When the SEC, which already had a tier 1 tv contract with CBS, sold their tier 2 rights to ESPN for ridiculous money... that's when the SEC jumped WAY out in front. The ACC has made up a lot of ground since then.

(06-22-2015 08:55 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  When the SEC, which already had a tier 1 tv contract with CBS, sold their tier 2 rights to ESPN for ridiculous money... that's when the SEC jumped WAY out in front. The ACC has made up a lot of ground since then.

YES SIR!!!!

Possibly the WORST year ever in terms of ACC vs SEC revenue gap was 2010:



That year the gap was over $11 million per team!

The last few years the gap has been virtually zero.

For the forseeable future I expect to see about a $6 million/year gap until the ACC can launch a profitable tier 3 network like the SEC Network.

The good news: when the ACC needed it most (circa 2011-12), they were able to get a much higher-paying contract.

The bad news: that was really a lousy time to be negotiating a contract for ACC football!

(06-22-2015 01:45 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Possibly the WORST year ever in terms of ACC vs SEC revenue gap was 2010:



That year the gap was over $11 million per team!

The last few years the gap has been virtually zero.

For the forseeable future I expect to see about a $6 million/year gap until the ACC can launch a profitable tier 3 network like the SEC Network.

The good news: when the ACC needed it most (circa 2011-12), they were able to get a much higher-paying contract.

The bad news: that was really a lousy time to be negotiating a contract for ACC football!

These numbers should be inflation adjusted. THAT would paint an interesting picture.

(06-22-2015 08:53 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  You know the ACC used to negotiate football and basketball as separate deals until 2009ish, right?

I don't recall seeing that anywhere. Do you have a link?

(06-22-2015 02:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 08:53 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  You know the ACC used to negotiate football and basketball as separate deals until 2009ish, right?

I don't recall seeing that anywhere. Do you have a link?

You've seriously never heard that before?

Quote:The lucrative contract is still dwarfed by the reported 15-year deal worth $205 million annually that the SEC signed with CBS and ESPN two summers ago. The ACC's deal is exclusive to ESPN, except for continued syndication from Raycom, a 30-year partner of the ACC. It is the first time the ACC has sold broadcasting rights to football and men's basketball together.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...03383.html

Also found this article that referring to the separate packages and makes the tv deals procured after the UM, VT and BC adds look like a total dud.

The average payout went from $5.9M to $6.1M, and the actual per team payout from the basketball package decreased. Raycom went from a 7-year, $210M expiring deal to a new 7-year, $225M deal. Excellent negotiating skills, #ninja.

Quote:In the last couple of weeks, three deals that completely define TV rights and revenue for the ACC's major sports -- football and men's basketball -- have been signed, setting the course for the league's TV exposure and revenue for the rest of this decade. Here are the summaries of those three deals (all dollar figures are approximate):

ESPN/ABC football TV deal: $258 million, for 7 years, through the 2010 season. Increased Thursday night exposures, increased Saturday exposures, plus Labor Day and Thanksgiving exposure. Includes the ACC championship game, starting in 2005, and exposure on ESPN Classic, the Internet, etc.
Raycom/Jefferson Pilot football syndication deal: approx. $28 million for 7 years, through the 2010 season. Package increases from current 8 weeks of syndicated games to 10 weeks in 2004 and 11 weeks in 2005. Will include split regional telecasts for the first time, since the league has more games to choose from now. Works out to about $4 million per year, versus old deal of about $1 million per year. Old package was just JP Sports, but Raycom has now joined forces with JP Sports (as they have done on the basketball package for many years).
Raycom/Jefferson Pilot basketball syndication deal: approx. $225 million for 7 years, through the 2010-2011 season. This is an increase from the old deal, which was $210 million for 7 years (per-team take is lower, though, due to 12 teams instead of just 9). As always, the rights to any games not televised are sold to ESPN/ABC.
Related articles:

New ACC TV Deal Vindicates Swofford, League -- News and Notes, 5/13/04
ACC Signs New Syndication Deals -- News and Notes, 5/20/04

In all, those TV contracts will pay the 12-team ACC an average of about $73 million per year, compared to the approximately $53 million they were making as a 9-team league. This increases the per-team take from about $5.9 million to $6.1 million.

http://archive.techsideline.com/tslpass/...cle238.htm

Marge...Miami, BC and VT brought nothing in hoops...they were added for FB

I don't give a crap if Humpty Dumpty was added to the conference, at a BARE MINIMUM the contract should've kept payouts the same. And even that would've been an horrific contract. It's unconscionable that the best basketball conference in the country actually decreased in total and per school value.

That $15M bump was only a 7% increase. That's less than the rate of inflation.

Do you think Raycom was only making 7% more from ad revenue during ACC games they aired?

Wow! I didn't really start following this all that closely until 2012, but it looks like prior to that ACC leadership was asleep (or drunk) at the wheel... totally unacceptable!

