Tigernet.com

Quote:Clemson Athletic Director Terry Don Phillips agreed to a sit-down with TigerNet Monday afternoon, and we covered a lot of ground in the time allotted.

Of, course the biggest topics were possible conference realignment, the recent news of the bowl tie-in between the SEC and the Big XII and the ACC’s television deal, but we also asked about Dabo Swinney’s contract and facilities.

Hopefully we can break this up into two parts. Of course, as soon as I left his office my phone was already ringing as people wanted to know one thing: Is Clemson leaving for the Big XII?

Of course, I can’t answer that, but I do think his answers to some of the questions are interesting to say the least and you can draw your own conclusions.

He did say that current conference affiliations and the college football landscape are “a moving target.” And he said that the Atlantic Coast Conference now understands that football is king, and that moves have to be made to protect those football interests. If you don’t, your relevance goes away.

Once again, I asked for this meeting on extremely short notice, and I was thankful for his time.

Quote:TN: The recent announcement of a game between the SEC and the Big XII shook the football world. What are your thoughts on what happened, and what this means for the landscape of college football?

TDP: It [college football landscape] is a moving target now. I think that has been well established over the last two or three years. You would’ve thought that it would’ve settled down a lot after what occurred late last summer and this past fall, but it hasn’t. The SEC and the Big XII and the arrangement to try and protect their champion if they’re not in the top four- actually, it makes a whole lot of sense of to me that now you can protect your champion and at the same time you create a vehicle that your conference can go out and sell and generate more funds for your conference. So, that was a good, solid, strategic move for both conferences.

TN: In your opinion, how does that move affect the ACC?

TDP: The ACC- we just got back from our spring meetings. Certainly, there were a lot of things discussed down there. The conference and the membership well understand what is happening. For example, in this latest contract with ESPN, 80% of it is generated by football. As good as basketball has been in the ACC, it is very evident just through this contract that football has to be very, very relevant. And the conference is well aware of that and they are going to be turning over every stone that they can and not just sitting on this contract. For example this new contract has two look-in windows- one at five years and one at 10 years. The purpose of that - in talking with ESPN people and our people in the same room – is to look at the end of five years where are we- competitively, what’s our performance, and does it merit a significant increase in the rights fee. There’s no question that on ESPN, the rights to television money is larger than any other conference. They’ve got other- the SEC has CBS and other conferences have other carriers, but there is tremendous exposure for the ACC football games as well as basketball games and other Olympic sports. As far as exposure, it’s a very good contract. Dollar wise as far as what ESPN is paying, it’s at the top, but overall because of the lack of CBS, you don’t have the same kind of dollars that other conferences have. But, having said that, ESPN has made it very clear that the purpose of writing in those look-ins is to see where we are in five years. You don’t wait until the end of the 15 years to say, ‘hey, how are we doing?’ That’s the purpose of the five-year and the ten-year look-in to challenge our conference and all of us associated with the conference know that football is extremely important and we have to perform and do everything we can to perform.

TN: Does the ACC contract put the conference’s schools at a competitive disadvantage?

TDP: You’ve got to look at what occurred during the period of time that it was negotiated. One of the interesting things that I’ve heard, with regards to the negotiations is that the conference didn’t do a good job negotiating. What’s interesting is that a lot of these conferences use the same consultants when dealing with the networks. When I came out here from the Big XII to the ACC, we had the same consultant that we had in the Big XII, and so what you have as a package has to speak for itself and provide whatever leverage that you have to negotiate at the highest rate. Some of these contracts- you’re really not privy to- they’re not subject to FOIA because they are privately owned and not for non-profit so you can’t get it there. The only way you can get information- not the provisions- is through tax returns which is always retrospective. You try to understand where you are, but you don’t have a quick and easy way to see what the provisions are. For example as reported, in the Pac 12, when they negotiated their contract- I guess it came about a year after the ACC negotiated its contract- at the time Fox and ESPN with the ACC were bidding against one another. What occurred in the Pac 12, I guess it was NBC Comcast, they came in as a bidder and Fox and ESPN joined forces to keep the other out of the market so that drove up the market value of that contract because of the market dynamics of what occurred at that particular point and time- a new group wanting to come in and get a piece of the college football landscape. And Fox and ESPN determined not to let them have a piece of the landscape so they came together and joined forces to preempt NBC Comcast. Then on top of it, the Pac 12 pulled in all of the multimedia contracts from all of the member institutions which pull that out of the control of the individual school and put it in the conference office, and now they have the multimedia rights. They control these third tier rights for the conference schools, which is part of that figure. Here, you say, ‘ok, what’s it worth to Clemson if you look at the Pac 12 model?’ We probably on our rights pull in 4.5 million annually and maybe a little more so you add that on top- that’s your sponsorships, radio, printed publications, and all of that. So, you could pull in those kinds of rights and put it on top of your television contract and instead of it being 17 million, it’s 21 million in a similar format as the Pac 12. Not being privy and not knowing what’s in the contracts, you don’t know what rights are in there. You only know what’s reported, and that’s sometimes accurate and sometimes not accurate. The conference offices don’t release those contracts and the only thing you can look at are the tax returns of the not-for-profit conference member offices. You don’t know what the provisions are or where those numbers are coming from.

