(04-09-2012 05:46 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Sorry, new guy. Is the league any good at it? If not, maybe they should consider not sponsoring it.

No. Wrestling is a Big 12/Big Ten sport.

Why should the ACC quit sponsoring it when it has members participating in it? The schools decide which sport is sponsored by deciding which sports they want to sponsor.

(04-09-2012 06:05 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  

(04-09-2012 05:46 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Sorry, new guy. Is the league any good at it? If not, maybe they should consider not sponsoring it.

No. Wrestling is a Big 12/Big Ten sport.

Why should the ACC quit sponsoring it when it has members participating in it? The schools decide which sport is sponsored by deciding which sports they want to sponsor.

I think we were discussing the Armageddon scenario where the league only gets $16 million in the TV contract and some schools may have to decide that if that isn't enough, they may need to come up with ways to save $$$ by cutting sports.

At least that's what I thought we were discussing. If not, I'm very confused.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-09-2012 05:47 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-09-2012 03:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 11:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 07:35 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 06:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC sponsors 25 sports. The SEC only sponsors 20. Why? It saves millions. Based on data from Clemson (published on "Shakin' the Southland") the Tigers lose over $16 million/year on "non-revenue" sports. That's 2X more than the difference in TV money between the ACC and Pac-12 (about $8 million).

Want to be profitable? Cut 2 non-revenue sports... or better yet, cut 4 sports! We'd still have more sports than the SEC.

see also What the ACC can do, part 4 - costs

It's really not about the conference sponsoring the sports, it's about schools sponsoring them. Subject to meeting minimum NCAA requirements, the conference sponsors championships when enough schools sponsor a sport. Schools are individually free to drop sports if they don't have the budget.

Understand your point, but I think a conference together can help decide what sports they should sponsor. It is my hope that with us being added to the ACC that somewhere down the road we add men's baseball.

If we financially can't, we can't. And we shouldn't even consider it until we get our football back on track. But if that happens and both major sports start producing revenue for the college along with lacrosse (which is our third revenue generating sport) then the extra money we will be getting by being in the ACC should be used at some point to sponsor baseball over let's say wrestling or ice hockey, sports the ACC does not sponsor.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil - as much as I love baseball, I have a hard time seeing SU sponsoring it anytime soon. I look at the softball team and wonder how they can get away with playing five consecutive weeks in California, Arizona and Florida. Travel expense must be huge. Baseball would require an equivalent travel commitment and would provide little in the way of revenues, with a limited schedule of home games during any kind of decent weather. In addition, we'd have to build a stadium and indoor practice facilities.

Golf might be a nice ACC-friendly addition. It would require travel, but the sport requires limited scholarships and the school has an existing relationship with Drumlins CC. I'd also like to see the school restore swimming and diving.

Actually, I think Gross may be thinking of men's ice hockey as the next sport, myself.

Cheers,
Neil

Ice hockey has the potential to be self supporting. Obviously, it would have to be balanced with additional women's sports. We have the practice facilities, but would likely need to rent the War Memorial for games, which would cut into any profits. I 've always been of the view "why try to sell hockey tix when there are unsold hoops tix?" However, it could generate a separate fanbase. Seems like a close call at best.

(04-09-2012 06:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-09-2012 06:05 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  

(04-09-2012 05:46 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Sorry, new guy. Is the league any good at it? If not, maybe they should consider not sponsoring it.

No. Wrestling is a Big 12/Big Ten sport.

Why should the ACC quit sponsoring it when it has members participating in it? The schools decide which sport is sponsored by deciding which sports they want to sponsor.

I think we were discussing the Armageddon scenario where the league only gets $16 million in the TV contract and some schools may have to decide that if that isn't enough, they may need to come up with ways to save $$$ by cutting sports.

At least that's what I thought we were discussing. If not, I'm very confused.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil - that's what I thought from the Heading, but the first post talks about Clemson losing $16 million/year on non regenerate sports. Seems like this misses the the fact that most sponsored sports are necessary to meet NCAA minimum requirements and Title IX.

(04-09-2012 07:00 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-09-2012 06:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-09-2012 06:05 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  

(04-09-2012 05:46 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Sorry, new guy. Is the league any good at it? If not, maybe they should consider not sponsoring it.

No. Wrestling is a Big 12/Big Ten sport.

