Got to love how every time we have these discussions about the CONFERENCE revenue gap some moron has to come along and try to muddy the waters with an individual school's total revenue. If any of us who have comlained about the piss-poor job that the ACC has done negotiating contracts for media rights, bowls, etc. were expecting the ACC to make it so that we made the same as Texas or Ohio State you might would have a point but we aren't so you don't. We are talking about the money that the conferences control, not individual schools.....just like we always do.
There's been two people thus far in this thread who have brought this up. One of these people surprised me when they didn't because they are normally a fairly bright poster. The other didn't surprise me because if their knowledge of sports were dynamite they wouldn't be able to blow their nose.


And we are back to the conference payout being the fault of FSU, Miami, and Clemson because God knows we can't expect any of the other conference schools to do like schools do in every other conference and step up to fill the void when one of the powers is having a down period.

I contend the problem, especially the Orange Bowl payout, isn't so much the fact that those three schools were having a down period.....it's the fact that the Orange Bowl knows that outside of those three and VT the crowds simply will not be there. Witness UNC being blown out attendance-wise in games twice last year in Charlotte, and Mississippi State having a clear 2:1 attendance advantage over NC State fans in the Belk Bowl the same year. When the #2 and #4 enrollment schools don't even bother to attend games within their own state why should they expect any better in Miami.

(05-28-2016 07:24 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 05:07 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 03:53 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 02:47 PM)nole Wrote:  Next year will be truly telling. No Orange bowl $$ or Maryland money along with maturing SEC network and huge B1G TV contracts...plus increased P2 Bowl revenue, the revenue cap will like be in the $10-$15 million range next year.

Please explain how you get a $10MM-$15MM revenue cap figure. No debating your number - you obviously put some thought into it - just not sure how you get there.

OK, I'll give it a rough shot:

This year:

SEC and B1G approx. $32 Million

ACC approx. $26 Million

Approx $6 Million revenue gap


Next year, the ACC won't get:

*$31 Million Maryland Payout. So subtract a bit over $2 Million from the ACC's $26 million payout....$24 million.

*Due to rotation, no Orange bowl payoff next year...$28 Million, so remove $2 million from ACC $24 million payout...$22 Million.

*Add $4 Million to ACC payout for ACC Network (or $45 Million rumored payout) and TV bump (contract amount grows each year...just est)....so back up to $26 Million.

*IF ACC gets a Conf Network and it's a deal where ACC has to front money, the payout could take a big hit until investment is done and revenue starts to kick in (if there is much revenue there)


SEC/B1G

*Add $40 Million for Sugar/Rose due to rotation....that is $3 Million to $32 Million so we are at $35 Million


SEC

*Add about $3 Million for increase Conf Network (they only got about 8 months revenue out of last years figure) and increase in TV network (like SEC, increasing TV revenue over years)....that puts SEC at about $38 Million

*Similar for B1G above...increase TV contract (biggest increase of any conf).....so approx. at $38 Million (many of hinted at $40 Million).


So ROUGLY, my estimate has ACC next year at around $26 Million to SEC/B1G at $38 Million......or $12 Million revenue gap to this years $6 Million revenue gap.

Thanks, Nole. I was thinking you meant gap when writing cap but was unsure due to the final statement, which sounded like the ACC was capped at $10-$15MM. You usually have a good thought, whether I agree or not, the error was a simple typo. I knew you weren't going nuts thinking that the ACC was dropping to the $10-$15MM range. I probably should have asked you to clarify cap or gap.

Regarding the Orange Bowl, doesn't the ACC get a different slot in either the Peach or Fiesta if not selected for the playoffs? Also, the ACC could get another team in another New Year's Day bowl game. There should be some offset, whether the full amount is recouped or not. I am bullish on getting a team into the playoffs (FSU, Clemson).

Regarding the Maryland money, I thought the ACC was holding it in reserve for potential buy-in or rights purchasing or other network costs/fees.

All in all, $10MM is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. For the money differences, UT is raking in money and cannot seem to buy anything with the dough. Would anyone bet on UT taking down FSU, Clemson, tOSU, OU? All of whom should be competing for the title. Throw in the many other teams that should be better than UT and compare what they bring in to Texas haul. tOSU is the only one in the ball park, even they are not getting their money's worth (you can lump most of teh B1G into that category!).