Quote:TN: Does it worry you that events that are out of your control can change what happens to Clemson in regards to football playoffs and national recognition? Meaning, what if Florida St. leaves, or another ACC team leaves, thereby weakening the conference?

TDP: There are a lot of things that I or anybody can’t control. The only thing that I feel confident in saying is that I believe that the ACC understands the challenges that we have going forward that football is strong and gets stronger. We cannot afford to lose our seat at the table when it comes to the BCS and championships going forward. We simply cannot afford to allow that to happen. The conference and the conference leadership, as well as the presidents, understand the importance that has to be placed on football going forward.

Quote:TN: And this administration will do what’s best for Clemson, regardless?

TDP: The short answer is absolutely. At the end of the day, we have to do what’s best for our program. Having said that, the conference knows the challenges that we have and the conference unquestionably understands that football has got to perform and perform at a very high level.

Hardly the ringing endorsement from a few weeks ago. I'd put good money on the fact that IPTAY has been heard from.

Wow...very interesting take you have on that article...I guess you forgot this part:

TN: So there has been no contact between Clemson and the Big XII or talks about Clemson joining?

TDP: There’s nothing of such between Clemson University and the Big XII

I like the following lines:

For example, in this latest contract with ESPN, 80% of it is generated by football. As good as basketball has been in the ACC, it is very evident just through this contract that football has to be very, very relevant. And the conference is well aware of that and they are going to be turning over every stone that they can and not just sitting on this contract. For example this new contract has two look-in windows- one at five years and one at 10 years. The purpose of that - in talking with ESPN people and our people in the same room – is to look at the end of five years where are we- competitively, what’s our performance, and does it merit a significant increase in the rights fee.


1) Football is king: 80% of the contract is football based, pure and simple. As good as ACC hoops is and including the addition of Syracuse and Pitt, football is king! UNC has been placed on notice.
2) The look-ins are material. If the ACC improves football, there can be a substantial increase.
3) The ACC contract was negotiated and closed at a bad time. In the future, the ACC will need to look at partners, not just ESPN, for broadcasts.
4) With FSU, Clemson back on t he rise, several schools working to improve football, ACC football should be back on the national stage. (Yes, this is my conclusion) The ACC look ins could result in a serious increases.

(05-22-2012 04:24 AM)Orangemen Wrote:  Wow...very interesting take you have on that article...I guess you forgot this part:

TN: So there has been no contact between Clemson and the Big XII or talks about Clemson joining?

