Rhett Lashlee’s SMU Suffers Major Financial Setback in New ACC Announcement for FSU, Clemson & Co.

College football traditionalists are seething. The sport is slowly evolving into something way different than what they fell in love with. NIL, the transfer portal, and the playoff expansion have fanned the flames of this evolution and subsequent resentment from the masses. However, the crux of what has attacked the essence of CFB has been conference realignment. Bluebloods and other historic programs left their natural habitats and loyalties at the door to, let’s be frank, maximize money. It led to the PAC-12 dissipating into the abyss. A conference etched in the fabric of the sport—dead and buried. The ACC were staring at the same fate, and are putting up a fight. However, their solution to this realignment problem spawns a new one altogether for Rhett Lashlee and his Mustangs.

Florida State and Clemson have been trying to get out of the ACC. Both schools are involved in separate legal battles to do so. Why? The ACC has signed an extension with ESPN to broadcast games up until 2036. Now, the exact details of this deal are hidden behind convoluted literature. However, each of the 17 members is poised to receive roughly $25 million as dividends initially as part of a $425 million payout. This number is only going to ramp up as the years pass. This payout is way, way less lucrative than what SEC schools, for instance, stand to make.

By 2027, the difference will be about $30 million each year. That means if FSU and Clemson stay put till 2036, they stand to make over $600 million less combined. Naturally, they fear falling behind the competition. With revenue sharing around the corner, imagine the handicap on the recruitment front for Dabo Swinney and Mike Norvell. To keep their 2 biggest programs around, the ACC has made a move of desperation. While programs such as Rhett Lashlee’s SMU are left at a disadvantage.

Andrea Adelson, David Hale, and Pete Thamel of ESPN report that the conference is close to reaching a settlement on their lawsuits with Clemson and Florida State. The settlement involves an updated revenue-sharing model for how schools will get paid. The new model will include two initiatives that will pay money to certain members. A “success initiative” and a “brand initiative.” In lay terms, the success initiative is simple: programs that do better are paid better. The brand initiative is more problematic. It pertains to FSU and Clemson, or even UNC, with Bill Belichick now raising their stock and getting extra payouts over SMU. The report explicitly says SMU “is taking a reduced portion of TV money over the next six to eight years.” Right off the bat, the issues that shall arise from this become clear. 

If members are paid out differently, it will inadvertently create a divide among the conference. Not only will it ruin the sanctity of fair competition, but it could also create a domino effect across other conferences. Michigan and Bama can ask for a bigger piece of the pie from their own conferences and so on. It’s a slippery slope that the ACC is treading. From Rhett Lashlee’s POV, he’s getting into an unfair fight. The divide in resources across separate conferences is an issue in itself. But creating disparity inside the conference is a travesty. Alas, the trio of reporters seem to suggest things are indeed headed in that direction. 

The brand initiative undercuts Rhett Lashlee’s success last year

Andrea Adelson, David Hale, and Pete Thamel detailed the makeup of the aforementioned brand and success initiatives. The former of the 2 is exactly as muddy and sly as Lashlee would’ve feared. The brand initiative is calculated on the basis of the rolling average of teams’ TV ratings over a 5-year span. The trifecta of reporters themselves pointed to how this math isn’t easy. “Some logistics of this formula remain tricky, including how to properly average games on the unrated ACC Network or other subscription channels,” they said. The report also details how the pot will be split. “The brand initiative will be funded through a split in the league’s TV revenue, with 40% distributed evenly among the 14 longstanding members and 60% going toward the brand initiative and distributed based on TV ratings.”

They even gave estimated figures of what FSU and Clemson stand to make on top and how much SMU will stand to lose. “Top earners are expected to net an additional $15 million or more, according to sources, while some schools will see a net reduction in annual payout of up to about $7 million annually,” it read. This brand initiative is set to kick in next fiscal year. That is if the settlement between the 3 parties is indeed reached.

Conversely, the success initiative is something that’s already been in place. Rhett Lashlee actually became a beneficiary of it with his CFP appearance last season. It’s more than fair to get a little cream on top if you’re doing better than your contemporaries. However, being paid extra because of your program’s history and size isn’t as fair. The ACC’s acceptance of this is understandable but far from ideal. It remains to be seen how things pan out. Lashlee and his Mustangs will hope the disdain around this report doesn’t fall on deaf ears.