Here's an update this morning from Tiger Net regarding Clemson leaving
David Hood is TigerNet's version of Andy Bitter without Andy's good looks...lol.
He posted this morning about all the rumors and says nothing is happening in the short term and he seems to be well-connected.
Clemson/Realignment/Expansion Update
Sep 28, 2023, 8:39 AM
Ok, I know a lot of people have seen the reports the past few days that would indicate a decision on Clemson's future plans is imminent. I have been quiet because I wanted to make sure the info I had was correct, that all the pieces fit together, and I had to wait on my most trusted sources. I worked into the night last night and early this morning and I think I have a good sense of where Clemson stands.
Let’s parse it out….Yes, there is a BOT meeting scheduled for early next month. It’s been on the books for over a year. Will there be a piece where Graham Neff discusses the landscape and where we stand with realignment and expansion? Absolutely. But there will be no announcement that Clemson is leaving the ACC or has an invite from someone else.
And to tell you how rumors swirl and things get started – I received a text yesterday telling me that an “All Hands on Deck” meeting is scheduled for Oct. 11 with all of the coaches and Neff and President Clements. People see that date – considering Oct. 10th has been bandied about as a possible “gotcha” date and decided to read a lot into it. This was a meeting that was scheduled for August but had to be rescheduled, the Prez is not going to speak, and this appears to be a normal meeting.
And finally, I received a phone call this morning from a person that I consider my most trusted source – someone who knows all – and they told me point blank, that there is no invite from another league and that Clemson doesn’t expect to announce any sort of future plans by the end of football season (That was the date I asked about, as in is it imminent?).
I’ve been told that Clemson’s legal team is fully investigating all avenues towards the Grant of Rights, and that will be ongoing. Clemson is exploring all avenues and that will be ongoing. But right now, it looks as if most of the bandwidth is concentrated on ACC revenue distribution and the new schools and how all of that shakes out.
If something pops in the meantime? Great. But right now, it’s head down and proceed as if we are a long-term member of the league while also exploring any and every other avenue available. I’ve been on this since the beginning, and I trust my sources on this, so I hope you trust me now. I truly don’t expect anything to happen here in the next few weeks, but I will monitor it and let you know what I am hearing.
Link:
TigerNet
56 Replies
2y
SEC will soon stand @ 16 teams. Pre-expansion, round-robin scheduling was the norm. Add a couple more, and ti will take 3 years for any one team to play all the others, presuming ending divisional play. Continuing divisional play means almost neverplaying a team from the other division. Mega conferences undermines the very concept of conferencebecause there will be no equity in scheduling, thereby deligitimizing any team emerging as a conference "champion" that only plays half the teams in its conference. There are always going to be "strong" and "weak" teams. What happens when a "strong" team plays mostly "strong" teams and a middling team plays mostly "weak" teams but emerges w/the best record. Mega-conferences will invariably stage playoffs which combined w/a 12-team national playoff (which I favor) will significantly expand the season. Heck, I can remember 11-game seasons including bowls.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
2y
and imagination. When conferences get too big, they will return to the system of geographical divisions, rather than geographical conferences. They will establish conference playoffs ($$$). Because the season will be longer, rosters will need to grow. Solution: huge teams with 150 players or whatever it takes. This is when NIL and the portal really heat up.
Most of us would choose to go back to the old ways. But nostalgia doesn't pay as well as realignment.
(In response to this post by Arch72Hokie)
High school football participation is less than a million now
It peaked at 1.1 million in 2008 and has fallen steadily ever since. There will be no 150 player teams in the future as there will not be enough players as more and more parents are understandably steering their kids away from the injury riddled sport of football. Said it before that we need to reduce football scholarships to 70. The argument that we are cutting out opportunities for higher education for the money sport of college football is just silly. Decrease the scholarship limit to 70 and watch competition get better and better because even Alabama will be unable to recruit all the good to great players.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
T
Truthahn
2y
Now that you can get replacement players from the portal, why not cut back on the scholarship limits? Makes things easier on everyone's budgets, especially considering Title IX.
(In response to this post by Walkin` Willie)
2y
high school programs decrease in number, the concentration of athletes will move to the fewer remaining football schools. I have said before that high school football is only a few injury lawsuits away from (near-) extinction.