TDP: There’s nothing of such between Clemson University and the Big XII

I know that's the 100% absolute proof that they're going to the Big 12 because AD's always lie and bloggers such as Swaim and the Dude are always right like 100% of the time. Didn't you know that? At least that's what the WVU posters say and you know you can trust them......./sarcasm

Here's the part that interests me:

Quote:the Pac 12 pulled in all of the multimedia contracts from all of the member institutions which pull that out of the control of the individual school and put it in the conference office, and now they have the multimedia rights. They control these third tier rights for the conference schools, which is part of that figure. Here, you say, ‘ok, what’s it worth to Clemson if you look at the Pac 12 model?’ We probably on our rights pull in 4.5 million annually and maybe a little more so you add that on top- that’s your sponsorships, radio, printed publications, and all of that. So, you could pull in those kinds of rights and put it on top of your television contract and instead of it being 17 million, it’s 21 million in a similar format as the Pac 12. Not being privy and not knowing what’s in the contracts, you don’t know what rights are in there. You only know what’s reported, and that’s sometimes accurate and sometimes not accurate. The conference offices don’t release those contracts and the only thing you can look at are the tax returns of the not-for-profit conference member offices. You don’t know what the provisions are or where those numbers are coming from.

In other words, the reported big difference in TV money may be a red herring.

(05-22-2012 09:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Here's the part that interests me:

Quote:the Pac 12 pulled in all of the multimedia contracts from all of the member institutions which pull that out of the control of the individual school and put it in the conference office, and now they have the multimedia rights. They control these third tier rights for the conference schools, which is part of that figure. Here, you say, ‘ok, what’s it worth to Clemson if you look at the Pac 12 model?’ We probably on our rights pull in 4.5 million annually and maybe a little more so you add that on top- that’s your sponsorships, radio, printed publications, and all of that. So, you could pull in those kinds of rights and put it on top of your television contract and instead of it being 17 million, it’s 21 million in a similar format as the Pac 12. Not being privy and not knowing what’s in the contracts, you don’t know what rights are in there. You only know what’s reported, and that’s sometimes accurate and sometimes not accurate. The conference offices don’t release those contracts and the only thing you can look at are the tax returns of the not-for-profit conference member offices. You don’t know what the provisions are or where those numbers are coming from.

In other words, the reported big difference in TV money may be a red herring.

Sounds familiar....

http://www.syracuse.com/axeman/index.ssf...st_97.html

(05-22-2012 09:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Here's the part that interests me:

Quote:the Pac 12 pulled in all of the multimedia contracts from all of the member institutions which pull that out of the control of the individual school and put it in the conference office, and now they have the multimedia rights. They control these third tier rights for the conference schools, which is part of that figure. Here, you say, ‘ok, what’s it worth to Clemson if you look at the Pac 12 model?’ We probably on our rights pull in 4.5 million annually and maybe a little more so you add that on top- that’s your sponsorships, radio, printed publications, and all of that. So, you could pull in those kinds of rights and put it on top of your television contract and instead of it being 17 million, it’s 21 million in a similar format as the Pac 12. Not being privy and not knowing what’s in the contracts, you don’t know what rights are in there. You only know what’s reported, and that’s sometimes accurate and sometimes not accurate. The conference offices don’t release those contracts and the only thing you can look at are the tax returns of the not-for-profit conference member offices. You don’t know what the provisions are or where those numbers are coming from.

In other words, the reported big difference in TV money may be a red herring.

NCState just signed a deal for $5MM/year on top of the $17MM, that equals $22M. FSU gets $6.5MM + $17MM = $23.5MM. That makes sense when compared to what Dr. Gross (Syracuse AD) stated.

Most interesting thing in that article was the 5 and 10 year look-ins which, if he was correct, are - "The purpose of that - in talking with ESPN people and our people in the same room - is to look in 5 years to see where are we - competitively, what's our performance and does it merit a significant increase in the rights fee."

Cheers,
Neil

Here's a look in at the ACC Meeting:

(05-22-2012 04:24 AM)Orangemen Wrote:  Wow...very interesting take you have on that article...I guess you forgot this part:

TN: So there has been no contact between Clemson and the Big XII or talks about Clemson joining?

TDP: There’s nothing of such between Clemson University and the Big XII

What did you expect Uncle Jed to say?

"Why hell yes there has been contact made!!"

(05-22-2012 12:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Most interesting thing in that article was the 5 and 10 year look-ins which, if he was correct, are - "The purpose of that - in talking with ESPN people and our people in the same room - is to look in 5 years to see where are we - competitively, what's our performance and does it merit a significant increase in the rights fee."

Cheers,
Neil

With our negotiation track record of late it's not outside the realm of possibilities that ESPN does their "look-in" and says the current contract is more than sufficient.

