CLEMSON – Things are getting a little ugly in the legal battle between Clemson and ACC.

On Tuesday, a North Carolina judge ruled that he would issue a written decision on Clemson's request to the North Carolina court to dismiss the ACC's countersuit against the university. On Monday, Clemson filed a memorandum opposing the ACC's motion to dismiss the university's suit against the South Carolina state conference.

Clemson University filed the memorandum electronically in Pickens County District Court, where those documents are available to the public. Clemson filed an objection to the motion to dismiss, showing that Pickens County has jurisdiction over the ACC because the ACC did business in South Carolina, making the South Carolina-based court the proper venue for the proceeding.

Of course, Clemson sued the league on March 19, joining Florida State in challenging the conference's Grant of Rights Agreement and $130 million exit fee.

This is where things start to get ugly. Clemson hopes to prove with its latest application that the ACC actually does business in the state of South Carolina, and will prove it through its football rivalry with the South Carolina Gamecocks.

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

In Neff's affidavit, he cites several examples of the ACC coming to Clemson and conducting business. The motion, on pages 7 and 8, “clearly sets forth that the ACC intentionally engaged with South Carolina through at least two forms of contact related to Clemson's claims: (1) by negotiating and entering into contracts with Clemson that were to be performed in part in Pickens County, and (2) by engaging in activities and obtaining material benefits from South Carolina under those contracts for years. These contacts are related to Clemson's claims, and this Court has the authority to exercise special jurisdiction over the ACC.”

Below is the email Neff provided to the court as part of his affidavit. The email is dated May 7, 2024, and is from Michael Strickland, the ACC's senior associate commissioner for football.

Grahame:

I hope you are doing well.

This letter confirms that Clemson University has declined to reschedule its 2024 home game against the University of South Carolina from Saturday, November 30th to Friday night, November 29th. This was sent to Clemson by the ACC at the joint request of ESPN and the ACC.

As part of our discussions on this topic, ESPN’s ACC has reached the following “concessions” to make this move more palatable for Clemson University:

1. The game against The Citadel is scheduled for November 23rd at noon.
2. Confirmed prime time match time for Friday, November 29th.
3. Agreement to move the conference game with Clemson (at NC State) scheduled for Labor Day Monday 2027 to an ACC home game against Clemson.
4. Limit two (2) ACC away games in 2024 played in prime time.
5. Agreement that the University of South Carolina would reciprocate by hosting a future game between Clemson and South Carolina on Black Friday.

Although these concessions are secured, and although other ACC teams have agreed to play on “Black Friday” in previous cases (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 you have been informed throughout this process, the Conference Office is disappointed with 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 game scheduling issues. This cooperation maximizes the value of our relationship with our media partner and strengthens our shared future. Clemson's decision not to do so in this case is detrimental to that goal.

Best regards,

Michael Strickland

Senior Deputy Commissioner — Football

In response to Clemson's motion, the ACC attempted to argue that the proceedings should take place in the North Carolina courts. However, Clemson claims that this should not be the case because the ACC did business with Clemson in South Carolina and therefore the case should be heard in the South Carolina courts.

Clemson's motion also states that ESPN had a presence in South Carolina and that Clemson's claims in South Carolina are different from the ACC's claims in the North Carolina case.

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