.
c) As things stand, UNC and CLEMSON will likely get full SEC shares once UNC is able to move. FSU likely only has the B1G as a P2 buyer, so I can easily see only a partial to emphasize where FSU would be in the order of status in that conference.
d) MIAMI appears to have allied with ND for a future package when/if ND is willing and able.
UNC has not been timid; they need approval from the Board of Governors to pursue litigation or reach a settlement with the ACC. In my opinion, there is no harm in UNC waiting until a settlement is reached before taking that route. It is just more complicated in North Carolina.
@@brandonstrickland580 In the delusional world of FSU, I suppose TX, OK, USC and UCLA were all "timid". FSU is loud because it doesn't know any better.
The contract states 500 million, ACC commish said no short cuts. Why would the ACC let arbitration settle for them after what fs and Clemson caused hardship and disruption within the conference .
Agreed. The question isn't just what a judicially capitalized exit fee and GOR buyback would be, but also the counterclaims by the ACC.
ACC needs to focus on growth financial and expansion. We know FSU and Clemson are done. The bottom line product is the acc must play program considered the best and win. That's what make the money. Jim Phillips wake up.
@@terryrich4889
a) To where is CLEMSON going if only FSU is also leaving?
b) There are no feasible additive expansion options until the ACC depletes out to the SEC/B1G, after which the baseline drops.
What has Phillips failed to do that would have been both feasible and effective?
ESPN states 15 members to maintain the contract. He need to have teams line up, to add on. I would have took Oregon st and Washington state, kansas or unlv, thier all D1, with some value.
This video is going to be pretty funny if what Josh Pate is claiming happens soon.
Did Pate actually put a time line to it?
@@jansonroberts2616 before the start of the season
@@Conorj398thanks.
@@jansonroberts2616 worded it in a way he’ll never technically never be wrong because that’s just what people do now, but his whole thing was that he “wouldn’t be surprised” if the announcements for teams leaving the conference and basically ending it occurred before kick off.
Tell me you’re talking out of your mass without telling me.
Well if it’s going to be after two more football seasons can we stop talking bout it . Who cares anything can happen in 2 years
Meh
Is this dude worried NCState has to get a job and start actually winning things in football and stop riding FSU and CU's coat tails?.🤣
His bias shows ever so badly. He should just come out and say it instead of being a fake.
To be fair, NCSTATE is a solid football competitor and has improved in both academics and overall athletics over the years. UNC is just the far bigger brand, so NCSTATE likely needs for the SEC and B1G to go to ~24 each to make the cut.
This part fsu has funded these losers long enough
@@jenifersantinole Just a reminder that FSU pushed for the expansions with VATECH, BC, CUSE & PITT. FSU also agreed to tentpole ACC football when it joined.
I am no lawyer, but having dealt with multiple corporation lawsuits, It would better for the party filing to break ties with the party being sued to prevent further damage. Plus 95% of the lawsuit never make it to a court case. I am pretty sure there is a back door settlement on the table as long as FSU and Clemson don't leave before Jun 30th look in deadline. If not, why wouldn't FSU and Clemson leave and just blow up the ACC.
Leave and go where?
The problem with what’s being said here is that ESPN has to sign a new contract with the ACC soon why would the ACC allow that to happen while still in court with both FSU and Clemson and uncertainty surrounding the ACC
Why would ESPN have to sign a new agreement? They’ve got an agreement already in place.
@@jansonroberts2616 We really need to find out if this event is a unilateral renewal or a "look in".
I'm sorry I'm still trying to figure out why Clemson is relevant in these conversations, and who the hell does Clemson think wants to share their revenue with a podunk little school in the backwoods of upstate South Carolina. They caught lightning in a bottle with Dabo the last decade and took advantage of a weak ACC to propel them to national relevance because they were the only thing worth looking at in the ACC for a while last decade. But where were they before Dabo and, more importantly, where will they be after? They have historically been terrible at basketball as well, so what do they have to offer a big conference long term. Their TV market sucks. They are not in a major TV market and South Carolina is the 23rd most populous state and the SEC already has it. They are a state school that is not even the state’s flagship university. When we are talking about Florida St., while the SEC already has their state as well, we are talking about the 3rd most populous state in the country. When we are talking Virginia, we are talking the 12th most populous state that neither the Big Ten or SEC has as well as the DC Metro area. When we are talking about UNC, we are talking about one of the Top 5 basketball programs in the country and the 9th most populous state and a huge TV market in Raleigh-Durham, in fact I think UNC is that best prize of all in the ACC right now. Those three bring something to the table. Clemson brings the final years of Dabo Swinney, who now won’t even recruit out of the portal…haha, and that is about it.
