What happened with the FSU - Clemson - ACC thing yesterday?

[18IsTheMan]

Wasn't it's purpose to hold the conference together till 2036? Why give it up if it was working?

If it wasn't for the GOR, Clemson and FSU may have already left the conference.

It's only because of the GOR that they are still in and likely committed until at least 2030. By creating the GOR, the ACC gave themselves something they could negotiate away without really losing anything.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Making up crap and acting like an expert.

When in Rome

 

[bowlhunter]

If it wasn't for the GOR, Clemson and FSU may have already left the conference.

It's only because of the GOR that they are still in and likely committed until at least 2030. By creating the GOR, the ACC gave themselves something they could negotiate away without really losing anything.

Way to start backtracking.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Way to start backtracking.

I am only reiterating what I have already said.

 

[bowlhunter]

I am only reiterating what I have already said.

You started out saying the GOR is ironclad. When in fact the GOR is dead and now you're backtracking. You would make a heckuva blogger on a political platform.

 

[18IsTheMan]

You started out saying the GOR is ironclad. When in fact the GOR is dead and now you're backtracking. You would make a heckuva blogger on a political platform.

Was the GOR ever broken without penalty by a program in the ACC? Was the GOR ever ruled illegal or unenforceable in a court of law?

 

[Lurker123]

If it wasn't for the GOR, Clemson and FSU may have already left the conference.

It's only because of the GOR that they are still in and likely committed until at least 2030. By creating the GOR, the ACC gave themselves something they could negotiate away without really losing anything.

Was the purpose of the gor only to keep them for a few years? If it was working, why throw it away?

I disagree that removing the gor is "not really losing anything". You yourself said it's the reason FSU and Clemson are still in the conference. It was a major concession by the conference if it was the only thing keeping the two teams.

 

[bowlhunter]

Was the GOR ever broken without penalty by a program in the ACC? Was the GOR ever ruled illegal or unenforceable in a court of law?

Why do you think the ACC so easily wipe the GOR away this week? They knew it was not going to hold up in court. Not only are you backtracking, you're an idiot.

 

[Piscis]

Was the GOR ever broken without penalty by a program in the ACC? Was the GOR ever ruled illegal or unenforceable in a court of law?

I'm not a lawyer but I imagine the ACC came to the conclusion that they would have a very hard time retaining the broadcast rights of a team that paid to leave the conference. I don't think it would be a hard case to present to a judge that a team had paid the money to exit the conference and should be allowed to take their broadcast rights with them. I think the ACC realized that would be a very weak position to be in, trying to retain the rights of a team that had paid to leave the conference so they tweaked the GOR to allow a team that bought their way out to take their rights.

I don't see a big win for either side here. I see an avoidance of a protracted legal fight that would likely end up exactly where both parties are today.

 

[Lurker123]

Was the GOR ever ruled illegal or unenforceable in a court of law?

No, but it was eliminated at the first sign of a court challenge.

You do appear to be backtracking though (minus the personal insult of others). First,the gor was an ironclad agreement that would keep the conference together another decade.

Now it's meaningless and to be thrown away. It was either important or not. Unless you're arguing the ACC only wanted to use it to postpone the departures a few years?

 

[Greer]

From the synopsis I read, uneven revenue sharing and a large reduction in buyouts for them to leave the conference. ( Both odd concessions if the GOR was so ironclad)

Leaves me thinking it just set the timetable for them leaving to be late 2020's.

From a Clemson site, so I won't link.


Exit Fee Schedule

CURRENT Exit Fee: 3X ACC Budget
Escalating over time
FY26: $165M +/-
NEW Exit Fee Schedule
FY26: $165M
Descending $18M per year until $75M in 2030-’31, and leveling off
Upon payment of Exit Fee an exiting member leaves with their future media rights.


So, descending buyout making it a greater possibility each year, and the schools leaving will now retain their media rights.

