Clemson Sues ACC

[ns7]

100%. Most attractive assets to the SEC and B10 in order are: (1) UNC, (2) UVA, (3) FSU, (4) Clemson… wide gap, checks notes… (5) Miami … wide gap again, checks notes again… (6-7) NCSU or VT but only to the SEC if they can’t get UNC or NCSU, (8-9) probably us or GT but only to the B10.

Louisville is valuable, but only to the B12 (no way either of the SEC or B10 take it, footprint is small and already taken). This is the clear natural exit for them and will be shocked if it doesn’t happen if conference collapses.

Dead schools (and it kills me to say the first one) are Wake, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt. All would be lucky to get a B12 invite when it’s said and done, and probably will live in the zombie ACC for a while, likely with us, if this thing collapses.

Our best hope is if it does collapse, it’s only #1-4 departing and not 1-7 + Louisville to B12

FSU and Clemson have minimal value to the SEC because of UF and USC. Why would ESPN increase the contract size with no increase in the TV market?

Now for the B1G it's probably your order but I'd move Clemson below VT. Yes Clemson sells out their stadium. I know because I'm from SC and have been to Memorial Stadium many times. But that doesn't matter for a TV deal. Your market size matters, and SC is behind FL, VA, and NC in that regard.

[budwom]

FSU and Clemson aren't going anywhere until 2030(?) when they can afford to leave. The timing of this is an overreaction to the playoff announcement, and the college athletics landscape will look very different. You don't know if it will be a football-only split, in which case there are about 8-12 schools in the existing Big 10 and SEC that are toast, or all-sport split where Duke would fare better.

Duke's job in the next 3-5 years is to keep winning in football. The Leonard injury really cost Duke a golden opportunity. Duke, like UNC, UVA, etc., is attractive to Saturday night primetime when it has a good opponent. Otherwise, it ends up on ACCN or CW--just like UNC v. UVA, Miami v. GT, etc.

yeah, it's one overreaction after another. The ACC is in better shape than the Big 12, teams will have more money going forward. Many of the proposed scenarios don't make a lot of sense...the SEC doesn't need either Clemson or FSU, and neither is a good fit for the B1G. Funny thing is, Clemson should be careful what they wish for: how many playoffs will they be making if they're in the SEC? The same delusion that wounded South Carolina sports decades ago.

Nina has a good understanding of the landscape, and Duke has some cards it can play. Of the things I worry about, disbanding the ACC is near the bottom of my list.

[Mike Petrik]

Nina seems pretty confident the hull will hold, but I have no doubt she is considering all options...

The key word is "seems." Public statements are not always the most forthcoming or candid. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that it is hard to know.

[JasonEvans]

FSU and Clemson have minimal value to the SEC because of UF and USC. Why would ESPN increase the contract size with no increase in the TV market?

Now for the B1G it's probably your order but I'd move Clemson below VT. Yes Clemson sells out their stadium. I know because I'm from SC and have been to Memorial Stadium many times. But that doesn't matter for a TV deal. Your market size matters, and SC is behind FL, VA, and NC in that regard.

This line of thinking was true 3 or so years ago when TV revenues were based on cable subscriber numbers. That is simply not the future of TV anymore. Cable is dying and everyone knows it (look at the stock prices of the big cable TV channels like Disney, Warner Discovery, and AMC). What matters going forward is properties that people will pay to watch via streaming or some other kind of subscription. In that universe, the fact that Clemson has die-hard fans who want to watch them is super important. The fact that the SEC already has South Carolina doesn't mean they would not want Clemson because a whole lot of Clemson fans will pay $29.99 a month for a streaming package that provides them with all the football games for whatever conference Clemson is in and would not pay a cent to watch South Carolina's conference. It is why the SEC was falling all over itself to add Texas even though they already had Texas A&M.

[lotusland]

as long as you don't mind saying goodbye to a lot of our non revenue sports. UCONN doesn't have a home now (thank you, BC!) and there's nothing about them we need to join.