Why should the ACC quit sponsoring it when it has members participating in it? The schools decide which sport is sponsored by deciding which sports they want to sponsor.

I think we were discussing the Armageddon scenario where the league only gets $16 million in the TV contract and some schools may have to decide that if that isn't enough, they may need to come up with ways to save $$$ by cutting sports.

At least that's what I thought we were discussing. If not, I'm very confused.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil - that's what I thought from the Heading, but the first post talks about Clemson losing $16 million/year on non regenerate sports. Seems like this misses the the fact that most sponsored sports are necessary to meet NCAA minimum requirements and Title IX.

Just to clarify - this is about trimming costs and the fact that the ACC has 2nd most sports while SEC has the fewest. Of course you wouldn't eliminate all... but if you absolutely positively had to cut a money loser, which one would go first?

Side question: would it be good to have some 8-school sports? e.g. what if only 8 schools really want to play lacrosse, or only 8 want to sponsor golf? would it a good model to pick 2 out of 3 sports, e.g.?

(04-09-2012 08:44 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Side question: would it be good to have some 8-school sports? e.g. what if only 8 schools really want to play lacrosse, or only 8 want to sponsor golf? would it a good model to pick 2 out of 3 sports, e.g.?

Sure. Isn't that the way it is now in the ACC? Don't you have some ACC sponsored sports where some institutions do not participate?

Cheers,
Neil

(04-09-2012 09:14 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-09-2012 08:44 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Side question: would it be good to have some 8-school sports? e.g. what if only 8 schools really want to play lacrosse, or only 8 want to sponsor golf? would it a good model to pick 2 out of 3 sports, e.g.?

Sure. Isn't that the way it is now in the ACC? Don't you have some ACC sponsored sports where some institutions do not participate?

Cheers,
Neil

Quick check of the conference websites and Wikipedia suggests to me that the ACC sponsors quite a few sports where only 6-8 schools (or less) participate, whereas in the SEC there appears to be a higher participation rate among members in the 20 sports that the conference does sponsor.

Perhaps the author's concern is with the decisions of UNC, UVA, Dook, NC St, UMD and BC to sponsor 25 sports or more. Those schools clearly have bigger opportunities to free up cash for football if they were to drop a few sports. I would note, though, that in some cases (e.g., lacrosse and ice hockey (BC only)) these extra sports are self sustaining/revenue producers. For schools at the lower end of the number of sponsored sports, the opportunities for savings are pretty limited.

Clemson, for example, sponsors 20 varsity sports. That is 4 more than the NCAA minimum for an FBS school. On the men's side, they sponsor 10 sports, which is 3 more than the NCAA minimum. A bare minimum 7 sport FBS athletic program for men would consist of football, basketball, a spring team sport (baseball or lacrosse), indoor and outdoor track, cross country and golf (the latter group having the smallest scholarship requirements). Clemson could cut soccer, swimming and diving, and tennis to reduce its budget, which would be around 25 scholarships plus an equal number of women's scholarships, or around 50 scholarships. At $30k a piece, that would reduce its budget by $1.5 million plus travel, facilities maintenance and coaches salaries, maybe they could save $2.5 million. That's a far cry from $16 million. It's not chicken feed, but suggests that a better focus for making up the revenue gap is on the "top line," i.e. revenues.

(04-07-2012 05:42 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Cut Title IX, then let colleges keep those sports that actually render a zero balance or a profit.

And </thread>

Hopefully, Syracuse adds a baseball team eventually. Just doesn't seem right for an ACC team not to field a team in that sport.

I think Men's Ice Hockey would be a great sport for the ACC to add. In my opinion, if the ACC starts its own network we're going to need to fill as much airtime with quality minor sports as we can. Baseball, soccer, lacrosse and ice hockey are the current non-revenue sports that are most likely to draw viewers and actually become revenure generators in my opinion. We already have BC who is a major national power in the sport, but it could potentially help us lure Notre Dame and longshot Penn State into the league. Ice Hockey would also help establish the ACC brand in the Northeast. I know Wake is considering buying Winston-Salem's ice hockey arena as part of the property that our basketball arena sits on. So if we get a major boost in tv money lacrosse and ice hockey are the two men's sports Wake Forest is most likely to add. I wouldn't expect every ACC school to add an ice hockey team but we have enough schools with a club level team that could be converted into a varisty team for the ACC to add the sport.