Clemson uses South Carolina Rivalry in Latest Allegations Against ACC

CLEMSON — Things are starting to get a little ugly in the Clemson vs. ACC lawsuits.

On Tuesday, a North Carolina judge decided he will make a written ruling on Clemson’s motion to the North Carolina court to throw out the ACC’s countersuit against the university. On Monday, Clemson filed a memorandum in opposition to the ACC’s motion to dismiss the university’s lawsuit against the conference in the state of South Carolina.

Clemson University filed the memorandum electronically with the Pickens County Court, where these documents are available to the public. Clemson filed the opposition to the motion to dismiss to show Pickens County has jurisdiction over the ACC because the ACC has done business in South Carolina, so the South Carolina based court is the proper venue for the proceedings.

Clemson, of course, sued the league on March 19 as it joined Florida State in challenging the conference’s Grant of Rights Agreement and $130 million exit fee.

Here is where things are starting to get ugly. In Clemson’s latest filing, it is hoping to prove the ACC indeed does business in the state of South Carolina and is going to prove it by using its football rivalry with the South Carolina Gamecocks.

To make its argument, Clemson filed an affidavit from athletic director Graham Neff, in which he shared a recent email from the ACC to him regarding the conference, on behalf of ESPN, requesting Clemson to move its Nov. 30 home game against South Carolina to the Friday night before (Nov. 29).

In Neff’s affidavit, he gives several examples in which the ACC has come to Clemson and conducted business. In the motion, located on pages 7 and 8, it “clearly establishes the ACC purposely availed itself of South Carolina by at least two forms of contact related to Clemson’s claims: (1) by negotiating for and entering into contracts with Clemson to be performed partly in Pickens County and (2) by engaging in yearslong activity and reaping material benefits from South Carolina pursuant to those contracts. These contacts are related to Clemson’s claims, and this Court has the power to exercise specific jurisdiction over the ACC.”

Below is the email Neff submitted to the court as part of his affidavit. The email was dated May 7, 2024, and is from ACC Senior Associate Commissioner for Football Michael Strickland.

Graham:

Hope this note finds you well.

Writing to confirm that Clemson University has refused to move its 2024 home game versus the University of South Carolina from Saturday, November 30 to Friday night, November 29, which was submitted by the ACC to Clemson at the mutual request of ESPN and the ACC.

As part of our discussions on this matter, the ACC secured from ESPN the following “concessions” to make this move more agreeable for Clemson University:

1. November 23 game versus The Citadel scheduled at noon.
2. Confirmed prime time game time for the Friday, November 29 game.
3. Agreement to switch the scheduled 2027 Labor Day Monday conference game featuring Clemson (at NC State) to a Clemson home ACC game.
4. Limit of two (2) road ACC games in 2024 played in prime time.
5. Agreement that the University of South Carolina would reciprocate with hosting a future Clemson vs. South Carolina game on “Black Friday”.

Despite having secured these concessions, and despite other ACC teams having agreed to play on “Black Friday” in previous instances (e.g., Georgia Tech vs. Georgia, Florida State vs. Florida, North Carolina vs. Notre Dame, Virginia vs. Virginia Tech, North Carolina vs. NC State, etc.), Clemson University remains unwilling to do so.

As has been indicated to you during this process, the Conference Office is disappointed in Clemson University’s lack of cooperation on this matter. As all ACC members know, it is incumbent upon the ACC and its institutions to work in good faith with ESPN on football scheduling issues. This cooperation maximizes the value of our relationship with our media partner and strengthens our collective future. Clemson’s decision not to do so in this instance is harmful toward that goal.

With regards,

Michael Strickland

Senior Associate Commissioner — Football

In response to Clemson’s motion , the ACC tried to argue that proceedings should be held in the North Carolina courts. However, Clemson is claiming it should not because the ACC did business in South Carolina with Clemson, therefore, the South Carolina courts are where the case should be heard.

Clemson’s motion also shows that ESPN had a presence in South Carolina and Clemson’s claims in South Carolina are different than the ACC’s claims in the North Carolina case.

A limited number of signed footballs from Clemson’s 2022 class are still available. Get yours while supplies last! Visit Clemson Variety & Frame or purchase online!