Descending buyout fee and from what I have read, $15-30M more each year is the estimate if you make the playoffs and the NCAA Tournament. I think 40% of revenu is divided evenly and 60% is based on some formula for what a teams value to the conference is calculated to be. Clemson making the playoffs and having a good chance to make it to the Sweet Sixteen would put them closer to the $30M mark. I think this keeps the ACC together until 2030 and then folks see what things look like.

 

[bowlhunter]

The exit fees decreasing dramatically was also part of this weeks settlement. GOR is gone and by the next round of TV negotiations the exit fee will have decreased by $95 million. Clemson and FSU got what they set out for and the ACC lost.

 

[I4CtheFuture]

Thanks everyone for answering my OP. It is appreciated.

I don't really have anything to add. Reading through the responses it occurred to me that 1) I didn't expect the answers to be so technical and such.... and 2) I don't care. Both FSU and Clemmons suck. I was just mainly interested that no one else mentioned it. (That I saw)

 

[18IsTheMan]

No, but it was eliminated at the first sign of a court challenge.

You do appear to be backtracking though (minus the personal insult of others). First,the gor was an ironclad agreement that would keep the conference together another decade.

Now it's meaningless and to be thrown away. It was either important or not. Unless you're arguing the ACC only wanted to use it to postpone the departures a few years?

lol, at the first sign? FSU first sued in December 2023.

 

[18IsTheMan]

It's funny how folks are making such a fuss over the GOR being negotiated away after having served its purpose and saying the exit fees are now so very affordable. You have no context. The exit fee will eventually drop to a flat rate of $75 million. Texas and OU paid a combined exit fee of $100 million to leave the Big 12 (and that was considered an eye-popping number). And neither FSU nor Clemson have anything in the stratosphere of Texas money. The Big 10 exit fee is only up to $60 million/school. The ACC exit fee is still a very, very big number, and maybe prohibitive.
2026 -- $165 million
2027 -- $147 million
2028 -- $129 million
2029 -- $111 million
2030 -- $93 million
2031-2036 -- $75 million

For schools in Clemson's and FSU's financial class, those are still massive, massive numbers. They only seem reasonable in comparison to what the previous exit fee would have been.

It is very notable that the exit fee bottoms out at $75 million, which is still far and away the highest exit fee of all college football conferences, and there's not a close second. If it dropped another $18 million, you're looking at $57 million and that get into the realm of feasibility. Sure, where it was previously basically impossible for a school to leave the conference because of the exit fee, it now seems at least feasible. It's really not when you think about the numbers in context.

 

[Lurker123]

lol, at the first sign? FSU first sued in December 2023.

Yes, the first challenge to the GOR and the ACC dropped it.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Yes, the first challenge to the GOR and the ACC dropped it.

In any event, sorry to burst your bubble, but the ACC isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Lurker123]

It's funny how folks are making such a fuss over the GOR being negotiated away after having served its purpose and saying the exit fees are now so very affordable. You have no context. The exit fee will eventually drop to a flat rate of $75 million. Texas and OU paid a combined exit fee of $100 million to leave the Big 12 (and that was considered an eye-popping number). And neither FSU nor Clemson have anything in the stratosphere of Texas money. The Big 10 exit fee is only up to $60 million/school. The ACC exit fee is still a very, very big number, and maybe prohibitive.
2026 -- $165 million
2027 -- $147 million
2028 -- $129 million
2029 -- $111 million
2030 -- $93 million
2031-2036 -- $75 million

For schools in Clemson's and FSU's financial class, those are still massive, massive numbers. They only seem reasonable in comparison to what the previous exit fee would have been.

It is very notable that the exit fee bottoms out at $75 million, which is still far and away the highest exit fee of all college football conferences, and there's not a close second. If it dropped another $18 million, you're looking at $57 million and that get into the realm of feasibility. Sure, where it was previously basically impossible for a school to leave the conference because of the exit fee, it now seems at least feasible. It's really not when you think about the numbers in context.