(In response to this post by Walkin` Willie)
2y
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
V
VPI_1998
2y
officially. I for one won't be sorry to see them go. Have a league where Michigan, OSU, Bama, USC west, Texas, Florida State, Georgia, ND and a few other "blue blood" teams I can't think of play each other every year. I'll do the same thing as I do with the NFL - won't watch it.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
...I should say the, "practicaility" of realignment.
(In response to this post by Arch72Hokie)
2y
** Edited by Hokie12thman at 9/28/2023, 6:31:54 PM
(In response to this post by VTChip)
M
Mercury
2y
If you are POWER 5, you are worried about number 1, while you may be tied to a conference, and have 'business' relationships' with the other institutions, who ALWAYS look out for yourself. You work behind the scenes (that means no public or fan involvement or knowledge at all), work scenarios, and if you can add $$$, you need how to get there if need or inhibitors. Clemson, has not gone to the public like crazy FSU has (that is a governance and state problems in florida), they are deliberate.
If you are Power 5 and Not doing that aggressively, these are the schools that will be left behind. The key is not make it routine exercise, but work it hard to make sure your university is ready to pounce if anything breaks loose.
We cannot be the 'we love conference x/ and its home and we are happy as team.. WRONG
(In response to this post by Hokie12thman)
2y
And now there’s a BOT meeting next month? Time for all humans to come together and panic.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
H
HOO86
2y
However, I have no doubt from the earlier reporting that a Clemson administrator talked about leaving "sooner rather than later" that some Clemson administrator said that. They voted against Stanford, Cal, and SMU and did not get their way. So the earlier reporting regarding Clemson has possibly a little truth to it. But when they have information about where they are going, then there is something worth reporting. Until then grumbling administrators isn't of much interest.
** Edited by HOO86 at 9/28/2023, 3:14:49 PM
(In response to this post by VTChip)
2y
talking about leaving "sooner rather than later" is just as vague and meaningless as "if something isn't done about the money situation, we'll have to think about our options" (which is what was actually said by fsu officials, nothing more, despite the headlines that left key parts of the quote out.)
It's actually really simple, the media created a crisis, the ACC did what it always does and find the worst possible response. From a long term perspective they've just added more welfare cases, so the few that are supporting the many, are now in a position where they've had enough. Making a couple extra bucks because you were able to hardball programs into partial shares because it was better than nothing is not a sound long term business model, just means they'll screw us all the second they have a tiny bit of leverage. If it was likely that FSU, Clem and Miami at least, were gonna leave at some point (when the GOR expired or close to it), it is now pretty much guaranteed because of that stupid move.
In addition, if FSU or Clem had a way out of the GOR, the SEC would scoop them right up. If Miami could get out, the BIG would add them in a minute and probably GT just to get the ATL market because they will take crap (MD, RUT) to get TV markets. The fact that all they are doing is (and really they aren't, unnamed sources close to the school are) making generic and meaningless statements of the obvious, then there is nothing to see here, the GOR is gonna hold like it always was, but now as it gets close to expiring, the end of the conference is sure, rather than likely.
And no, the Mag 7 +1 or whatever you all want to call it, is not going to blow up the conference, for 1 simple reason, there aren't homes in the BIG and SEC for 8 teams and no one is going to break up this gravy train for a spot in the Big12, which doesn't have anything guaranteed after about 6 years. Of course it's all likely to come down like a house of cards anyway, because there is little chance the revenue growth is going to come close to covering the expectations of those media deals, especially the BIG's, and then what are they gonna do. Think OSU, McChicken and USC are gonna take paycuts to keep Indiana, Iowa, Perdue and such happy....nope.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
W
WBGV
2y
of the conference, it falls flat.
“I’ve been told that Clemson’s legal team is fully investigating all avenues towards the Grant of Rights, and that will be ongoing. Clemson is exploring all avenues and that will be ongoing.”
For a legal document that is supposed to be ironclad, there sure has been a lot of legal work involved from Clemson lawyers, FSU lawyers, and the magnificent seven lawyers and it is ongoing.
