1) Did FSU & Clemson "win"? Short answer: Yeah, mostly. If the ultimate goal was to exit the ACC as soon as possible and land a full share in the SEC or B1G (as Okla, Tex, UCLA and USC did) then, no, this isn't the ideal outcome. But... everything else is pretty great for them.
Financially, if Clemson/FSU (or another school) hit benchmarks for ratings & postseason play, they'll earn $ in the ballpark with the SEC/B1G (give or take $5-7M) & they've secured some certainty on what exit costs would be if/when they choose to leave.
That's pretty much a home run for both (and, FWIW, more than what Michael Alford asked for 2 years ago that the league's leadership wouldn't even consider back then). It's an even bigger HR for, say, UNC or Miami who get same flexibility & access to $ w/o having sued anyone.
2) So the grant of rights was pointless? That's complicated. Truth is, we don't know. The lawsuits never got beyond arguments over venue & motions to dismiss, so we didn't really learn anything about the legality of a GoR (which, I think, was part of the point here).
If a court had struck down the GoR, there would've been massive ripple effects for the way sports & media companies interacted, and nobody wanted that. It would've been a terrible precedent to set (from a business sense) and could've thrown the entire enterprise into chaos.
3) So why would the ACC agree to this if the GoR would hold? Two reasons. 1) They weren't sure it would... at least in Leon County, Florida. Venue was everything here.
If the judge there ruled in favor of FSU, the ACC could've appealed, then appealed again... and the whole process might've drug on for YEARS. (It's already been 14 mos. and they'd gotten almost nowhere.)
The ACC's appetite for protracted legal battles was low, and the damage being done -- in terms of legal cost and repetitional harm -- plus the uncertainty that accompanied it was hurting the league in dozens of small ways each week.
The settlement, however, hurts league members in a big way -- but it's a way they can at least anticipate & adjust to. It's certainty and structure, and that was preferable to chaos and infighting. Particularly because most view 2030(ish) as an inflection point either way.
4) Isn't the ACC dead in 2031 now? Well, "dead" is a nebulous term, but good chance the ACC looks MUCH diff in 2032 than it does today. But... that was likely to happen either way and may also happen to every other league in college football. (More on that in a min.)
The cost for Clemson & FSU to exit the ACC (w/o winning in court) today would've been between $500-700M, according to FSU's lawyers. They weren't gonna pay that. But... By 2031 that number would've been more like $300M or less. At that price, they might've gone regardless.
And that's assuming enough hadn't changed in the landscape of CFB by then to make the whole underpinnings of conf affiliation a moot point anyway. So rest of ACC did the math and figured that, by the time any litigation was resolved, the world wouldn't be recognizable anyway.
So now, the ACC has a runway -- likely six years, though there's some flexibility there for schools, too -- to get its house in order and prepare for whatever comes next. That's actually a meaningful asset in very turbulent times.
5) What's at the end of that runway then? One possible answer is: More of the same. Let's assume for a min we *DON'T* go to super leagues or have a huge next round of realignment.
The ACC is actually well positioned to keep schools for the same reason they're incentivized to stay today -- a beneficial mix of good (not great) money and great (not average) playoff access.
Assume Clemson & FSU were free agents. Where do they go? I've maintained they'd have a home in B1G/SEC, but at what $ level? If an invite was akin to what Oregon/Wash got from B1G, the value just isn't there.
Would you rather be in the ACC making $25M more than many of your league-mates with an easier path to the playoff or the SEC making $25M/year less than your league mates in a more competitive conference? That's an easy question to answer.
Now, as I've discussed before, there are tons of ancillary issues that make that Q more complicated than I just laid out, but you can see how we might get to a point in which leaving for "greener pastures" doesn't make sense.
Again, who knows what 2032 looks like? ESPN is in the business of maintaining an attractive balance sheet, and if it decides keeping the ACC together (reminder: they're on the hook thru June '36) is good business, they could sweeten the pot to keep schools where they are.
6) Yeah, but that's not gonna happen, right? Impossible to say. A lot can & will change between now & then, making it very diff to predict. That's why this process was such a win for Clemson/FSU (& UNC, UVA, Miami, etc too...) bc now they have flexibility to be noble amid chaos.
So think about this scenario: The ACC $ isn't what those schools want. The B12 deal is up, too. The SEC & B1G aren't offering full share invites. What can they do? Well, now, the notion of independence or creating a whole cloth new league is entirely in play.
Not saying that's likely... but now schools have options. Options and flexibility in a changing landscape = leverage and power. That's probably the single most important takeaway from all of this in the big picture.
One other important point: Phillips addition of Cal/Stanford/SMU was critical here. It gives ACC numbers -- contractually w/ESPN and votes against dissolving. They're adding $ to the bottom line & providing security for future. It was a shrewd addition.
7) OK, so the ACC isn't dying? Again, we just don't know & I can't stress enough how much outside factors -- political climate locally & nationally, relationship w/athletes (employees?), courts, finances of higher ed, TV distribution, etc. -- play a role in shaping this.
One of the biggest reasons the ACC fell behind in the past, I think, is how many school presidents/ADs had their heads in the sand about reality. That's not true now. There's a big ticking clock... and that's a good way to make progress happen.
Worst case scenario for remaining ACC teams... Let's say 4 schools leave for another conf. That's a $300M payday to remaining members. That's not nothing & combined w/a (possibly reduced) ESPN deal, it's enough to survive a bit longer still. Survival is the game now. (see: 12, Pac)
8) What about all the FSU fans clowning you on X now? FTR: I've never used the words "iron clad" & from beginning I said the GoR was a legal impediment & the $ involved made leaving impossible in the short term but in the long term, the whole enterprise is likely to change...
The next GoRs signed -- by ACC schools or others -- will still have some meaning and escaping them will still require either litigation or negotiation. They matter, but how much they matter -- how "iron clad" they really are -- is at the discretion of the conferences for now.
9) Where does that leave us? Clemson & FSU mostly got what they wanted. The ACC gets stability for 6 yrs & some kind of assured parachute if it blows up after that. Ind schools get flexibility long term & consistency short term. That's a win all around, even if it's not a panacea for anyone.
Now, I look forward to being on a beach sipping cocktails or dead before we have to do any of this again. Cheers to 2031!