I think people are "making a fuss" over the GOR being negotiated away because it was supposedly so "ironclad". As you yourself said, its the reason FSU and Clemson are still in the conference, and now it was tossed with the first legal challenge.

I fail to see how it served its purpose if the teams now leave in the next few years. Unless you're saying the purpose of the GOR was only to delay teams leaving for a few years. Is that what you are saying? (I've asked a couple times now)

As for the buyout, it's been pointed out here many times that the delta in media payouts between B10/SEC and the ACC are in the 10's of millions, and climbing. Just the delta alone would pay that fee in a few short years.

 

[Lurker123]

In any event, sorry to burst your bubble, but the ACC isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

As I said, when it does, we'll just argue about what was meant by "soon."

 

[18IsTheMan]

If you're FSU and Clemson and you thought you could nullify the GOR in court, why in the world would you ever agree to a settlement that still includes nearly prohibitive exit fees and keeps you locked into the conference for at least the next 5-6 years, if not longer? FSU engaged in a lot of saber rattling in this process, and made it unmistakably clear on many, repeated occasions that they wanted out of the ACC like yesterday and would not stop until they achieved their goal. FSU did not have a 5 year exit strategy. They wanted out NOW and said so on many occasions.

That the ACC not only kept them in the conference for the foreseeable future but still retained what will likely prove to be prohibitive exit fees was a major defeat for FSU.

You can only really understand this if you consider each party's primary objectives.

What was FSU primary objective? To get out of the ACC fast....now.

What was the ACC's primary objective? To keep the conference intact.

The ACC achieved their primary objective. FSU did not. Winner? ACC.

 

[Lurker123]

If you're FSU and Clemson and you thought you could nullify the GOR in court, why would you agree to a settlement that still includes nearly prohibitive exit fees and keeps you locked into the conference for at least the next 5-6 years, if not longer? FSU engaged in a lot of saber rattling in this process, and made it unmistakably clear on many, repeated occasions that they wanted out of the ACC like yesterday and would not stop until they achieved their goal. FSU did not have a 5 year exit strategy. They wanted out NOW and said so on many occasions.

That the ACC not only kept them in the conference for the foreseeable future but still retained what will likely prove to be prohibitive exit fees was a major defeat for FSU.

You can only really understand this if you consider each party's primary objectives.

What was FSU primary objective? To get out of the ACC fast....now.

What was the ACC's primary objective? To keep the conference intact.

The ACC achieved their primary objective. FSU did not. Winner? ACC.

If you're FSU and Clemson, and thought you could nullify the GOR in court, why settle for the ACC eliminating the GOR?

Seems more reasonable when worded that way.

FSU/Clemson (not to mention other schools) just eliminated the GOR, got the buyouts reduced, and some schools got more money per year.

The ACC got what? To stay together for 3 or 4 more years? Is that really a victory? Staying together a few more years?

What did FSU/Clemson want? To get rid of the GOR. They got that plus lowered exit fees and more money.

The ACC got 3 or 4 more years with them. Was that really the objective of the GOR? I've asked a few times now, and you don't seem to want to answer.

 

[Piscis]

It's funny how folks are making such a fuss over the GOR being negotiated away after having served its purpose and saying the exit fees are now so very affordable. You have no context. The exit fee will eventually drop to a flat rate of $75 million. Texas and OU paid a combined exit fee of $100 million to leave the Big 12 (and that was considered an eye-popping number). And neither FSU nor Clemson have anything in the stratosphere of Texas money. The Big 10 exit fee is only up to $60 million/school. The ACC exit fee is still a very, very big number, and maybe prohibitive.
2026 -- $165 million
2027 -- $147 million
2028 -- $129 million
2029 -- $111 million
2030 -- $93 million
2031-2036 -- $75 million

For schools in Clemson's and FSU's financial class, those are still massive, massive numbers. They only seem reasonable in comparison to what the previous exit fee would have been.