“They told me point blank, that there is no invite from another league.”
Really? Conferences never invite schools to join which would subject themselves to lawsuits. We all know how this works by now. A school applies for membership (wink wink) and that school is either rejected or accepted (wink wink). And the entire formal process now takes less than a day.
“I truly don’t expect anything to happen here in the next few weeks.”
What about nothing happening until 2036? What about nothing happening until 2030? What about nothing happening for 3 years? What about nothing happening for a year? A few weeks!!!
** Edited by WBGV at 9/28/2023, 1:43:46 PM
(In response to this post by VTChip)
S
saret
2y
he cannot. Sounds like you're a wee bit touchy.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
V
VTBoar
2y
get to being so. We have been hearing for months about lawyers at multiple Universities trying to figure out a way to get around the GOR. With so much legal brain power focused on the issue, I would think if there was a path of escape it would have been identified by now. Maybe each time the lawyers see light at the end of the tunnel, it's the Year 2036 Locomotive headed their way.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
V
VPI_1998
2y
been identified doesn't mean it's not there. There's always a loophole it seems, or at least a way to negotiate out of it. When it happens who knows but I would bet it will be within 3 years cause FSU and Clemson are yapping far too much to be just blowing smoke
(In response to this post by VTBoar)
2y
Pay the $120Million exit fee to the ACC, then pay the ACC another ~$50Million per year until the Grant of Rights expires in 2036 to buy back your media rights. Any other plan to get out of the ACC is just wishful thinking.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 9/29/2023, 6:43:27 PM
(In response to this post by VPI_1998)
2y
But the SEC and Big10 can't offer any ACC school membership until 2037 because all those schools have the GOR contract that expires then. Meaning, those conferences could offer membership to any ACC school tomorrow, but the invite would be for starting in the 2037 season, not for any season between then and now. Any invite to a school with membership starting before 2037 kind of sounds like contract tampering to me.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
2y
The SEC, B1G, ESPN, and FOX are not stupid enough to do such a thing. The only thing they can legally do is exactly what Texas, Oklahoma, USC, UCLA, the SEC and B1G did: offer ACC schools membership in the SEC or B1G when the ACC's grant of rights expires in 2036.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 10/1/2023, 8:32:37 PM
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
2y
That's been my understanding and why I scratch my head when people act like ACC schools can just pick up and leave for the Big10 or SEC. The ACC would have quite the lawsuit against those two if they decided to poach any school before the expiration of the GOR in 2036.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
2y
can't refuse (if they want).
Contracts get altered all the time, so I wouldn't be too confident.
(In response to this post by VTBoar)
2
2hhoop3
2y
negotiable as you say, the ability of ESPN to make an offer the ACC can't refuse may not be anywhere near as simple as that. First, ESPN's present business situation calls into question exactly how much cash they might be able to come to the table with. More problematic for ESPN is the optics of essentially picking a winner and a loser amongst two properties under its sole control and that are both functioning entities operating profitably, although not equivalently. That situation differs from the Big 12 because it was shared with FOX, had long been somewhat dysfunctional and, most relevantly, the Longhorn Network was a cash albatross for ESPN that they needed a solution for sooner rather than later.
I would very seriously doubt most people watching these events unfold really believe that 2036 Locomotive is more than a pipedream. 2033 is the realistic outer stretch limit, with 2030/2031 coinciding with the last lookin and conference deals coming around for renewal as the last chance for the ACC to move as a conference being more likely. The real question is 2026 and the ongoing CFP negotiations and next lookin for the ACC. Anything happening before then signifies some other major shift in the landscape likely not driven by any of the ACC schools rumored to be contemplating departure. The TV partners and the P2 will be very deliberate given the risks of litigation and legislation surrounding more aggressive actions. Some of this is my own opinion and some has been shared with me by people who have been at the table in the past and will likely be at the table in the future with ties to the ACC and/or the SEC.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 9/28/2023, 5:18:24 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
make it happen in the Big, and they may.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
is 2034 I believe and the BIG/Big 12 both in 2030/2031 along with ACC lookin. There is one other pending out there not addressed and that is ND renewal which is next on deck. If ND does not get there number on their own or through a BIG scheduling subsidy things could get interesting.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
is no way in my opinion that ESPN wants to lose those games. I'm pretty sure the board here thinks they get enough from the ACC, but while they don't complain like FSU, they certainly are looking at the money.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
Nothing more, nothing less.