Goodbye? Do Big East teams have non-revenue sports? How about not chasing football $ like a sad and broke coke addict looking for free bump? Strive for National championship level basketball program and strive to win your own conference - against your actual peers- in everything else, including football. Sounds pretty ideal to me.

[throatybeard]

This line of thinking was true 3 or so years ago when TV revenues were based on cable subscriber numbers. That is simply not the future of TV anymore. Cable is dying and everyone knows it (look at the stock prices of the big cable TV channels like Disney, Warner Discovery, and AMC). What matters going forward is properties that people will pay to watch via streaming or some other kind of subscription. In that universe, the fact that Clemson has die-hard fans who want to watch them is super important. The fact that the SEC already has South Carolina doesn't mean they would not want Clemson because a whole lot of Clemson fans will pay $29.99 a month for a streaming package that provides them with all the football games for whatever conference Clemson is in and would not pay a cent to watch South Carolina's conference. It is why the SEC was falling all over itself to add Texas even though they already had Texas A&M.

If this breaks into a bunch of different streaming services, rather than linear TV on streaming like YTTV or DStream, then what's going to happen is they'll just lose a huge percentage of the fans.

Saint Louis City FC was a rousing success on the field in its first season, but they put their games on some premium tier of Apple TV. Like five people I know can see the games. No one else is buying that crap. And it's going to severely limit the success of the club after the in-person honeymoon period.

Sports has got to get this figured out, soon. Young people aren't adopting fandom because their parents cord cut ten years ago. These clubs are still presently fat off of Boom and X subscribers, but they're headed towards a demographic cliff because they refused to make their games readily available. MLB is the worst, but it's a problem everywhere.

[HoKogan]

The Miami metro area has more people than the entire state of SC. I'm sure Miami would bring that market in any realignment. That's what drives this process--how many eyeballs do you get when you pick up a team.

People keep making this mistake. Conference realignment was driven by market penetration a decade ago, but it is no longer. For any major college team, any game is on everywhere. I have live Hulu and have access to the B1G network, and the SEC network and there are no B1G or SEC schools in NC. Thats the reality of today's streaming and TV services. Conferences don't care about trying to get their networks in particular areas, they already are there.

This is about branding and marketability and IP and what advertisers find appealing. FSU claims to have a popular brand, so does Clemson. I'm not sure the teams in the SEC are willing to upset their current members for two brands that may not bring a large improvement to their bottom line. Its a different story for the BXII who would love to have teams with the pedigree of Clemson and FSU in their conference.

In a way, this is Duke's main hope for landing in a major conference if the ACC breaks up. Yes, football drives the conference realignment, but football is on just over 3 months out of the year. These conferences have other months to provide content, UNC and Duke would be far more important as basketball brands than football. Really outside of ND, and maybe FSU, all the main football brands that could actually make a difference are pretty much spoken for

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

People keep making this mistake. Conference realignment was driven by market penetration a decade ago, but it is no longer. For any major college team, any game is on everywhere. I have live Hulu and have access to the B1G network, and the SEC network and there are no B1G or SEC schools in NC. Thats the reality of today's streaming and TV services. Conferences don't care about trying to get their networks in particular areas, they already are there.

This is about branding and marketability and IP and what advertisers find appealing. FSU claims to have a popular brand, so does Clemson. I'm not sure the teams in the SEC are willing to upset their current members for two brands that may not bring a large improvement to their bottom line. Its a different story for the BXII who would love to have teams with the pedigree of Clemson and FSU in their conference.

In a way, this is Duke's main hope for landing in a major conference if the ACC breaks up. Yes, football drives the conference realignment, but football is on just over 3 months out of the year. These conferences have other months to provide content, UNC and Duke would be far more important as basketball brands than football. Really outside of ND, and maybe FSU, all the main football brands that could actually make a difference are pretty much spoken for

But why does it potentially "upset" UF or USC to bring in FSU or Clemson?

