GIVE AN AWARD
Use your CatCoins™ to grant this post a special award and grant the author bonus CatCoins™!


YOUR BALANCE
monetization_on
Seeking Transparency on Clemson's Commitment to ACC
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Tiger Boards - Clemson Football
add New Topic
Replies: 19  

Seeking Transparency on Clemson's Commitment to ACC

[3]
Jan 20, 2022, 8:13 PM

I'm not advocating for a move from the ACC, but I'm writing this post in reply to Paul Finebaum's latest grandstanding seeking transparency on Clemson's financial position in terms of commitment to the ACC. Thanks in advance for general and specific feedback on these points:

1) The ACC reported $497 million in revenue for fiscal year 2020, an average of right around $33 million per school with the lowest being $30.9 million and the highest being $37 million to Clemson.
2) The SEC distributed $636.7 million for 2020, and another $20.0 million was retained by the conference schools which took part in the 2019-20 bowl season, for expenses.
3) The SEC distributed another $23 million in supplemental revenue to each of its 14 members in an effort to help offset the financial impact of COVID-19 as per commissioner Greg Sankey. The SEC is the only conference to have announced additional distribution to its schools, and the amount is significant. The one-time additional revenue is more than half of the conference’s 2019–20 traditional revenue distribution ($45.5M per school).
3) G. Neff will have his hands full competing with the SEC's financials. A question related to P. Finebaum's provocation and the payout variance between the ACC and the SEC is this: How many years would it take Clemson to come out ahead financially with a move to the SEC? I understand the ACC buyout is approx. $50M. My calculation 3-5 years, but it may be wrong.

Am I missing some key financial considerations? Welcome all Finance Major and SME inputs ...

p.s. I believe we will see some more shifting in conference landscapes over the next few years to separate the haves (those schools who pull big national TV ratings incl. Clemson) and have-nots (those schools who cannot pull national TV ratings.) Basketball has not been relevant or profitable for a decade which makes Swofford's pursuit of northeast basketball schools look even more foolish.

Clemson will be an important asset in the years ahead. And Neff will have some big decisions to make with the guidance of Clemson's biggest sponsors and boosters.

2022 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link

Re: Seeking Transparency on Clemson's Commitment to ACC


Jan 20, 2022, 8:36 PM

Yeah we would owe like 360 million or something from what I remember due to TV contracts and commitments.

flag link

Re: Seeking Transparency on Clemson's Commitment to ACC


Jan 20, 2022, 8:39 PM

Grant of rights, Clemson would forfeit all TV revenue it made until 35-36 if it left.

flag link

Re: Seeking Transparency on Clemson's Commitment to ACC

[1]
Jan 20, 2022, 8:48 PM

who agrees to an insane deal like that? it's like something you would agree to only with a gun to your head.

I wouldn't mind moving to the SEC for the money. The ACC is no friend of Clemson's. I hate the ACC. I hate the SEC. It would be an easy transition.

It's all about Clemson.

2022 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link


Exactly!


Jan 20, 2022, 8:53 PM

Anyone who remembers the Danny days would have this opinion (not sure if this includes you TS). I hate the ACC and SEC equally, so why not get paid?

2022 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link

Re: Exactly!

[2]
Jan 20, 2022, 8:58 PM

well, yes, I hated the ACC during the Danny days. But I also hate that Max Lennon's signature is on my diplomas.

2022 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link


Max Lennon....


Jan 20, 2022, 9:33 PM

Bringing back bad memories now.

2022 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link

Re: Exactly!

[2]
Jan 20, 2022, 10:15 PM

His signature on my diploma too.

I suffered under Lennonism as well.

2022 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link

Transparency and Grant of Rights

[2]
Jan 20, 2022, 11:00 PM

Here's what I believe to be the transparent part of Clemson moving to the SEC: Clemson does not want to move to the ACC. There are more reasons than the money. Yes, the SEC league makes more money than the SEC. And the teams in the ACC have a significantly higher academic profile than the teams in the SEC. The ACC is now aligned with the Big 10 and the Pac 10. Those 3 leagues want to keep college sports more the way it has been than to become ever more professional. The issue for the Clemson board of trustees is about more than the money. Dabo's success shows we can compete and win from where we are with less money than the SEC or the Big 10.

The view I stated above was made clear when Clemson signed the Grant of Rights. IF we moved to the SEC tomorrow, all the TV $ we made via the SEC TV contracts would belong to the ACC teams and not to Clemson for a decade.

College football is a sport of teams, not leagues. I'm a Clemson fan, not an ACC fan. We are staying where we are, thank goodness. Those of you who so want to be SECers better move your loyalty to one to the SEC teams. Clemson is not going anywhere.

badge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link

Re: Seeking Transparency on Clemson's Commitment to ACC


Jan 20, 2022, 8:40 PM

If Clemson averages $35M per year from the ACC over the next 5 years + $50M buyout fee, that would = $225M. $45M / year from the SEC × 5 years = $225M. That's a 5 year payback not accounting for any ACC or SEC increases. I'm sure the ACC annual payout will increase along with the SEC to offset everything. If I was Clemson and the SEC came calling, I would ask them to pay the $50M buyout and spread the payback over 10 years from the annual payouts. Thus making the transition easier and Clemson would start out ahead after year one (SEC $45M - $5M for buyout = $40M vice ACC $35M). With increases in SEC revenue, special payments, bowl funds and etc. The Tigers would come out on top.