(06-23-2015 05:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Wow! I didn't really start following this all that closely until 2012, but it looks like prior to that ACC leadership was asleep (or drunk) at the wheel... totally unacceptable!

That's what a lot of us have been saying. That's Swofford's fault big time, and the schools' faults for letting it happen as well...all of them.

The only question is...has anything changed.

(06-23-2015 10:23 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 05:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Wow! I didn't really start following this all that closely until 2012, but it looks like prior to that ACC leadership was asleep (or drunk) at the wheel... totally unacceptable!

That's what a lot of us have been saying. That's Swofford's fault big time, and the schools' faults for letting it happen as well...all of them.

The only question is...has anything changed.

That's the point that seems to escape a lot of folks here. The schools themselves are more at fault than anyone since Swofford cant just go around signing deals and making important decisions without their approvals. I realize that the schools depend on him for direction in these areas, but once he exposes all of the facts and the pros and cons, the schools make the ultimate decisions.

Uh-oh, ACC!



How are you planning to get OUT of this hole?

(06-22-2015 07:55 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 09:36 AM)nole Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 08:14 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 11:33 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  As a fan, alumnus and booster, I care about all FSU teams.

If the SEC has an extra ~$7M in conference revenue that the ACC doesn't have to spend on non-revenue sports, I don't consider that "waste".

I agree....How much was the gap say back in 2005? I do not know.... Even if the ACCN closes the gap of the 7M ( I do not think so...I think there will always be a gap)

There will always be a Gap in the Donor/Contribution GAP!!

That being said, If the ACC has been able to compete with the GAP up until this point, why would they not e able to compete now??

WHY? Because the gap is GROWING .....this has been said over and over...simple concept. Things are changing and the gap is growing...and fast.


Wait....what?

The ACC competes? In what? Not football. Outside of FSU, how many ACC schools have a national title in football since 1993? SEC?

Bama
Auburn
Tenn
LSU
UF

How about baseball? ACC compete there? Nope


ACC competes in some Olympic sports and basketball....Olympic sports will go away as SEC drives more money into them.


ACC competes? That is ACC code for...'basketball won't be affected so we are good (but we just hope football is good enough not to boot us out of P5 like Big East)'.

Lets talk about GT and UGA since 2008...neither has a NC, but how many BCS/NY6 Bowls has each team been to...

UGA ZERO
GT 3

How many current ACC Teams (since the ACC today is different then in 1993) played for a NC in the BCS era(been a few)... Also this years draft, what league had the most players drafted after the SEC??? YEP the ACC with 47...I can agree with you that the ACC from 1993 is nothing like the ACC today!

BUT YOU ARE CORRECT in the BCS era the ACC was not very good...GOOD THING the CFP is here..

The GTAA is more or less bankrupt right now. Not sure you really want to pursue that comparison in full.

(06-23-2015 12:18 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 10:23 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 05:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Wow! I didn't really start following this all that closely until 2012, but it looks like prior to that ACC leadership was asleep (or drunk) at the wheel... totally unacceptable!

That's what a lot of us have been saying. That's Swofford's fault big time, and the schools' faults for letting it happen as well...all of them.

The only question is...has anything changed.

That's the point that seems to escape a lot of folks here. The schools themselves are more at fault than anyone since Swofford cant just go around signing deals and making important decisions without their approvals. I realize that the schools depend on him for direction in these areas, but once he exposes all of the facts and the pros and cons, the schools make the ultimate decisions.

Pittsburgh stopped the Big East from signing a solid deal. I wonder if that was because of a desire to move? Perhaps Maryland and a few other members successfully sabotaged the deal. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

(06-23-2015 03:40 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 12:18 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 10:23 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 05:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Wow! I didn't really start following this all that closely until 2012, but it looks like prior to that ACC leadership was asleep (or drunk) at the wheel... totally unacceptable!

That's what a lot of us have been saying. That's Swofford's fault big time, and the schools' faults for letting it happen as well...all of them.

The only question is...has anything changed.

That's the point that seems to escape a lot of folks here. The schools themselves are more at fault than anyone since Swofford cant just go around signing deals and making important decisions without their approvals. I realize that the schools depend on him for direction in these areas, but once he exposes all of the facts and the pros and cons, the schools make the ultimate decisions.

Pittsburgh stopped the Big East from signing a solid deal. I wonder if that was because of a desire to move? Perhaps Maryland and a few other members successfully sabotaged the deal. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

I believe, at the time that Pitt leaders, as well as other schools genuinely felt that the league could get more money by going to the open market with multiple bidders. There many were months left between the time that the league declined to sign ESPN's early deal and that they were actually free to negotiate with other potential tv partners. A lot happened during that time, including the Big 12 trying to woo Pitt. But you provided a good example of schools going against a Commissioners recommendation.

SO BACK ON TOPIC.... the ACC is closing the GAP Since 2004....Obvioulsy this does not include Bowl Money, Donor GAP...CFP Payouts...

I am expecting that the 2014-15 numbers (first year with CFP) will not be as bad for the ACC as folks are stating..