Similar question - why is there some understanding that it would be possible/likely for UNC to tie itself to Duke, or for any other pair of rivals would link together for the purposes of conference realignment?

I thought that was the point of conferences themselves; create a close knit community or athletes and universities. Build a brand. Work together for success.

I'm just trying to figure out which of my perspectives are completely out of date, and which ones are just marginally out of date.

[duke2x]

But why does it potentially "upset" UF or USC to bring in FSU or Clemson?

Similar question - why is there some understanding that it would be possible/likely for UNC to tie itself to Duke, or for any other pair of rivals would link together for the purposes of conference realignment? I thought that was the point of conferences themselves; create a close knit community or athletes and universities. Build a brand. Work together for success.

There's a plethora of issues. FSU/Clemson, rightly or wrongly, believe they are getting outrecruited by SEC teams due to conference affiliation. Only joining the SEC gives them a chance to prove that it's not going to help them. Big 10 membership and money isn't going to help there. FL/SC think they have an advantage going 6-6 against AL, MS, etc.

Conference affiliation is otherwise a relic like cable TV. Conference basketball tournaments are not what they used to be, and the same will apply to college football championship games next year. If you let Duke and Clemson/FSU design their own schedules, I doubt they would play each other in any sport. If you recall, AL was hoping to get a football-basketball H-H with Duke when it came to Wally Wade. Oops.

TV would rather we play other schools in football and basketball as well. ESPN is probably going to give us a H-H with TX starting next year in the ACC-SEC followed by a H-H with KY (speculation by me). You can trade trips to Miami, VT, etc. for trips to WI, KS, CT, etc. if Fox/ESPN have their way. They tolerate Duke-Clemson/FSU games in all sports to get Clemson-FSU football and Duke-UNC basketball.

I like the history, rivalries, and geographic proximity of the ACC, B10, etc. It's not the future. Team-based subscription models are.

[Rogue]

It is called getting older.

Yes, I'm getting old. Everyday I'm liking how the Patriot League handles athletics ..

I realize that minor sports that I like would suffer. Being in a league with a military academy is always a challenge , as all their students are on scholarship .

I'm old and tired of money running everything in college athletics. It doesn't mean the schools with the most money always win.. but it sure is an advantage.

[cruxer]

This line of thinking was true 3 or so years ago when TV revenues were based on cable subscriber numbers. That is simply not the future of TV anymore. Cable is dying and everyone knows it (look at the stock prices of the big cable TV channels like Disney, Warner Discovery, and AMC). What matters going forward is properties that people will pay to watch via streaming or some other kind of subscription. In that universe, the fact that Clemson has die-hard fans who want to watch them is super important. The fact that the SEC already has South Carolina doesn't mean they would not want Clemson because a whole lot of Clemson fans will pay $29.99 a month for a streaming package that provides them with all the football games for whatever conference Clemson is in and would not pay a cent to watch South Carolina's conference. It is why the SEC was falling all over itself to add Texas even though they already had Texas A&M.

This model really could end up being tested imo. Just like the rest of the streaming market, sports streaming seems like it may head down a path where non-fans, who currently subsidize the vast majority of sports fans ability to watch sports on basic cable tiers, can opt out of paying for sports. That will mean actual sports fans will have to pay full-freight to watch their favorite teams. If cable dies, does general access to televised sporting events move to more expensive narrow (per conference?) access?

I think we will move from a Netflix that has a wide variety of back catalog movies and tv shows, to Paramount+/Disney+/Peacock/Hulu/Apple TV/Netflix/Prime/etc all charging more (and more and more) for smaller catalogs and exclusive, mostly bad original programming. For scripted entertainment, the new model is proving unsustainable. imo the companies you mention are hurting because they launched streaming platforms that turned them into content delivery companies, not just content creation companies. Content delivery is just outside of their core competency. Will college sports go down the same route? ESPN and Fox have already morphed from just broadcasting college sports to (silently) orchestrating the entire structure of college sports, and not in a good way. Again, this is outside of their core competency, not that the NCAA or conferences are good at it either.