Gotcha...sorry about the typo.

Maryland money was dispersed this year...it was a one time add that pushed ACC payout to #3 overall.

The bowl variation has to do with the poor ACC Orange Bowl contract and a rotation. I simplify it and simply look at it like this...what is the gap on average over 3-5 years. From what I see, it will still be an average in the $10 mill plus range.

Money doesn't assure success.....but you won't win football national titles without it There are maybe 15 programs with money.....you won't see somebody outside of that win it. Miami was the last to do it. Clemson came darn close this year.....but nobody has done it without a top budget. I see your point that it is only a portion....but I think if the gap keeps growing.....as it has been....it will matter. Once it hits a certain point, schools will start to feel a very real affect that can't' ignore.

(05-28-2016 07:54 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 07:24 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 05:07 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 03:53 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 02:47 PM)nole Wrote:  Next year will be truly telling. No Orange bowl $$ or Maryland money along with maturing SEC network and huge B1G TV contracts...plus increased P2 Bowl revenue, the revenue cap will like be in the $10-$15 million range next year.

Please explain how you get a $10MM-$15MM revenue cap figure. No debating your number - you obviously put some thought into it - just not sure how you get there.

OK, I'll give it a rough shot:

This year:

SEC and B1G approx. $32 Million

ACC approx. $26 Million

Approx $6 Million revenue gap


Next year, the ACC won't get:

*$31 Million Maryland Payout. So subtract a bit over $2 Million from the ACC's $26 million payout....$24 million.

*Due to rotation, no Orange bowl payoff next year...$28 Million, so remove $2 million from ACC $24 million payout...$22 Million.

*Add $4 Million to ACC payout for ACC Network (or $45 Million rumored payout) and TV bump (contract amount grows each year...just est)....so back up to $26 Million.

*IF ACC gets a Conf Network and it's a deal where ACC has to front money, the payout could take a big hit until investment is done and revenue starts to kick in (if there is much revenue there)


SEC/B1G

*Add $40 Million for Sugar/Rose due to rotation....that is $3 Million to $32 Million so we are at $35 Million


SEC

*Add about $3 Million for increase Conf Network (they only got about 8 months revenue out of last years figure) and increase in TV network (like SEC, increasing TV revenue over years)....that puts SEC at about $38 Million

*Similar for B1G above...increase TV contract (biggest increase of any conf).....so approx. at $38 Million (many of hinted at $40 Million).


So ROUGLY, my estimate has ACC next year at around $26 Million to SEC/B1G at $38 Million......or $12 Million revenue gap to this years $6 Million revenue gap.

Thanks, Nole. I was thinking you meant gap when writing cap but was unsure due to the final statement, which sounded like the ACC was capped at $10-$15MM. You usually have a good thought, whether I agree or not, the error was a simple typo. I knew you weren't going nuts thinking that the ACC was dropping to the $10-$15MM range. I probably should have asked you to clarify cap or gap.

Regarding the Orange Bowl, doesn't the ACC get a different slot in either the Peach or Fiesta if not selected for the playoffs? Also, the ACC could get another team in another New Year's Day bowl game. There should be some offset, whether the full amount is recouped or not. I am bullish on getting a team into the playoffs (FSU, Clemson).

Regarding the Maryland money, I thought the ACC was holding it in reserve for potential buy-in or rights purchasing or other network costs/fees.

All in all, $10MM is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. For the money differences, UT is raking in money and cannot seem to buy anything with the dough. Would anyone bet on UT taking down FSU, Clemson, tOSU, OU? All of whom should be competing for the title. Throw in the many other teams that should be better than UT and compare what they bring in to Texas haul. tOSU is the only one in the ball park, even they are not getting their money's worth (you can lump most of teh B1G into that category!).

Gotcha...sorry about the typo.

Maryland money was dispersed this year...it was a one time add that pushed ACC payout to #3 overall.

The bowl variation has to do with the poor ACC Orange Bowl contract and a rotation. I simplify it and simply look at it like this...what is the gap on average over 3-5 years. From what I see, it will still be an average in the $10 mill plus range.