First, just a reminder that the "weak" ACC still prepared CLEMSON to win playoff games and a couple of championships, something that the BIG12 failed to do for OK.
Second, I generally agree about CLEMSON. It's not a blue in football but rather a lite blue. It's a low brand inertia #2 in a smaller SEC flagged state with no notable academics nor overall sports. The good news is that I suspect CLEMSON realizes this and that its best chance is allying with UNC and selling the package and synergies to the SEC, something that I maintain is the strategy.
Third, fortune appears to also be on CLEMSON's side, as I suspect FSU's scorched earth tactics has effectively eliminated it from SEC consideration, increasing the chances for CLEMSON.
@@tarheel7406 Tarheel I am confused why are you half-defending Clemson and why you put their name in all caps. I am not fan of the Big 12/Allstate 12, whatever they are nowadays. But as far as football is concerned, which I wouldn't think you would care about as much, the ACC was weak last decade. I mean you have to admit that Miami, Fla St. VT all struggled greatly. What prepared the taters were those $17mil checks they got for going to the Orange Bowl as the ACC lone rep in the NY6 bowls. They took that money and spent it on coordinators, Chad Morris & Brent Venables, who were the highest paid coordinators in college football at that time. They kept that momentum going and Dabo, even though he is a cornball, was a great salesman in recruiting. That turned into 2 natties last decade. I wouldn't say it was because the ACC prepared them. Your team is probably going to the SEC and I think you're going to paired with Kansas because the SEC's next agenda is to grow their basketball brand. I hear Fla St. is going to the Big Ten, maybe with Virginia or maybe with ND, I also hear they might be indie for a while like the Golden Domers. But neither the Big Ten or SEC want to add a lot of new teams because they don't want to share that money pot. Illinois' AD came out and essentially said they are worried that some of the lesser brands in the big conferences are concerned they might be lopped off in the coming years. If you don't bring something to the table they don't want you.
@@steveaustin3125
a) I'm intellectually honest, so I defend accordingly.
b) I put schools and conferences in ALL CAPS to differentiate. Something I decided on early in this story due to some confusion.
c) Measured by the 4-team playoff, the ACC was #2 coming into this realignment.
d) CLEMSON won playoff games when the BIG12 (and PAC) teams generally did not. OK was 0-4?
e) A windfall of some delay is that UNC is now leaning SEC when it would have gone B1G ~1 year ago or before.
f) I maintain that the SEC has agreed to take CLEMSON to secure UNC. UVA is the other top target. DUKE or KANSAS would be a +1.
g) UVA has gone dark. Not sure what its position is currently.
h) ND is too entangled to leave the ACC in the near foreseeable.
Not a firm position, but I can see the B1G standing pat until ND, UVA and/or UNC is either secured or lost. I'm near 100% confident that the SEC stands pat until UNC is either secure or lost.
@@tarheel7406 OK, but Clemson isn't going to the SEC except for maybe one reason. The SEC doesn't need to secure anybody to bring someone else aboard. I don't know what part of North Carolina you are from, but I know Tarheels don't want to play with a bunch of Yankees in the Big Ten and never did. I know there has been an influx of said Yankees into the Golden Triangle lately, but that fanbase's core is pure vinegar based southern! The only reason Clemson does go to the SEC is if ESPN convinced the SEC that they might as well take them while they are still living off the fumes of last decade, because it will all be a moot point anyway in a few years because they plan to introduce relegation into college football to get rid of the lower tier teams already in the conferences that way ESPN can make even more money, which is a discussion for another time.
@@steveaustin3125
a) UNC will have a P2 choice, so it has some leverage to name reasonable +1(s).
b) UNC has been leaning B1G for decades when/if. That isn't really in dispute notwithstanding fan/donor preferences.
c) Chapel Hill is on the vinegar side of the Burlington BBQ "wall". I would have preferred it be a West Berlin in that context.
d) Again, the SEC takes CLEMSON at the request of and to secure UNC.
e) I see no relegation or kicking of members. A VANDY may opt out of this new environment.