[Steven43]

My comment goes towards perceptive and relative importance of things like the Tournament in the larger scheme of life. IMO, and for me, such events slip down the priority list as the years so rapidly slip by

Sure, I get it, and I feel much the same way. College basketball — and sports in general — have less importance in my life now as compared with, say, 30 years ago. Yes, the free-for-all transfer rules, OAD, NIL, and conference realignment has played an increasingly significant role in my growing disinterest in college basketball specifically, but also in college sports in general. But having more important things in my life (maturing?) has played a role, too.

When it comes to watching sports, reading about sports, discussing sports (DBR), and listening to discussion of sports (podcasts) I find myself increasingly drawn to professional sports, primarily the NFL, the NBA, and the tennis 🎾 majors (Wimbledon, US Open, French Open, Australian Open). Compared to college basketball and football, professional sports aren’t pretending to be something they are not. There is no hypocrisy like there is with college sports.

Heck, even the non-revenue college sports have become dramatically affected by things like NIL. One of Duke’s head coaches in one of the non-revenue women’s sports (I prefer not to say which) told me recently that Duke is VERY concerned about “having all of its ducks in a row” for next year (and every year after, as long as the rules stay as they currently are) in regard to NIL payments to potential recruits, and even to current players, lest they lose them to another school who ponies up more money.

This shocked and dismayed me. I had thought only the revenue sports of basketball and football were affected — which was bad enough, mind you. But to find out with certainty that it now extends to the non-revenue sports as well was truly disheartening. I had thought I could still root for the non-revenue sports with some semblance of the old college spirit. You know, with the idea that these student-athletes actually chose to come to Duke principally out of a desire to be a part of something specific to Duke University and its traditions. But to find out that it’s now primarily about which school pays the most NIL dollars, well……..I don’t even know what to say.

I guess the only thing I can think to say right now is “I hope you’re happy, Jay Bilas!” This is what you wanted. This is what you wrote about and spoke about over and over for years. Your desire to have college athletes be paid seemed to be your mission in life. You probably swayed millions of people to think like you do on this subject.

Congratulations, pal, you got what you wanted. 🎉

[throatybeard]

This model really could end up being tested imo. Just like the rest of the streaming market, sports streaming seems like it may head down a path where non-fans, who currently subsidize the vast majority of sports fans ability to watch sports on basic cable tiers, can opt out of paying for sports. That will mean actual sports fans will have to pay full-freight to watch their favorite teams. If cable dies, does general access to televised sporting events move to more expensive narrow (per conference?) access?

I think we will move from a Netflix that has a wide variety of back catalog movies and tv shows, to Paramount+/Disney+/Peacock/Hulu/Apple TV/Netflix/Prime/etc all charging more (and more and more) for smaller catalogs and exclusive, mostly bad original programming. For scripted entertainment, the new model is proving unsustainable. imo the companies you mention are hurting because they launched streaming platforms that turned them into content delivery companies, not just content creation companies. Content delivery is just outside of their core competency. Will college sports go down the same route? ESPN and Fox have already morphed from just broadcasting college sports to (silently) orchestrating the entire structure of college sports, and not in a good way. Again, this is outside of their core competency, not that the NCAA or conferences are good at it either.

Exactly. I've already given up on seeing my hometown pro teams because Bally is such a greasefire. I subscribed to it directly, of course, and the app never worked. So I gave up and cancelled. I have season tickets to the Blues (that I sell 5/6 of, because who the heck can make it to more than a few games a year other than retired people) and I live a twelve minute metro ride from all three StL major league teams, but I see them on TV basically never since FoxMW/Bally left YTTV in 2019. At least until the playoffs are on national TV. I'm barely a Cardinals fan any longer at this point, and I have a couple garments for City FC and have seen exactly one game on TV when they made it to FS1. And at the point my Blues tickets become unaffordable, which is very soon, I'll basically be done with them too. A $700 hike after the Stanley Cup was digestible; another $1000 since then while the team has gone .500 and sold off everyone's favorite players is not.