There were several stories yesterday that implied that Clemson's exit from the ACC was going to happen in the near future.
Here's one example: "School administrators indicate an announcement about a Clemson bolt from its growing financial disadvantage in the ACC relative to SEC and Big Ten schools is coming soon"
I was simply sharing a different point of view from other sources.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
W
WBGV
2y
(In response to this post by VTChip)
2
2hhoop3
2y
why not go to Tiger net instead of trolling this board?
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 9/28/2023, 8:45:50 PM
(In response to this post by WBGV)
W
WBGV
2y
Is this another one of your postings of value that you are always talking about? Why not quit pretending that you are a moderator and quit telling other posters what to do? With age should come wisdom, but there are always exceptions.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
can't answer the question when called on another one of your BS posts. You're a troll, plain and simple and with less than 500 posts and less than 200 likes we see the value you have brought.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
W
WBGV
2y
accusation, some more name calling, and shadowing posters you don’t agree with. Same old, same old.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
you just chose to ignore it because you could not answer it. You're right it is the same old, same old from you. There was no accusation just the truth about your behavior. You want an accusation hears one. You made a stupid post and accusation attacking/trolling a highly respected poster on these boards. When the folly of your charade became clear you tried to walk it back by shifting the explanation. Then when questioned on that you retreat to your "shadow" routine. Everybody can see you for exactly what you are as you have proven time and again what your true motives are.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
W
WBGV
2y
You shadow other posters. You attack other posters. You make accusation that aren’t true like your last one. You call people names and worst of all you are closed minded. I adhere to the rules of the board, but you on the other hand violate them frequently. And sadly the reason you do it is because you simply don’t like what is being said. You don’t like the information that is being shared. You don’t like differing opinions and you take it personally when you are proven to be incorrect.
I was quite content to simply ignore you, but you follow me around like a little puppy wanting to engage in vile exchanges that serve no purpose and are rather childish. It’s never to late to grow up.
** Edited by WBGV at 9/29/2023, 2:10:24 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
I violate the rules frequently there is a report abuse button. Feel free to use it. As far as adhering to the rules goes, your post I am now responding to is the latest example of that baseless claim.. You give yourself far too much credit if you think I follow you or any other poster around, however, when you or the few other trolls that visit this board from time to time step over the line I do respond but, mostly I ignore your tripe.
If you don't want to be challenged post smarter and correctly for a change. If you don't like to be challenged stop whining and learn to defend your position, a proposition made much easier if you actually have a position worth defending. Childish is your trolling antics on this board, perhaps one day you will take your own advice, gain some wisdom and grow up.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 9/29/2023, 6:53:07 AM
(In response to this post by WBGV)
W
WBGV
2y
and shadowing posters isn’t what I would call mature behavior. That is why there are board rules against it because it impedes the exchange of ideas, opinions, and knowledge.
I keep waiting to see your self-proclaimed and so called “postings of value” on this board, but after a year I’ve seen nothing except postings similar to the ones in this thread.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
if you believe my posts are against board rules you have a mechanism to report it. Use it if you believe your argument has ANY merit. I'm fine with letting our respective posting histories in this thread and others allow the posters to reach their own conclusions as to the value brought.
The original question still stands and remains unanswered. If your problem was with Hood's post why not go to Tiger Net?
(In response to this post by WBGV)
W
WBGV
2y
Your accusation was why don’t you troll the Clemson board. It is like me asking you why don’t you shadow posters on the football message board instead of this one It’s not a real question, but it was an accusation in the form of a question.
I’ll play your silly game once again, but I already know how it ends. David Hood’s post was reference on this board by another poster. Hood’s comments were reposted here and I simply commented on them here. You didn’t like the comments so you played dumb accusing me of doing what you do on a regular basis which is to attack other posters.
Maybe if you quit pretending to be a “clever” poster which you aren’t and put forth meaningful questions, you would receive better replies. Shadowing posters and calling them trolls when you don’t like what they are saying is anything but “clever”.