Money doesn't assure success.....but you won't win football national titles without it There are maybe 15 programs with money.....you won't see somebody outside of that win it. Miami was the last to do it. Clemson came darn close this year.....but nobody has done it without a top budget. I see your point that it is only a portion....but I think if the gap keeps growing.....as it has been....it will matter. Once it hits a certain point, schools will start to feel a very real affect that can't' ignore.

As the Pac12, Big12 and ACC will all have the same gap, a decision will have to be made.

The ACC coming in 3rd without a network is good news!!

SEC $32.7 million/school
B1G $32 million/school
ACC $26.2 million/school
Pac12 $25.1 million/school
Big12 $23.3 million/school*

* does not include Tier 3 rights, which vary school-to-school.

(05-28-2016 07:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Got to love how every time we have these discussions about the CONFERENCE revenue gap some moron has to come along and try to muddy the waters with an individual school's total revenue. If any of us who have comlained about the piss-poor job that the ACC has done negotiating contracts for media rights, bowls, etc. were expecting the ACC to make it so that we made the same as Texas or Ohio State you might would have a point but we aren't so you don't. We are talking about the money that the conferences control, not individual schools.....just like we always do.
There's been two people thus far in this thread who have brought this up. One of these people surprised me when they didn't because they are normally a fairly bright poster. The other didn't surprise me because if their knowledge of sports were dynamite they wouldn't be able to blow their nose.


And we are back to the conference payout being the fault of FSU, Miami, and Clemson because God knows we can't expect any of the other conference schools to do like schools do in every other conference and step up to fill the void when one of the powers is having a down period.

I contend the problem, especially the Orange Bowl payout, isn't so much the fact that those three schools were having a down period.....it's the fact that the Orange Bowl knows that outside of those three and VT the crowds simply will not be there. Witness UNC being blown out attendance-wise in games twice last year in Charlotte, and Mississippi State having a clear 2:1 attendance advantage over NC State fans in the Belk Bowl the same year. When the #2 and #4 enrollment schools don't even bother to attend games within their own state why should they expect any better in Miami.

Brilliant argument. No substance, no facts, take points out of context.

Let's help out the Clemson fan. By your own argument you have to admit that the following SEC and B1G teams were better than Clemson last season because they received a higher payout than Clemson, the sole substance of your argument, the only metric by which teams can be measured.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
(apologies for the misalignment)
school conf total revenue total expenses
Texas A&M SEC $192,608,876 $109,313,651
Texas Big 12 $183,521,028 $173,248,133
Ohio State Big Ten $167,166,065 $154,033,208
Michigan Big Ten $152,477,026 $151,144,964
Alabama SEC $148,911,674 $132,354,913
Florida SEC $147,105,242 $125,384,443
LSU SEC $138,642,237 $121,947,775
Oklahoma Big 12 $134,269,349 $123,017,251
Tennessee SEC $126,584,033 $113,413,325
Penn State Big Ten $125,720,619 $122,271,407
Auburn SEC $124,657,247 $115,498,047
Wisconsin Big Ten $123,895,543 $118,691,112
Florida State ACC $120,822,522 $111,386,681
Kentucky SEC $116,494,690 $115,159,039
Georgia SEC $116,151,279 $96,559,307
Arkansas SEC $114,172,847 $97,106,539
South Carolina SEC $113,172,545 $107,430,044
Minnesota Big Ten $111,162,265 $111,162,265
Michigan State Big Ten $108,687,274 $108,283,151
Iowa Big Ten $105,969,545 $109,214,651
Oregon Pac-12 $105,701,523 $103,880,557
Louisville ACC $104,325,207 $101,624,437
Washington Pac-12 $103,540,117 $104,403,253
Nebraska Big Ten $102,157,399 $98,023,037
UCLA Pac-12 $96,912,767 $96,912,767
Oklahoma State Big 12 $95,931,739 $93,144,396
Maryland Big Ten $92,686,128 $92,558,535
Kansas Big 12 $91,860,673 $92,207,877
Virginia ACC $91,256,772 $91,345,925
Missouri SEC $91,217,778 $86,859,158
West Virginia Big 12 $90,523,565 $87,265,473
North Carolina ACC $89,128,256 $89,080,843
Indiana Big Ten $88,362,421 $88,330,530
Mississippi SEC $87,602,519 $82,399,898
Arizona Pac-12 $87,135,331 $80,706,045
Illinois Big Ten $85,998,659 $87,163,188
California Pac-12 $85,539,904 $94,016,545
Arizona State Pac-12 $84,440,040 $83,873,516
Clemson ACC $83,534,371 $82,855,674
(There may be a few private schools that exceed Clemson's revenue, too)

