CLEMSON FOOTBALL

ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more
Neff says there will be a continued push for national relevance in all sports and that should be rewarded by the conference.

ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more


by - Senior Writer -

The ACC is taking steps to ensure that the programs that drive athletic success earn a bigger piece of the money pie, but Clemson Athletic Director Graham Neff thinks there needs to be more.

The ACC board of directors endorsed a new revenue distribution model Wednesday that will reward success based on postseason performance, the league announced in a statement. These "success incentives" are based on performance in revenue-generating postseason competition -- more specifically, the College Football Playoff and NCAA tournament. A larger share of that revenue will go to the teams participating rather than getting divided equally among all members.

All other revenues, including those from the league's current television contract, will continue to be shared equally. While the complete specifics have not yet been solidified, the success incentive initiative will begin in 2024-25, once the expanded College Football Playoff begins.

Neff said last week during an interview with Chris Spatola on Sirius/XM that he hopes the incentives will be beneficial to all schools.

“The notion is to encourage or incentivize investment that will hopefully create better performance. And obviously, football and men's basketball are the ones that have the most performance-based revenue associated with it, CFP or March Madness and NCAA tournament shares,” Neff said. “So that's part of it, and to your point, certainly, we've had proven success from a football standpoint with CFP access and we are going to continue to invest and have those levels of expectations. So that's good. But it is good for Clemson. We hope that'll prove to be financially beneficial.”

The ACC has long delved into a new revenue distribution plan as a way to help mitigate what is expected to be a $30-40 million annual revenue gap between the conference and the SEC and Big Ten leagues. Under a new plan, a team that makes the College Football Playoff could potentially add more than $10 million in revenue annually.

Is that enough? Neff thinks there has to be more.

“I also think the league should encourage and incentivize investment to try to achieve that type of performance, that that's part of it. But there needs to be more to it, if I'm being really honest,” Neff said. “As we look at how to continue to, sure, close the gap economically, that's kind of what you're hitting around a little bit, and hey, there's no magic number, but just how we continue to position and have resources for Clemson that we expect to be nationally relevant in all of our sports, sure, in particular football. And that's how we're going to continue to push and try to drive within the ACC to have that type of... Those mechanics that allow for performance and investment to be rewarded.”

Ultimate Level LogoUpgrade Your Account

Unlock premium boards and exclusive features (e.g. ad-free) by upgrading your account today.

Upgrade Now
Comment on this story
Print   
Send Feedback to David Hood: Email | Comment
No. 20 Tigers pull away from Irish in extras
No. 20 Tigers pull away from Irish in extras
Clemson pro signs with Jacksonville Jaguars
Clemson pro signs with Jacksonville Jaguars
NCAA announces approval of football rule changes on communications, timing
NCAA announces approval of football rule changes on communications, timing
Clemson-Pitt baseball schedule changes
Clemson-Pitt baseball schedule changes
Post your comments!
Subject (Replies: 33) Author
spacer TNET: ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more
TigerNet News®
spacer Re: TNET: ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more
Erikrez
spacer Can our young AD please just shut up already?
fchrisgrimm®
spacer I respectfully disagree.
bretfsu®
spacer He's clearly leaving the door open.
Smiling Tiger®
spacer ^^^this. His statement was the perfect Non-Statement.***
tigerbum5
spacer ^^^this. His statement was the perfect Non-Statement.***
tigerbum5
spacer I agree with you…
exyankee
spacer Re: I respectfully disagree.
fchrisgrimm®
spacer I understand your concern.
bretfsu®
spacer Re: TNET: ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more
BeverlyAnne®
spacer Re: TNET: ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more
jpvenez
spacer Re: TNET: ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more
fchrisgrimm®
spacer Graham Neff oversaw SCarolina be a noon game
NIKE®
spacer I get where you are coming from, but I don't think it's his
Smiling Tiger®
spacer I think you are blaming the wrong guy here…
hufferbilly
spacer Re: I think you are blaming the wrong guy here…
fchrisgrimm®
spacer Re: Graham Neff oversaw SCarolina be a noon game
kctigs81®
spacer Re: TNET: ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more
Ridgeland Booster®
spacer The conference is projected to get an additional ~$75 mil
ctigers90
spacer So, you don't think the other conferences will get
HuntClub®
spacer but the other conferences would be splitting evenly
ctigers90
spacer This plan is like trying to put a cork in the leak on the
76er®
spacer Re: TNET: ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more
palmettoson
spacer Didn’t Pitt win the ACC two years ago?***
exyankee
spacer Didn’t Pitt win the ACC two years ago?
exyankee
spacer Re: TNET: ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more
tgre
spacer Hows is this good? Seriously. Its laughably inadequate
PioneerG
spacer It's like offering a bandaid to someone with a gunshot wound***
colberttiger®
spacer That’s a finger Band-Aid on an amputation
STERLING®
spacer Re: TNET: ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more
Middle TN Tiger
spacer Re: TNET: ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more
Middle TN Tiger
spacer Re: TNET: ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more
fchrisgrimm®
spacer Re: TNET: ACC revenue sharing plan is good, but there needs to be more
agent k