It is very notable that the exit fee bottoms out at $75 million, which is still far and away the highest exit fee of all college football conferences, and there's not a close second. If it dropped another $18 million, you're looking at $57 million and that get into the realm of feasibility. Sure, where it was previously basically impossible for a school to leave the conference because of the exit fee, it now seems at least feasible. It's really not when you think about the numbers in context.

To put the exit fee number in perspective; Clemson had a surplus from operations in its athletic finances of $12 million last year. FSU had a shortfall of $2.5 million. While both schools will see an increase in revenue, expenses will also rise so future financial results should be roughly similar. Neither school is sitting on huge cash reserves and Clemson actually lost money because of capital improvements.

Clemson would have to spend the equivalent of 12 years surplus to exit in 2027 and FSU would have to come up with approximately $150 million from somewhere to exit in 2027. Clemson could start putting every penny of surplus into an "exit account" and be able to leave in 2032 assuming they remain profitable. FSU would need some big time donors to start stepping up now if they want to get out in the next 6 years. These huge numbers around college athletics get thrown around so much they lose meaning. The reality is; neither Clemson nor FSU is in any financial position to buy their way out of the ACC any time soon.

 

[18IsTheMan]

To put the exit fee number in perspective; Clemson had a surplus from operations in its athletic finances of $12 million last year. FSU had a shortfall of $2.5 million. While both schools will see an increase in revenue, expenses will also rise so future financial results should be roughly similar. Neither school is sitting on huge cash reserves and Clemson actually lost money because of capital improvements.

Clemson would have to spend the equivalent of 12 years surplus to exit in 2027 and FSU would have to come up with approximately $150 million from somewhere to exit in 2027. Clemson could start putting every penny of surplus into an "exit account" and be able to leave in 2032 assuming they remain profitable. FSU would need some big time donors to start stepping up now if they want to get out in the next 6 years. These huge numbers around college athletics get thrown around so much they lose meaning. The reality is; neither Clemson nor FSU is in any financial position to buy their way out of the ACC any time soon.

Precisely. I'm glad someone has their thinking cap on today. And don't forget the revenue sharing with the players that is kicking in. That's another massive expense for programs.

You're right about the big numbers. But these buyout numbers only seem reasonable compared to the previous exit fee that was estimated to be nearly $500 million. These numbers, even at the floor of $75 million, still dwarf every other conference and present a practically insurmountable challenge for both schools.

 

[Lurker123]

To put the exit fee number in perspective; Clemson had a surplus from operations in its athletic finances of $12 million last year. FSU had a shortfall of $2.5 million. While both schools will see an increase in revenue, expenses will also rise so future financial results should be roughly similar. Neither school is sitting on huge cash reserves and Clemson actually lost money because of capital improvements.

Clemson would have to spend the equivalent of 12 years surplus to exit in 2027 and FSU would have to come up with approximately $150 million from somewhere to exit in 2027. Clemson could start putting every penny of surplus into an "exit account" and be able to leave in 2032 assuming they remain profitable. FSU would need some big time donors to start stepping up now if they want to get out in the next 6 years. These huge numbers around college athletics get thrown around so much they lose meaning. The reality is; neither Clemson nor FSU is in any financial position to buy their way out of the ACC any time soon.

I think youre leaving out a few variables.
First, I assume 3 years, but we can go with 2. That would mean an almost immediate notification of moving conferences.

The buyout would be 147M.

Clemson has a 12M surplus last year, making that a 12.25 year payoff without interest. Like you said, it's large.

They stand to get roughly 15M more a year with the new agreement. Oversimplifying, but that could mean a 27M surplus, or now a 5.4 year payout.

Then factor in the delta between what they make in the ACC and what they would make in the SEC or B10. 10M more a year? (On top of the 15 we are esrimating) 20M more a year?

That delta shortens that 5 year plan significantly more.