I don't know about any other ACC requirements. That's what lawyers are for.


Message was edited by: saddis56®


2022 white level member flag link

Re: Seeking Transparency on Clemson's Commitment to ACC


Jan 20, 2022, 8:52 PM

Or just stay in the ACC and make the $300 million in revenue and keep winning championships.

2022 white level member flag link

Re: Seeking Transparency on Clemson's Commitment to ACC


Jan 20, 2022, 9:08 PM

That's an option too!

2022 white level member flag link

Wow, thought provoking post!

[1]
Jan 20, 2022, 8:51 PM

I might get killed for saying this but I think we should be in the SEC.

2022 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link

Re: Seeking Transparency on Clemson's Commitment to ACC


Jan 20, 2022, 8:53 PM

There are avenues available to Clemson to eliminate or significantly reduce any buyout owed to the ACC if Clemson decided to depart the conference. It would depend on whether Clemson played hardball or not.

Addressing the current NIL environment, and to a lesser extent transfer portal, to Clemson's preference will have a large influence on the Clemson's administrations position on conference membership.

The political landscape and lack of a governing body for collegiate sports will also have an influence.

flag link

Re: Seeking Transparency on Clemson's Commitment to ACC


Jan 20, 2022, 9:09 PM

The ACC needs 2-3 legit CFP contenders
And they’ve had 1, one, for years.

Clemson has a better angle on winning conference and National championships in the ACC.


So Clemson should play hardball. Like when a coach flirts with another school to get a fatter contract. (To the ACC)Keep us in sec type money or we go get sec money. Your choice.

Without Clemson the ACC is big 12ish in football. Their revenue goes down further than making Clemson whole.

This is all assuming sec becomes open to schools like Clemson and fsu.

flag link

Re: Seeking Transparency on Clemson's Commitment to ACC


Jan 20, 2022, 9:21 PM

Hardball? The gutless weenies who let ND in for football w/o joining? Not likely. ACC- Asks of Complete Candy

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-74tiger.jpg flag link

We're strangling our regular season football schedules

[1]
Jan 20, 2022, 10:05 PM

with these manufactured division splits. The ACC squanders interest by having us play Wake, BC, Syracuse, and Loserville every year vs Miami, Va Tech, UNC, and the rest of the Coastal more often. Same for many other teams. And you have to be a full on league homer to even know what Atlantic or Coastal has for division members. The sooner we pull the plug on that the better.

2022 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link

Great post, Soc! I haven't been an ACC fan since my

[1]
Jan 21, 2022, 3:42 AM

time at Clemson in the 60's; however, I don't think there's any significant thought among our BOT and administration about a conference move.

Therefore, and it's been posted on TNet repeatedly by our friends, what the ACC needs is for a few other schools to ramp up their football programs. These are merely off-the-cuff ideas, but we need FSU, Miami, Pitt, VT, N.C. State at the lowest count to step to the plate big time. That's said with no slight meant toward our other members.

As others have mentioned, we need a revamp of the conference divisions with more interplay among members. We need to expand with at least two more programs, to wit: an ultimatum to ND: join fulltime or leave; and we need to invite West Virginia...a previous slight which I considered effete, elitist snobbery completely inexcuseable.

My thinking is that stronger programs attract greater fandom, more TV exposure, better post-season play and certainly a he1l of a lot more money. The ACC title game should be a packed house with prime exposure, which would happen with better levels of play.

Lastly, I've never been nor am now some SEC hater, simply because over many years, I have preferred watching their football games rather than the ACC's. There's a reason for that. Hopefully, our new Commissioner will be able to ratchet up efforts within the ACC.

2022 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link

Why not align schools by the emphasis they place on football


Jan 21, 2022, 5:02 AM

This idea makes too much common sense, so you can bet it will never happen.

Why not align schools by the emphasis they place on athletics in general, and more specifically football. For example, Move ACC schools who show an emphasis on football and who have won, or might win a National Championship in football to the SEC. Maybe Clemson, Miami and FSU. Move schools whose athletics emphasize lesser sports like basketball, baseball, etc. from the SEC to the ACC. Maybe Kentucky, South Carolina and Vandy. Now you have most of the schools aligned by the importance they place on playing championship football.

Wahlah..........and there you have it. I know.....it'll never happen. Makes WAY too much sense.

flag link


Re: Seeking Transparency on Clemson's Commitment to ACC


Jan 21, 2022, 6:59 AM

Why don't all the schools join the SEC?

I have suggested several times is that the real cure to NCAA football is to break up into 4 divisions initially based on team competitiveness) that do not play each other ever. Just the idea that competitive schools are all gradually segregating themselves to a more competitive conference (both financially and in sports) says that this is what needs to be done. Division 1-4 playoffs and championships with division one being the national champ.

This is the creep that is going on anyway. The acceptance of the power 5 conferences having special privileges say that we already believe in divisions of greater and lesser schools. It is both financially driven and talent driven. Everyone in NCAA dances around this like it is not possible, but they are going that direction in the messiest possible way.

flag link

Replies: 19  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: 2 lower level season tickets in the North stands, section UM, row Q, $800 each. Odd numbered seats ...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

Tiger Boards - Clemson Football
add New Topic
2097 people have read this post