Sources: ACC, Clemson, FSU renew talks on revenue distribution (GOR term could be reduced to 2030)

[NT80]

"Within the proposal put forth by Clemson and Florida State, the term of the grant of rights would also be reduced -- potentially as early as 2030 -- to better fall in line with the expiration of TV deals in the Big 12 and Big Ten."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/41307506/acc-clemson-florida-state-renew-discussions-revenue-distribution-model

 

[SMU2006]

9 hours ago, NT80 said:

"Within the proposal put forth by Clemson and Florida State, the term of the grant of rights would also be reduced -- potentially as early as 2030 -- to better fall in line with the expiration of TV deals in the Big 12 and Big Ten."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/41307506/acc-clemson-florida-state-renew-discussions-revenue-distribution-model

 

Yep.  This has been in the works since the ACC released the schedule model that runs through 2030.  Shortening the grant of rights ensures the league goes to market at roughly the same time as the Big 12.  The ACC is going to target Utah and Kansas from the Big 12.  Utah to bolster the league in football as well as give an additional travel partner for CAL/Stanford.  Kansas will appease the basketball wing of the league.

All the noise coming from Yormark and the Big 12 agit-prop machine was pure nonsense.

[wardly]

2 hours ago, SMU2006 said:

Yep.  This has been in the works since the ACC released the schedule model that runs through 2030.  Shortening the grant of rights ensures the league goes to market at roughly the same time as the Big 12.  The ACC is going to target Utah and Kansas from the Big 12.  Utah to bolster the league in football as well as give an additional travel partner for CAL/Stanford.  Kansas will appease the basketball wing of the league.

All the noise coming from Yormark and the Big 12 agit-prop machine was pure nonsense.

This conversation between the ACC and FSU/Clemson makes too much sense to ever be adopted.

[SMU2006]

1 hour ago, wardly said:

This conversation between the ACC and FSU/Clemson makes too much sense to ever be adopted.

This is the opening salvo to what was always going to end with FSU/Clemson staying in the ACC.  Contracts are binding and, unfortunately for FSU/Clemson, something they signed not once but twice.  As they've taken L after L after L in the courtroom (and on the field in the case of FSU) crawling back to the ACC asking for unequal revenue sharing was the only viable option.  

[wardly]

9 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

This is the opening salvo to what was always going to end with FSU/Clemson staying in the ACC.  Contracts are binding and, unfortunately for FSU/Clemson, something they signed not once but twice.  As they've taken L after L after L in the courtroom (and on the field in the case of FSU) crawling back to the ACC asking for unequal revenue sharing was the only viable option.  

I just posted a note that an FSU pod caster reports ESPN is giving the ACC a very large sum of money [they guessed $50 to $100 million but don't know actual number]in an effort to keep the conference together. ESPN determined that it would be cheaper to pay the ACC more money now that to cobble together a conference should the ACC implode.This "bonus" is intended to be used for a performance based payout to all conference members which both FSU and Clemson want. If true, then Memphis, Tulane, and UTSA are headed west.