That scene isn't specific to StL, it's all over the country. And with Bally's demise, we're probably going to have ten or twelve MLB markets where the games aren't on TV at all in 2025 unless Manfred and his band of braindeads figure something out.

If you make everything an expensive pain in the butt with streaming, only the most diehard/pecunious people will follow you. The sports "content providers" are cutting their own throats long term, and maybe even medium term. It's important to be able to follow the whole sport, not just your own team on the Longhorn Network or goduke or some other wonky streaming crap that doesn't work.

I cancelled Netflix when it degraded beyond recognition, and I'll cancel sports too if I can't get what I want to see by turning on streaming linear TV and boom there's an easy package of Fox/Disney channels that carry sports. Consumers will only take so much abuse before they quit.

[Steven43]

To add to my earlier comments, I played tennis on Tuesday with a friend who is a Wake Forest alum, and he happens to be close friends with a very high-level Wake administrator. Well, this Wake administrator confided in him that Wake is no longer able to fund new building projects or improvements to existing facilities because it is having to spend the majority of its available money on paying athletes through NIL.

I’m sure this is not unique to Wake Forest; it’s very likely the same situation at many schools throughout the country. So now the money you and I donate to our old College U is going straight into the pockets of athletes — who were previously already getting free tuition, free room and board, etc. — rather than to meet the basic needs of the university in an overall sense. Wonderful, isn’t it?

Once again, “Thank you, Jay Bilas!”

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I guess the only thing I can think to say right now is “I hope you’re happy, Jay Bilas!” This is what you wanted. This is what you wrote about and spoke about over and over for years. Your desire to have college athletes be paid seemed to be your mission in life. You probably swayed millions of people to think like you do on this subject.

Congratulations, pal, you got what you wanted. 🎉

Clemson and FSU wanting out of the ACC has absolutely zero to do with football and basketball players getting paid.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

To add to my earlier comments, I played tennis on Tuesday with a friend who is a Wake Forest alum, and he happens to be close friends with a very high-level Wake administrator. Well, this Wake administrator confided in him that Wake is no longer able to fund new building projects or improvements to existing facilities because it is having to spend the majority of its available money on paying athletes through NIL.

I’m sure this is not unique to Wake Forest; it’s very likely the same situation at many schools throughout the country. So now the money you and I donate to our old College U is going straight into the pockets of athletes — who were previously already getting free tuition, free room and board, etc. — rather than to meet the basic needs of the university in an overall sense. Wonderful, isn’t it?

Once again, “Thank you, Jay Bilas!”

Sorry Steven43 I'm gonna pile on you here. If your school's finances are dependent on making millions of dollars on the backs of unpaid entertainers, you have a faulty business model. That's not the fault of Jay Bilas or the fault of the players getting their due.

[Steven43]

Sorry Steven43 I'm gonna pile on you here. If your school's finances are dependent on making millions of dollars on the backs of unpaid entertainers, you have a faulty business model. That's not the fault of Jay Bilas or the fault of the players getting their due.

I don’t take it personally. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We just happen to disagree on this subject.

I think student-athletes were already being “paid” quite well by getting a free college education. My son attends college in Boston while my daughter attends college in NYC. My wife and I are currently spending well over $200,000 per year on the two of them.

So when it’s said that college athletes weren’t getting paid before NIL, well, I just have to disagree. Attending college is an extremely expensive endeavor for most families.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I don’t take it personally. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We just happen to disagree on this subject.

I think student-athletes were already being “paid” quite well by getting a free college education. My son attends college in Boston while my daughter attends college in NYC. My wife and I are currently spending well over $200,000 per year on the two of them.

So when it’s said that college athletes weren’t getting paid before NIL, well, I just have to disagree. Attending college is an extremely expensive endeavor for most families.