Agreed that it is oversimplified, and not taking into account even interest. But the numbers shorten that payoff time to something much more feasible.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Did the GOR knock up your sister and then leave her? Seem awful bitter about it, lol.

 

[Lurker123]

Did the GOR knock up your sister and then leave her? Seem awful bitter about it, lol.

I'm not sure how you get that I'm upset about it. You seem to be the one that's taken your personal feelings with Harvard and let them ratchet you up.

Have I resorted to personal attacks, like you? I've politely asked questions several times, only for you to ignore them and make sex jokes about my sister.

Maybe it's just projection. Or maybe you've confused me with the other poster, bowhunter, who was going back and forth with you with insults?

 

[Piscis]

I think youre leaving out a few variables.
First, I assume 3 years, but we can go with 2. That would mean an almost immediate notification of moving conferences.

The buyout would be 147M.

Clemson has a 12M surplus last year, making that a 12.25 year payoff without interest. Like you said, it's large.

They stand to get roughly 15M more a year with the new agreement. Oversimplifying, but that could mean a 27M surplus, or now a 5.4 year payout.

Then factor in the delta between what they make in the ACC and what they would make in the SEC or B10. 10M more a year? (On top of the 15 we are esrimating) 20M more a year?

That delta shortens that 5 year plan significantly more.

Agreed that it is oversimplified, and not taking into account even interest. But the numbers shorten that payoff time to something much more feasible.

Clemson actually lost money this year when capital improvements were factored in. Granted, those are one time expenses but capital projects are always going to be needed. Yes, the new agreement will give them more money but revenue sharing with players is coming and that could potentially eat up every penny of the increase and more. Assuming they land in the SEC (there is no evidence the SEC has any interest in them, or the B1G for that matter) the new revenue would probably put them back to where they are now with revenue sharing. Give them the benefit of the doubt and lets say they will have a $15 million surplus going forward after everything is factored in. They will be looking at every penny of surplus going to the exit payment for 10 years. I am certain they would want to do some capital projects and there will be unforeseen expenses during that time so all of the surplus could not be directed to the exit fee.

Is getting out of the ACC so appealing that Clemson would be OK with spending all of their annual athletic surplus (assuming the surpluses continue after Clemson moves to a conference where they are not the giant among dwarves and no longer have a cakewalk to the CFP) for the next 5-10 years? I think when the people in charge of the money at Clemson actually sit down and look at the numbers they will realize leaving the ACC is a bad idea until something major changes. I think there will be major changes in college sports in the next 10 years and the schools who make emotional decisions and decisions based on short term financial rewards will look back with regret.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Clemson actually lost money this year when capital improvements were factored in. Granted, those are one time expenses but capital projects are always going to be needed. Yes, the new agreement will give them more money but revenue sharing with players is coming and that could potentially eat up every penny of the increase and more. Assuming they land in the SEC (there is no evidence the SEC has any interest in them, or the B1G for that matter) the new revenue would probably put them back to where they are now with revenue sharing. Give them the benefit of the doubt and lets say they will have a $15 million surplus going forward after everything is factored in. They will be looking at every penny of surplus going to the exit payment for 10 years. I am certain they would want to do some capital projects and there will be unforeseen expenses during that time so all of the surplus could not be directed to the exit fee.

Is getting out of the ACC so appealing that Clemson would be OK with spending all of their annual athletic surplus (assuming the surpluses continue after Clemson moves to a conference where they are not the giant among dwarves and no longer have a cakewalk to the CFP) for the next 5-10 years? I think when the people in charge of the money at Clemson actually sit down and look at the numbers they will realize leaving the ACC is a bad idea until something major changes. I think there will be major changes in college sports in the next 10 years and the schools who make emotional decisions and decisions based on short term financial rewards will look back with regret.

Them numbers just don't add up. This isn't really a matter of the GOR no longer being in effect.