This big-12 gaslighting has gone in- sane. No, the big-12 is not the 3rd best conference nor has the big-12 ever had any sustained periods of stability after always being unstable with a revolving door of P5 teams leaving & G5 teams added. Stability because nobody else wants these schools? Brett Yormark must be great at marketing. If you just keep saying things alot it must be true.
The big-12 had the least 1st round and total NFL draft picks of any P5 conference. Lowest aggregate revenue as a conference and self owned network.
The Division I Directors' Cup Standings indicates just one big-12 school even made it into the top 25. Only one. This is the metric school athletic departments are judged on in totality.
BIG12 fans completely discount things like overall athletics (easily measured by the D-Cup) and academics while the other P4s do value to some material degree. I haven't updated for this season:
2023 Final D-Cup Standings:
ACC: 3 Top 10, 7 Top 20 (includes ND & STANFORD)
B12: 0 Top 10, 0 Top 20 (excludes Texas)
B1G: 2 Top 10, 5 Top 20 (includes USC and UCLA)
PAC: 0 Top 10, 0 Top 20 (excludes USC, UCLA & STANFORD)
SEC: 5 Top 10, 8 Top 20 (includes Texas)
Schools that finished 8x or more in the D-Cup Top 10 (1993/4 - 2022/23)
ACC: 4 (STANFORD, UNC, UVA, CAL)
SEC: 3 (TEXAS, FLORIDA, GEORGIA)
B1G: 5 (UCLA, MICH, USC, OHSTATE, PSU)
B12: 1 (ARIZ)
@@tarheel7406 The Directors Cup is a likely indicator of the total strength of the Schools Athletics program, Budget, management of resources and spending power based on programs that they can afford to field. big-12 schools often have the least amount of programs, lowest athletic budgets, lowest endowments and lowest academic prestige. Not disparaging these schools it's just the truth.
@@rx2878 I measure prestige as the number of upper right members, i.e. schools that are top-level in both academics and overall sports. Having a lot of highly competitive non-revenue sports tends to correlate with high academics. The BIG12 has no upper right members with the loss of TEXAS.
The Wiki lists the schools that have finished Top 10 D-Cup 8x or more, which I admittedly separate into the blues (20x or more) and lite blues (8-19x). The blues are either STANFORD, an original public ivy, or a current OPI equivalent (FLORIDA).
I see that the Wiki list has been updated, so I will check again for the 2023-24 official results.
@@tarheel7406 High academically inclined indeed. Alabama and the usual suspects faired well as well. All in all definitely have a correlation there.
@@rx2878 BAMA isn't on the list of 8x or more Top 10. The SEC also sponsors the fewest number of sports among the P5 (now P4). I did update my Top 10 & 20 for the past 2 seasons:
2022/23 - 2023/24 Final D-Cup Standings:
ACC: 6 Top 10, 14 Top 20 (includes ND, STANFORD & CAL)
B12: 0 Top 10, 1 Top 20 (excludes TEXAS & TXAM)
B1G: 4 Top 10, 9 Top 20 (includes USC and UCLA)
PAC: 0 Top 10, 0 Top 20 (excludes USC, UCLA, STANFORD & CAL)
SEC: 10 Top 10, 16 Top 20 (includes TEXAS & TXAM)
FYI... My general reference for overall sports and athletics (which doesn't change much or quickly) is the graph at the ~11-minute mark in the vid titled:
"Big 12 Expansion Stats and Facts Breakdown | Conference Realignment | Tony Altimore x 365 Sports"
If I draw the academic line at TEXAS and the athletic line at WASH, the upper rights per conference:
ACC (6): UVA, UNC, ND, DUKE, CAL, STANFORD
B1G (5): WISC, MICH, UCLA, USC, WASH
SEC (2): TEXAS, FLORIDA
Again, to where is CLEMSON going if FSU is the only other member leaving?
Tar Heel at least you acknowledge Florida St will have a home so that is an improvement. As for Clemson, they are in better shape then your Tar Heels. Unless ESPN j helps them get to the SEC, UNC looks like they will be stuck in the ACC for at least another five years.
@@davidbrown386
a) I have FSU 50/50 to the B1G or BIG12. The latter is a downgrade.
b) CLEMSON is in far worse shape than UNC. CLEMSON likely has no interest from the B1G and needs a coattail by UNC to the SEC. UNC will have its choice when/if.