I agree and understand. But why restrict the athletes from getting paid what the market will bear? If a school is making enough revenue from the basketball program to pay the coach $10m, doesn't it stand to reason that maybe the talent is underpaid at 5 figures?

[TheDevilMadeMeDoIt]

This line of thinking was true 3 or so years ago when TV revenues were based on cable subscriber numbers. That is simply not the future of TV anymore. Cable is dying and everyone knows it (look at the stock prices of the big cable TV channels like Disney, Warner Discovery, and AMC). What matters going forward is properties that people will pay to watch via streaming or some other kind of subscription. In that universe, the fact that Clemson has die-hard fans who want to watch them is super important. The fact that the SEC already has South Carolina doesn't mean they would not want Clemson because a whole lot of Clemson fans will pay $29.99 a month for a streaming package that provides them with all the football games for whatever conference Clemson is in and would not pay a cent to watch South Carolina's conference. It is why the SEC was falling all over itself to add Texas even though they already had Texas A&M.

But doesn’t ESPN have an interest in keeping the ACC viable? They no longer show any Big 10 games so losing UNC, UVA and potentially others to the Big would be detrimental to them. While it’s all about football, losing the Duke/UNC basketball games would be harmful to their bottom line.

Not sure how this plays out but it seems history is repeating itself with huge unwieldy conferences where no one plays each other enough to even gauge who is really good. Sounds like the original Southern conference that broke up to become the SEC and then a little later the ACC. In the early 1930’s the So Con had teams like Sewanee, Washington and Lee, Alabama, Tennessee and yes Duke. The SEC was formed in 1932. It took a few more years, until 1953 for the ACC schools to leave. Why should huge conferences spread out coast to coast be expected to last. The travel costs both financially to the schools and physical wellbeing of the athletes should become apparent fairly quickly.

[lotusland]

Sure, I get it, and I feel much the same way. College basketball — and sports in general — have less importance in my life now as compared with, say, 30 years ago. Yes, the free-for-all transfer rules, OAD, NIL, and conference realignment has played an increasingly significant role in my growing disinterest in college basketball specifically, but also in college sports in general. But having more important things in my life (maturing?) has played a role, too.

When it comes to watching sports, reading about sports, discussing sports (DBR), and listening to discussion of sports (podcasts) I find myself increasingly drawn to professional sports, primarily the NFL, the NBA, and the tennis 🎾 majors (Wimbledon, US Open, French Open, Australian Open). Compared to college basketball and football, professional sports aren’t pretending to be something they are not. There is no hypocrisy like there is with college sports.

Heck, even the non-revenue college sports have become dramatically affected by things like NIL. One of Duke’s head coaches in one of the non-revenue women’s sports (I prefer not to say which) told me recently that Duke is VERY concerned about “having all of its ducks in a row” for next year (and every year after, as long as the rules stay as they currently are) in regard to NIL payments to potential recruits, and even to current players, lest they lose them to another school who ponies up more money.

This shocked and dismayed me. I had thought only the revenue sports of basketball and football were affected — which was bad enough, mind you. But to find out with certainty that it now extends to the non-revenue sports as well was truly disheartening. I had thought I could still root for the non-revenue sports with some semblance of the old college spirit. You know, with the idea that these student-athletes actually chose to come to Duke principally out of a desire to be a part of something specific to Duke University and its traditions. But to find out that it’s now primarily about which school pays the most NIL dollars, well……..I don’t even know what to say.

I guess the only thing I can think to say right now is “I hope you’re happy, Jay Bilas!” This is what you wanted. This is what you wrote about and spoke about over and over for years. Your desire to have college athletes be paid seemed to be your mission in life. You probably swayed millions of people to think like you do on this subject.

Congratulations, pal, you got what you wanted. 🎉

Tell me again why Wake or Duke need to raise money to pay non revenue athletes? I have an idea. Check this out. If you want to play golf for Duke, you can have a scholarship. If you need more than that, gtfoh.