The question is: how in the world do programs of Clemson's and FSU's financial stature possibly come up with that kind of money? It would take some serious penny pinching, which is not a possibility in today's college football world. And it's only going to get more expensive to operate.

 

[Lurker123]

Clemson actually lost money this year when capital improvements were factored in. Granted, those are one time expenses but capital projects are always going to be needed. Yes, the new agreement will give them more money but revenue sharing with players is coming and that could potentially eat up every penny of the increase and more. Assuming they land in the SEC (there is no evidence the SEC has any interest in them, or the B1G for that matter) the new revenue would probably put them back to where they are now with revenue sharing. Give them the benefit of the doubt and lets say they will have a $15 million surplus going forward after everything is factored in. They will be looking at every penny of surplus going to the exit payment for 10 years. I am certain they would want to do some capital projects and there will be unforeseen expenses during that time so all of the surplus could not be directed to the exit fee.

Is getting out of the ACC so appealing that Clemson would be OK with spending all of their annual athletic surplus (assuming the surpluses continue after Clemson moves to a conference where they are not the giant among dwarves and no longer have a cakewalk to the CFP) for the next 5-10 years? I think when the people in charge of the money at Clemson actually sit down and look at the numbers they will realize leaving the ACC is a bad idea until something major changes. I think there will be major changes in college sports in the next 10 years and the schools who make emotional decisions and decisions based on short term financial rewards will look back with regret.

Yeah, I think the capital investments are also why FSU was in the red this year too.

You pose a good question though. If they could maintain their current expenditures, (ignoring the 12M surplus) allow the 15M to go towards the revenue sharing, and put only the SEC/B10 increase towards the buyout, would it be feasible?

Also remember that we're talking an immediate notice of switching conferences, set for 2 years in the future. Any year delay to that knocks off another year of payment (ish).

But you then weigh maintaining your current spending, having the revenue sharing mostly covered, and spending your increase for letssay 7 or 8 years.

Take that vs staying in the ACC, and in 2030 (is that the year of our new contract?) Falling more and more tens of millions behind annually?

That doesn't even take into consideration that if a couple schools are snatched ahead of FSU and Clemson, then the future of the ACC is in significant peril, and conference revenue by them would only drop further and further behind at an accelerating rate.

I think it only makes more sense the more you look at it long term.

 

[18IsTheMan]

FSU wanted out of the conference. ACC wanted to keep the conference together. Only one party got what they wanted.

Anything FSU gained is a mere consolation prize. Anything the ACC gave up is a minor concession.

FSU is still financially locked into the ACC due to the extremely high exit fee and, even with unequal revenue distribution, they will make far less than SEC or Big 10 teams. If that's winning, I'd hate to see what losing looks like.

 

[Lurker123]

FSU wanted out of the conference. ACC wanted to keep the conference together. Only one party got what they wanted.

Anything FSU gained is a mere consolation prize. Anything the ACC gave up is a minor concession.

FSU is still financially locked into the ACC due to the extremely high exit fee and, even with unequal revenue distribution, they will make far less than SEC or Big 10 teams. If that's winning, I'd hate to see what losing looks like.

FSU/Clemson (not to mention other schools) just eliminated the GOR, got the buyouts reduced, and some schools got more money per year.

The ACC got what? To stay together for 3 or 4 more years? Is that really a victory? Staying together a few more years?

What did FSU/Clemson want? To get rid of the GOR. They got that plus lowered exit fees and more money.

The ACC got 3 or 4 more years with them. Was that really the objective of the GOR? I've asked a few times now, and you don't seem to want to answer.

 

[18IsTheMan]

FSU/Clemson (not to mention other schools) just eliminated the GOR, got the buyouts reduced, and some schools got more money per year.

The ACC got what? To stay together for 3 or 4 more years? Is that really a victory? Staying together a few more years?

What did FSU/Clemson want? To get rid of the GOR. They got that plus lowered exit fees and more money.

The ACC got 3 or 4 more years with them. Was that really the objective of the GOR? I've asked a few times now, and you don't seem to want to answer.