When and if are the correct words. It might very well be the ACC until the 2030’s for UNC. Why? ESPN can keep televising UNC football & more importantly basketball games at a far lower price then they would in the SEC. As for the Big 10 when it comes to expansion, they get one pick and Fox gets one pick. So it might be the Big 10 takes FSU & Fox Clemson:
@@davidbrown386
a) UNC's value is high and diversified, unlike FSU and very unlike CLEMSON. UNC can tolerate the revenue gap better and longer ~and~ both the SEC and B1G will always make room.
b) Both FSU and CLEMSON would likely wither on B1G islands. FSU is arrogant and doesn't see this. CLEMSON is likely far wiser.
c) No broadcaster will be able to force an unwanted forever expansion. I see next to zero chance that the B1G takes CLEMSON.
@@davidbrown386 B1G isn’t expanding anytime soon. Neither is the SEC. There is a reason why no ACC institutions have officially announced their intention to leave the conference. The court cases will have to play out and eventually the official announcements will come. Some fan bases have worked themselves into a frenzy but that doesn’t change how this plays out in any meaningful way.
Two thoughts on why the SEC is publicly claiming it does not want FSU (but would take some of the Triangle schools):
(1) The powers that be in the SEC don’t want to further loosen their grip on conference hierarchy by bringing on FSU. Only ND rivals FSU’s football power rating on a national level. Claims that FSU doesn’t add to the bottom line is rank pretense. UNC, by contrast, is a lightweight so no harm in accommodating them to counter the swelling B1G even if such a move doesn’t make economic sense. The “new state” model is a head fake - it’s a stale metric given how college football is consumed. FSU is a national brand with top 10 eyeballs on a consistent basis. Viewership for FSU/LSU the past two years says it all. If you believe the SEC doesn’t want to own that, then I have a bridge to sell you.
(2) ESPN can’t afford to take on premier football programs given its financial troubles (especially after taking on TX and Okla). UNC - which is currently a financial and organizational mess - comes cheap whereas FSU commands top dollar. The ESPN/SEC media machine will never admit this but it deserves attention.
a) The SEC has rejected FSU many times over a number of decades. Its position isn't new and has been known since Day 1 of this story.
b) It's very likely that UNC will get a full share in either the SEC or B1G, while FSU will have to settle on a partial.
FSU is below Miami
How about an actual link to where the SEC has publicly stated anything in regard to rejecting or accepting anyone? SMH.
@@tarheel7406 Oh you don't know anything... Bowden turned down the SEC not the other way around.. And UNC who has never done anything in football. UNC can't even average a million viewers. Pathetic
@@fface5727
a) Bowden had a voice, not a vote.
b) UNC has passed on SEC and/or B1G overtures for decades. FSU has been rejected or not even contacted.
Again, this is a problem for FSU and its fans. They don't know where FSU actually stands or viewed by the major players.
Yeah, I don’t see them leaving prior to 2026 at the earliest no later than 2027 though
Kenton went from ironclad to now they’ll be there till at least 25
I agree with Kenton that Clemson & Florida St are not leaving until 2026 at the earliest. The problem becomes when and if all of the “Dirty Laundry” comes out. Swofford & RAYCOM & the ESPN contract as examples of this.Unless the ACC KNOWS not THINKS, KNOWS they can hold them until 2036, the question becomes is it worth keeping Clemson & Florida St for an extra year or two? I think the answer is no.
a) Is the ACC acting in a way that it's worried about any "dirty laundry"?
b) Again, to where is CLEMSON going if FSU is the only other member leaving?
I've been saying that forever. Especially if it;s SEC. The SEC schedule is already set for this year and 25 at 8 conference games. Now CU and FSU could serve notice or settle to leave by Fall 26 at any time. Announcing a notice and actually leaving are two different things.
Clemson & Florida St can both go to the SEC or more likely the Big 10 when and IF they get control over their media rights.
@@davidbrown386
a) For how long and by how many reporters must it be reported that the SEC sees CLEMSON and FSU as disposable and not the top expansion priorities?
b) The B1G will invite a low brand inertia #2 in a smaller state already flagged by the SEC with no notable academics nor overall sports?
@@vistatiger7493To which, they’ve done neither. Very telling.
I. Am blocking yall lies