ACC and Clemson, FSU settle....keep an eye on 2030...

[ttowncoug]

Read in another post that the buy-out is 75M in 2030. Lines up with the next round of media contracts.

Sources: ACC nearing agreement with Clemson, FSU to end litigation

The agreement would be made in exchange for a change to the conference’s revenue distribution structure and clarity around the grant of rights, sources tell Yahoo Sports.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[95coug]

Read in another post that the buy-out is 75M in 2030. Lines up with the next round of media contracts.

Sources: ACC nearing agreement with Clemson, FSU to end litigation

The agreement would be made in exchange for a change to the conference’s revenue distribution structure and clarity around the grant of rights, sources tell Yahoo Sports.

sports.yahoo.com

It's an interesting solution. I don't know how many they need to vote in favor for the change to be accepted, but I don't really see why the lower tier schools would agree to this, knowing it's going to further reduce their share. I'd be especially concerned if I was Stanford or Cal - they joined the ACC for a 1/3 share, but now there isn't a defined share...so what are they getting 1/3 of? I think it's safe to say that Clemson, Miami, and FSU vote in favor. SMU doesn't really have any skin in the game, so they'll just vote for the lawsuits to end. Duke and UNC probably get on board based on basketball viewership. That's only 6 of 17, I would think they need at least 3 more...but who else is reasonably assured of doing better under this agreement? And, even if they're better in the next 5 years, what happens to them after 2030 if Clemson and FSU jump ship?

I'd also want to see how the numbers shake out compared to the performance objectives. If 8 or 10 teams make bowl games and qualify for higher payouts...what does that mean to the other teams? Do the bowl payouts eat into their annual take? What is the minimum amount anyone gets per year?

In a way, this might be a positive for WSU. It wasn't looking like FSU and Clemson were going to win a release from their grant of rights, which may have created a precedent that wasn't favorable.

 

[ttowncoug]

It's an interesting solution. I don't know how many they need to vote in favor for the change to be accepted, but I don't really see why the lower tier schools would agree to this, knowing it's going to further reduce their share. I'd be especially concerned if I was Stanford or Cal - they joined the ACC for a 1/3 share, but now there isn't a defined share...so what are they getting 1/3 of? I think it's safe to say that Clemson, Miami, and FSU vote in favor. SMU doesn't really have any skin in the game, so they'll just vote for the lawsuits to end. Duke and UNC probably get on board based on basketball viewership. That's only 6 of 17, I would think they need at least 3 more...but who else is reasonably assured of doing better under this agreement? And, even if they're better in the next 5 years, what happens to them after 2030 if Clemson and FSU jump ship?

I'd also want to see how the numbers shake out compared to the performance objectives. If 8 or 10 teams make bowl games and qualify for higher payouts...what does that mean to the other teams? Do the bowl payouts eat into their annual take? What is the minimum amount anyone gets per year?

In a way, this might be a positive for WSU. It wasn't looking like FSU and Clemson were going to win a release from their grant of rights, which may have created a precedent that wasn't favorable.

The former Pac-12 (USC and UCLA) could have stayed together if it went with a model like this, but they choose differently.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

The former Pac-12 (USC and UCLA) could have stayed together if it went with a model like this, but they choose differently.

You know that our own Bill Moos was pivotal in getting Pac-12 revenue sharing to be equal, right?