But that's five years down the road. Five years where everybody else outclassed us every year. How long do you think Clemdon is going to be able to remain in the Top 10 of coaching salaries when the competition has far more disposable income compared to us? You might be willing to run the risk that ESPN might remedy the situation in 2018, I'm not. In the best case scenario we are five years behind everybody we compete with. I shudder at the worst case scenario.

How was Houston able to be so successful this year? Or TCU over the last 6-8 years?

(05-22-2012 05:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  How was Houston able to be so successful this year? Or TCU over the last 6-8 years?

Houston because they had a 15th year QB who was perfect for their system and the fact that CUSA West doesn't play defense. Look at what happened when they played a USM team who's defends was mediocre by their standards, but better than anything in the west.


TCU had a one or two game season, just like Boise State.

(05-22-2012 05:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  How was Houston able to be so successful this year? Or TCU over the last 6-8 years?

Give it up. I reminded him not too long ago that the difference in $$$ between WVU and Clemson was substantial as well and that didn't prevent the Eers from kicking Tiger tail one iota, not to mention beating Oklahoma and beating Georgia in big bowls as well.

He's one of those southern fans who thinks everything should be given to them, that football should only be played in the warmth and sun, and that if we go into a corner and whine and curl up into a fetal position we'll get our way.

Probably hasn't had to work hard for anything in his life.

Being a Big East northeasterner fan, I've grown a tougher skin.

Over on the Realignment Board we joked about a possibility that the Big 12 takes FSU and Louisville or FSU and GT over Clemson and how someone would need to talk catdaddy down from the ledge. Another fan, appropriately a southern one, chimed in we should check to make sure he doesn't have a sniper rifle first.

That about sums it up. Luckily, so far at least, Clemson officials appear to be taking a different tact publicly. Time will tell.

One word of wisdom from a fan who has gone through this already with the Big East, there were Eers and Husky fans who said that Miami was looking for a place where Shalala could de-emphasize football, a conference where they could be secure without having to win all the time.

Whoever remains, needs to be focused on winning football. They may not succeed, but they need to be putting in the effort to be as good as they can be which is what the performance incentive could be all about.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-22-2012 07:31 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 05:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  How was Houston able to be so successful this year? Or TCU over the last 6-8 years?

Give it up. I reminded him not too long ago that the difference in $$$ between WVU and Clemson was substantial as well and that didn't prevent the Eers from kicking Tiger tail one iota, not to mention beating Oklahoma and beating Georgia in big bowls as well.

He's one of those southern fans who thinks everything should be given to them, that football should only be played in the warmth and sun, and that if we go into a corner and whine and curl up into a fetal position we'll get our way.

Probably hasn't had to work hard for anything in his life.

Being a Big East northeasterner fan, I've grown a tougher skin.

Over on the Realignment Board we joked about a possibility that the Big 12 takes FSU and Louisville or FSU and GT over Clemson and how someone would need to talk catdaddy down from the ledge. Another fan, appropriately a southern one, chimed in we should check to make sure he doesn't have a sniper rifle first.

That about sums it up. Luckily, so far at least, Clemson officials appear to be taking a different tact publicly. Time will tell.

One word of wisdom from a fan who has gone through this already with the Big East, there were Eers and Husky fans who said that Miami was looking for a place where Shalala could de-emphasize football, a conference where they could be secure without having to win all the time.

Whoever remains, needs to be focused on winning football. They may not succeed, but they need to be putting in the effort to be as good as they can be which is what the performance incentive could be all about.

Cheers,
Neil

Beano said that if Clemson left the ACC it would be the biggest mistake since the Germans invaded Russia during WWII.
Every member of the conference needs to try harder.....even Duke is getting ready to invest $100M in upgrades to Wallace Wade Stadium.

(05-22-2012 08:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 07:31 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 05:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  How was Houston able to be so successful this year? Or TCU over the last 6-8 years?

Give it up. I reminded him not too long ago that the difference in $$$ between WVU and Clemson was substantial as well and that didn't prevent the Eers from kicking Tiger tail one iota, not to mention beating Oklahoma and beating Georgia in big bowls as well.