** Edited by WBGV at 9/29/2023, 2:12:10 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
You are losing this argument so badly.
So much so that I'm "almost" embarrassed for you - with "almost" the operative word.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
W
WBGV
2y
Just one poster calling another poster a troll. Seems like it happens every other week.
(In response to this post by Walkin` Willie)
2
2hhoop3
2y
comprehension is poor and your current answer flat just like your original reply to VT Chip. I never asked you to troll the Clemson board, I asked you why you did not go to Tiger Net to make the post, INSTEAD OF TROLLING THIS BOARD because Hood likely never sees your comment here if it was initially intended to be for him as opposed to your own little attempt to be clever and take a swipe at Chip.
Maybe if you quit pretending to not be a troll which you are and put more time into your own reading comprehension and making legitimate posts you wouldn't spend your time backpedaling and trying to deflect when questioned on your motives.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
W
WBGV
2y
You could of used the word “post” or “posting”, but you didn’t. What you said verbatim was “why not go to the Tiger net instead of trolling this board”. The inference being instead of trolling this board troll that board. Perhaps you should refrain from insulting the reading comprehension of other posters as you so often do and have your memory tested. You just made that comment today and I can assure that only “trolling” was used and not “posting”. Constant word games are another one of your quirks.
I don’t believe that I have taken a swipe at any other poster on this board who hasn’t attacked me first at least not intentionally. It servers no purpose.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
W
WBGV
2y
over and over and over again - nothing ever changes. The insults are the same. The shadowing is the same. The naming calling is the same. The phony questions are the same. If you were half as clever as you think you are you wouldn’t have to resort to any of these tactics and you wouldn’t be so bothered by the views of others. You would respectfully disagree or agree or simply ignore what was being posted and then move on rather than doing what you do now. You see trolls where there are none.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
S
saret
2y
know that.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
is actually not devolving, just producing more and more evidence for the argument for the few that may not already be aware of his MO.
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
2y
from the OP does the back and forth go.😉
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
get any credit for bringing it back around to the original question that still remains unanswered? ;-)
(In response to this post by saret)
S
saret
2y
on here, just to see how the formatting would handle it. But, my chat buddies usually stop after a while.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
People would do well to read that post side by side with the stories(being charitable here) leaked yesterday. If you compare and contrast the specificity of statements made, the factual details, or lack thereof, supplied and the conclusions actually drawn it provides a good contrast of clickbait, relied on by certain trolls to stir this board, to what can be construed as an honest effort to share information.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
2y
reports disqualifies the other, except in the view of the beholder.
You understand, hoop, that realignment is going to happen... right? You realize that people have opinions about how it might unfold. (I'm one of those.) And I really enjoy posting about it. The discussion hits close to home for ACC and VT supporters these days. But you seem to take it so personally that somebody would suggest an unwanted outcome for "the Good Guys."
Take some comfort in the reality that nothing I have to say about the subject will be factored in to any actual decisions about realignment. That's true also of Flugaur, TigerNet, and a zillion other free-wheeling observers. Don't allow yourself to provoked into name-calling just because you disa gree with a post.
** Edited by 33laszlo99 at 9/28/2023, 12:56:36 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
it is an apt description of actions. It is also more than a point of view discrepancy. As was explained in the post, one story is constructed on innuendo and leading inferences. Another makes definitive statements supported by context and background. Realignment will happen but, nothing happens until there is an actual invite. Until then it's propaganda and PR BS aimed at hastening the demise of a target. A playbook already executed once by the BIG and FOX with its willing accomplice, the Big 12, at the expense of the PAC 12.
I do take it personally when people try to pass off conjecture as facts without a whiff of support or explanation. While I may not like a particular outcome I can accept a well constructed counterpoint but, view clickbait and those who perpetuate the cycle with great disdain. I know nothing you say will influence decisions or have significant basis in fact but, it could influence others less inclined to substantiating your opinion to repeat bad information and obscure real discussion on the topic of realignment. I'll make a deal with you, I will try to avoid what you term name calling when you actually critically consider the information you choose to share and can ably defend it when challenged.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)