Money, and it's limited effectiveness

Jul 4, 2022, 2:17 PM

I'd like to propose an argument against leaving the ACC (ignoring the Grant of Rights legal conundrum). The simple counter to what seems to be the common sentiment is this: How much money do you need to win a football game?

The conference shuffle has always been about how to maximize revenue. More is better. But, how much more is needed? Schools can't pay players. They can build facilities and pay coaches. But they can't directly pay players.

Not to pick on the Univ. of South Carolina, but they've been pulling in a lot more than Clemson each year from the SEC's media rights deal. That extra cash hasn't resulted in extra wins or championships or even better recruits. More revenue is certainly not helping Vanderbilt or Indiana or Rutgers.

You reach a point of diminishing returns. You can keep spending money, but on what? A new slide? Blue turf on the indoor practice facility? How much better would we be if we got $100M per year instead of $40M? What about if we got $200M? $500M? Absolutely zero of that money translates into money in a player's pocket, so what does it matter? If you can afford a world class operation with premium facilities (like Clemson has today), what more do you need to win?

Additionally, as a founding member of the ACC, Clemson enjoys quality rivalries with nearby universities. I enjoy going to away games and it helps that they're close (with a few exceptions). We know that if we win the ACC we will get a spot in the College Football Playoffs. And while success can be cyclical, Clemson is at the top of the food chain in the ACC. Why would we give that up? For money... which we don't need?

And finally, I enjoy being the "underdog" when we meet SEC or B1G teams in the playoffs. It makes victories all the sweeter. Go rewatch that 44-16 destruction of Alabama. Watch the SEC announcers watch the game. Clemson was a touchdown underdog in that game and just showing up to get dominated by a much better funded Alabama team. Tell me you weren't screaming "How you like them apples!" as we dismantled Bama.

So, the powers that be will probably go after the bigger paycheck and sell out. But, we lose the moral high ground by going the route of "it just means more." More of what? Not integrity and pride... just more money.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Money absolutely helps you build a better program. Yes, it hasn't helped UofSC or Vanderbilt a lot...but those are only two examples. Look at the conferences at a whole. The programs in the SEC are far better, even the mediocre ones, to the ACC, and has been fir years. Two great examples. NC State was one of the best trans in the ACC last year. Yet they got killed by a below average SEC team (Miss St) Even South Carolina, who only won three conference games in the SEC last year, crushed UNC who was one of the better ACC teams. So yes, money does make a difference.

More regional rivals? Sorry but the SEC wins there too. Go look at the distance to Knoxville, Athens and Auburn and compare to the distance to Atlanta (Athens is closer) and the tobacco road area. The SEC east teams are much closer. And they are better rivals too.

Money, and it's limited effectiveness

I disagree

TigerBoard POTD