He's one of those southern fans who thinks everything should be given to them, that football should only be played in the warmth and sun, and that if we go into a corner and whine and curl up into a fetal position we'll get our way.

Probably hasn't had to work hard for anything in his life.

Being a Big East northeasterner fan, I've grown a tougher skin.

Over on the Realignment Board we joked about a possibility that the Big 12 takes FSU and Louisville or FSU and GT over Clemson and how someone would need to talk catdaddy down from the ledge. Another fan, appropriately a southern one, chimed in we should check to make sure he doesn't have a sniper rifle first.

That about sums it up. Luckily, so far at least, Clemson officials appear to be taking a different tact publicly. Time will tell.

One word of wisdom from a fan who has gone through this already with the Big East, there were Eers and Husky fans who said that Miami was looking for a place where Shalala could de-emphasize football, a conference where they could be secure without having to win all the time.

Whoever remains, needs to be focused on winning football. They may not succeed, but they need to be putting in the effort to be as good as they can be which is what the performance incentive could be all about.

Cheers,
Neil

Beano said that if Clemson left the ACC it would be the biggest mistake since the Germans invaded Russia during WWII.
Every member of the conference needs to try harder.....even Duke is getting ready to invest $100M in upgrades to Wallace Wade Stadium.

That is an insane amount of money on a stadium that doesn't seat many people and probably couldn't look much different since the demand isn't there to increase capacity.

(05-22-2012 05:44 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 04:24 AM)Orangemen Wrote:  Wow...very interesting take you have on that article...I guess you forgot this part:

TN: So there has been no contact between Clemson and the Big XII or talks about Clemson joining?

TDP: There’s nothing of such between Clemson University and the Big XII

What did you expect Uncle Jed to say?

"Why hell yes there has been contact made!!"

"There’s nothing of such between Clemson University and the Big XII"
But it doesn't exclude Clemson talking to a third party...standard speech...I think we can take as fact that Clemson has put out a feeler to the B12 and probably the SEC...let's see if they act on it. I think both schools will pull back and see the advantages of staying.

(05-22-2012 08:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  .....even Duke is getting ready to invest $100M in upgrades to Wallace Wade Stadium.

You are correct; Coach K got the nod to tear down a wing and expand a new basketball facility on it.

(05-22-2012 05:51 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 12:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Most interesting thing in that article was the 5 and 10 year look-ins which, if he was correct, are - "The purpose of that - in talking with ESPN people and our people in the same room - is to look in 5 years to see where are we - competitively, what's our performance and does it merit a significant increase in the rights fee."

Cheers,
Neil

With our negotiation track record of late it's not outside the realm of possibilities that ESPN does their "look-in" and says the current contract is more than sufficient.

But that's five years down the road. Five years where everybody else outclassed us every year. How long do you think Clemdon is going to be able to remain in the Top 10 of coaching salaries when the competition has far more disposable income compared to us? You might be willing to run the risk that ESPN might remedy the situation in 2018, I'm not. In the best case scenario we are five years behind everybody we compete with. I shudder at the worst case scenario.

Instead of blaming others for Clemson's failures...you need to look inward. I only wish Cuse had the advantages Clemson has in Football.

(05-22-2012 10:41 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 05:51 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 12:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Most interesting thing in that article was the 5 and 10 year look-ins which, if he was correct, are - "The purpose of that - in talking with ESPN people and our people in the same room - is to look in 5 years to see where are we - competitively, what's our performance and does it merit a significant increase in the rights fee."

Cheers,
Neil

With our negotiation track record of late it's not outside the realm of possibilities that ESPN does their "look-in" and says the current contract is more than sufficient.

But that's five years down the road. Five years where everybody else outclassed us every year. How long do you think Clemdon is going to be able to remain in the Top 10 of coaching salaries when the competition has far more disposable income compared to us? You might be willing to run the risk that ESPN might remedy the situation in 2018, I'm not. In the best case scenario we are five years behind everybody we compete with. I shudder at the worst case scenario.

Instead of blaming others for Clemson's failures...you need to look inward. I only wish Cuse had the advantages Clemson has in Football.

I know VT could have used some of the talent that Clemson found a way to waste over the years.