GAP for past Decade
2003-04
ACC 37M
SEC 108.8M
diff 71.8M

2005
ACC 73M
SEC 110.7M
diff 37.7M

2013-14
ACC 313.3M
SEC 326M
diff 12.7

SO anyone can see that the ACC is closing the GAP... We do not have a ACCN yet..... Just imagine how it will further close the gap once it is up and running!!

LINK
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...ributions/


LINK

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...ue-2013-14

(06-24-2015 12:46 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  SO BACK ON TOPIC.... the ACC is closing the GAP Since 2004....Obvioulsy this does not include Bowl Money, Donor GAP...CFP Payouts...

I am expecting that the 2014-15 numbers (first year with CFP) will not be as bad for the ACC as folks are stating..

GAP for past Decade
2003-04
ACC 37M
SEC 108.8M
diff 71.8M

2005
ACC 73M
SEC 110.7M
diff 37.7M

2013-14
ACC 313.3M
SEC 326M
diff 12.7

SO anyone can see that the ACC is closing the GAP... We do not have a ACCN yet..... Just imagine how it will further close the gap once it is up and running!!

LINK
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...ributions/


LINK

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...ue-2013-14

Please stop with these numbers. Wherever you are getting them, it's only partial figures.

For the 2005-06 year the ACC would have had a total of like $115-120 million in revenue for the conference, when split 13 ways that averages to about $9 million per school.

The breakdown was about $35 million for the ESPN football contract, another $3 million or so that Raycom/JP paid out to enhance the football tv monies, and over $30 million a year in about the middle year of a 10-year $300 million Raycom/JP bb contract that I linked information on in a previous post.

In 2005-06 they received $30 million plus in NCAA total distributions (the bulk of which is NCAA units, but other monies are included in that total as well). And in terms of BCS and non-BCS bowls, the net revenue (total revenue minus expenses) was probably just over $18 million.

In essence in terms of conference revenue distributed to each member they were equal (probably still slightly ahead) of the SEC in that year (2005-06) and every year prior to that as well.

I believe it wasn't until the new ESPN TV contract with the SEC began in the 2009-10 season that the SEC surpassed the ACC in terms of conference payouts.

Meanwhile the B1G surpassed them the second year of the BTN, in 2008-09.

Since then the gap has widened not narrowed although the 2014-15 distributions will appear to have closed the gap since the ACC had the Orange Bowl revenue this year while SEC did not have the $40 million from the Sugar and the B1G did not have the $40 million from the Rose. Meanwhile the ACC loses the $27.5 million from the Orange next year.

Cheers,
Neil

The REAL gap is in the football stadiums. 100K seat stadiums that are full generate a hell of a lot more money than 55K seat stadiums that are full.

NC State has 58K seats, even if we bring Alabama or Ohio State back to Raleigh, we can't price the ticket in such a way as to close the gap generated by a stadium with 45,000 more seats. Bama and OSU can play dip **** U, charge the equivalent of $100 for the ticket and gross $10,000,000. At 58,000 seats to get the same revenue NC State would have to price the ticket at $175.

NC State did not get a real football stadium until 1966 - decades after UNC and Duke.

Carter Finley needs about 70,000 seats to take advantage of good games such as FSU, Clemson, UNC, Louisville, Duke, VT, Miami, WF, ECU, and in the future ND, Miss State, West Va - but we don't have them and you will not get more than about 60K for the really bad games or when it gets cold unless NC State is playing for something in November.

Unfortunately we are probably in a post stadium seat expansion period for the foreseeable future.

(06-24-2015 07:03 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The REAL gap is in the football stadiums. 100K seat stadiums that are full generate a hell of a lot more money than 55K seat stadiums that are full.

NC State has 58K seats, even if we bring Alabama or Ohio State back to Raleigh, we can't price the ticket in such a way as to close the gap generated by a stadium with 45,000 more seats. Bama and OSU can play dip **** U, charge the equivalent of $100 for the ticket and gross $10,000,000. At 58,000 seats to get the same revenue NC State would have to price the ticket at $175.

NC State did not get a real football stadium until 1966 - decades after UNC and Duke.

Carter Finley needs about 70,000 seats to take advantage of good games such as FSU, Clemson, UNC, Louisville, Duke, VT, Miami, WF, ECU, and in the future ND, Miss State, West Va - but we don't have them and you will not get more than about 60K for the really bad games or when it gets cold unless NC State is playing for something in November.

Unfortunately we are probably in a post stadium seat expansion period for the foreseeable future.

Agreed, which has been mentioned several times by various posters. That is a gap the ACC can never overcome due to the number of privates and smaller state schools that operate a lot like privates.

But I don't think the conference needs 90K-100K stadiums. A packed TCU, Baylor, or Stanford stadium still look great on TV. We need better football, which we are starting to get, to help fill those stadiums no matter what the size.

Play winning exciting football and TV contract money will come.

Cheers,
Neil