There is a new proposal for the ACC being bandied around the conference’s member schools. It theoretically would end the legal wrangling with the conference Florida State, and Clemson. It could also hasten an end to the current makeup of the conference. Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports was the first to report the news.
To this point, it bears a striking resemblance to one proposed months before the litigation began, with a new twist or two. And this one comes with a date to likely end the ACC as we currently know it.
The proposal was put forth by Clemson and Florida for consideration by ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips and the remaining 16 conference members (including Notre Dame but minus Clemson and FSU who proposed this). It would likely end the litigation by the two schools trying to get out of the conference.
Much is being held in confidence so there is what we know, and what we can surmise based on what we know.
The New Version of the Previous Proposal
There would be, in essence, a separate pot of money that would change the revenue-sharing structure currently in place for the conference. It would be there to reward schools based on their media value, as determined by ratings. Who “wins” those ratings wars is going to change a little, but only a little, in any given year. In writing, the distribution would be available to all conference schools
Putting aside Week 0 when a few games are played with no competing contests, the ACC is only putting one to two games per week into the national top-10 rankings. North Carolina State got a game in the Top 10 in week two, but that was when they got hammered by Tennessee.
Still, in a tremendously elementary school world, you could imagine a tally board in the ACC offices in Charlotte, NC keeping track of which school got what in the weekly ratings battle.
There is more than a little irony to Florida State being back at the table with this as its football program is in a horrific freefall right now at 0-3.
Right now, the new distribution would be football-driven, with basketball potentially added in if need be, to secure the deal. Some of the schools would need basketball added in to ever have a chance of winning the “ratings derby” and the pot of money tied to it. That money presumably would come from ESPN in a revision of its current contract with the ACC.
The Previous/Current Redistribution
It was just two years ago, in the throws of public consternation by Florida State about revenue issues, that the conference revised its post-season revenue-sharing model. Instead of equal shares of post-season money for all schools, a higher share was given to the schools that participated in the post-season before the rest was split among the rest. It has been used for basketball and football revenue.
But it moved a few million dollars here and there. It is pebbles on the ground when what Florida State, and eventually Clemson, took issue with was boulders in the road. That would be the $35 million per school, per year gap between their media contract via the ACC, and what the schools in the Big 10 and SEC were getting. Rutgers getting $75+ million per year from the Big 10 did not sit well with Florida State folks and their ACC guarantee. Per Phillips at ACC Kickoff in July, the ACC schools did get a little more than expected in the 2023-24 allocations. Each school got approximately $45 million. Still, the competitive shortfall is significant.
A New Grant of Rights End Date
This “new and improved” version of the previous pre-litigation offering from Florida State and Clemson has one significant hook in it. It would change the end of the Grant of Rights from 2036 to 2030.
Not being locked into the current conference GoR until 2036 is at the heart of the litigation with the two schools against the conference. Due diligence uncovered that while all the schools were locked into that year for completion of the agreement, ESPN was not. The sports network has two opt-out dates before 2036 that it could exercise.
While no one has yet been able to verify it, it could be assumed that ESPN would have to agree to stay in place with the ACC through the new date.
What 2030 Means
The new date of 2030 did not come out of thin air. That year is also when the media contracts, the ones paying schools so much more, in the SEC and Big 10 expire. With ACC schools being free to leave then, the dollar figures for a Big 10 or SEC that included FSU, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia, Miami, and potentially others would climb considerably. The pillaging of the ACC would be a potential free-for-all. An agreement to the 2030 end of the Grant of Rights will also be the end to the current iteration of the ACC.
The ACC could in turn make a pitch for some of the schools from the other conferences. But the revenue gap is not going to magically fix itself. Not when the SEC and Big 10 already have such a high floor from which to build up. The ACC would be more likely to get the Vanderbilts and Rutgers of the world than it would be to get any of the marquee names.
Wheels in Motion
The timing of the proposal is also not coincidental. Most of the legal activity is in a holding pattern with appeals of perfunctory motions forthcoming. However, the case of Florida State v. ACC is moving forward in Leon County, Florida.
Judge John C. Cooper denied the ACC’s motion to dismiss the case and further denied the motion for a stay. That would have put a pause on everything until the denial of the motion to dismiss was appealed. The ACC’s appeal on the motion to stay was heard before a three-judge appellate court last week. Its decision is not expected for several months. Without the stay, the case moves forward. Last week, FSU filed a craftily-worded motion for partial summary judgment. Judge Cooper has been a bit more of a wildcard than the judges hearing these cases in South Carolina and North Carolina. He could rule on that motion at any time.
Meanwhile, it is expected that there will be several back-and-forth conversations among the schools. There is a need to discuss what the “haves” will get and what the “have-nots” can live with.
The conference needs 2/3 approval, or 12 schools, to say yes to the proposal to move it forward.