Ooooooook, can we call a truce then? I've said everything I can think to say, and a good bit more. And, believe it or not (and you probably won't), I don't even really care that much about it. Just something to argue and there's nothing else to talk about. It's either this or Russia.

 

[LazyIslander]

"I tell you, the real winner is the city of Portland. Every time I come here it gets hard to leave. I bet you put something to the water."
-Shooter McGavin

 

[Lurker123]

Ooooooook, can we call a truce then? I've said everything I can think to say, and a good bit more. And, believe it or not (and you probably won't), I don't even really care that much about it. Just something to argue and there's nothing else to talk about. It's either this or Russia.

Ha, chalk it up to finally having something football related to talk about.

I will add, at least a portion of my reasoning is coming from a place where, whenever someone says college football has gone a step to far, or wont do that next thing, there seems to always be someone involved somewhere saying "hold my beer".

 

[atl-cock]

You would think a lot, but tradition counts for about zero these days. You saw how easy it was for Oregon to kick Oregon State the curb and leave them homeless. They had been partnered as one of 4 charter members in the various iterations of the Pac12 since 1915. There was thinking that Oregon wouldn't leave Oregon State "behind" but they did without a second thought. There are some in our fan base who would be ok giving up the Clemson game.

Ojklahoma / Oklahoma State.

But the commonwealth of Virfinia wasn't having any of that with Virginia / Virginia Tech.

I wasn't thinking about a specific Tar Hole rivalry. I was thinking more about how ingrained they are with the ACC and the Big Four.

 

[atl-cock]

It's funny how folks are making such a fuss over the GOR being negotiated away after having served its purpose and saying the exit fees are now so very affordable. You have no context. The exit fee will eventually drop to a flat rate of $75 million. Texas and OU paid a combined exit fee of $100 million to leave the Big 12 (and that was considered an eye-popping number). And neither FSU nor Clemson have anything in the stratosphere of Texas money. The Big 10 exit fee is only up to $60 million/school. The ACC exit fee is still a very, very big number, and maybe prohibitive.
2026 -- $165 million
2027 -- $147 million
2028 -- $129 million
2029 -- $111 million
2030 -- $93 million
2031-2036 -- $75 million

For schools in Clemson's and FSU's financial class, those are still massive, massive numbers. They only seem reasonable in comparison to what the previous exit fee would have been.

It is very notable that the exit fee bottoms out at $75 million, which is still far and away the highest exit fee of all college football conferences, and there's not a close second. If it dropped another $18 million, you're looking at $57 million and that get into the realm of feasibility. Sure, where it was previously basically impossible for a school to leave the conference because of the exit fee, it now seems at least feasible. It's really not when you think about the numbers in context.

Even higher than non-football conferences?

 

[Lurker123]

Ojklahoma / Oklahoma State.

But the commonwealth of Virfinia wasn't having any of that with Virginia / Virginia Tech.

I wasn't thinking about a specific Tar Hole rivalry. I was thinking more about how ingrained they are with the ACC and the Big Four.

Our rivalry may be on the chopping block soon. Not for expansion, but for 9 conference game schedules.

 

[atl-cock]

Our rivalry may be on the chopping block soon. Not for expansion, but for 9 conference game schedules.

Just football, right?

 

[Lurker123]

Just football, right?

Yeah. Nothing other than speculation by sports talking heads. But it had to do with us losing a home game every other year, and how that was supposedly such a big deal.

 

[atl-cock]

Yeah. Nothing other than speculation by sports talking heads. But it had to do with us losing a home game every other year, and how that was supposedly such a big deal.

Yes, the way USC has set up the football schedule for the most part since joining the SEC is that if they schedule a school from a P4 league either at the opponent's site or at a neutral site (e.g., VPI in Atlanta to open the 2025 season) it will be only when we're playing Clemron at home that season, which is in odd-numbered years.