Thank God above that Dabo did not get your memo! Dabo disproves your theory completely (and has for a few years)! Twenty-two SEC and B1G teams are included in the list earning more than Clemson and yet Clemson was outranked by only one! Outranking 27 SEC and B1G teams that

Jimbo does the same as he won a championship with a dozen teams bringing in more revenue (some of which is from the TV deals). Ten of the twelve teams are either SEC or B1G.

Using your measure, tOSU will have to turn in their trophy because TAMU and UT had $25MM and $16MM more in revenue than poor little Buckeye State!

No one is claiming the ACC does not need to do better, that is your straw man argument. Whether Swofford is an idiot or a genius is each fan's opinion. Regardless, Slive and Delaney would have a hard time in Swofford's shoes at the time the ACC made the agreement (which was considered by most sports insiders, writers, coaches, etc. as an excellent deal at that time). That you wish to discount that ACC teams have invested heavily in football since the expansion and the increase in revenue is your choice. Will it pay off? Time will tell. Does the ACC need to do better? Yes.

No one is claiming that a disparity does not exist. I am only pointing out that payouts have less of an impact than is propagated. You can whine about them, but they are what they are. Making specious arguments that the ACC cannot compete because they do not earn as much TV revenue as other conferences is useless. The facts prove otherwise.

All I have claimed is that the TV revenue is not as significant as many pretend. Even in Clemson's case, the alleged gap of $10MM in this discussion is an increase of 12% and would move Clemson up about 12 notches or so. Easier to compete? Yes. Necessary to compete? Dabo and Jimbo have flat out proved your claim wrong.

I lay the blame for the ACC conference payout at the feet of every ACC school. Each school could have done better, made better moves leading up to the negotiations. The negotiators had only what was given them by the schools to work with, which most of us agree was too little.

I agree that traveling fans probably had an impact on the bowl negotiations. Bowls want to fill the stadiums,sell hotel rooms, fill restaurants and have fans spend $$$$$. The ACC fan bases are weak and have some time to improve that factor.

Final Rankings: http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings

(05-28-2016 07:32 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 05:57 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 05:00 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 02:07 PM)green Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 01:57 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  How many ACC football championships is it that Miami has won? I've forgotten.

5
and duke?

FYI

Duke has 17 conference football championships dating back to 1933. Green I think you misread Hall.

IIRC Miami has 7 conference football championships.

Duke's last was in 89, Miami's last in 2003. Duke last played a game for a conference title in 2013, Miami, again in 2003.

To be fair, Miami spent most of its athletic years as a fb indy, and has only been part of a conference for maybe 25 years. Winning 7 conference championships out of twenty five is pretty dog gone good by any measurement.

To be fair Duke deemphasized football in 1962 after winning 15 conference titles in 30 years and appearing in all of the major bowl games. Duke has been more relevant in the last several years than Miami - to be fair.

The point is that its silly to compare Duke winning 17 conference championships out of 128 years in a conference against Miami who won 7 conference championships even though they have been in a conference for only 25 years. And it doesn't matter if Duke deemphasized fb or not for a period. That was their own stupidity. If you have a fb team you might as well try to win. They were in a conference the whole time. Nothing was proved by this silly comparison.

(05-28-2016 10:11 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Let's help out the Clemson fan. By your own argument

Not even close basketball boy. The only two people who brought up total revenue are you and the clown from Rawlee.


News flash.....we are well aware that our total revenue is lacking. We are working to address what we can. Part of our problem is the fact that other FSU and GT we simply do not have attractive home conference games the demand premium ticket prices so that is out of our hands as we can't control the fact that the vast majority of this conference is so bad their own fans don't want to pay to see them.

What we are discussing in this thread is CONFERENCE REVENUE DISTRIBUTION

Let me say it one more time so maybe it will sink in.......CONFERENCE REVENUE DISTRIBUTION

Get it now or do I need to type it slower or wake up the next door neighbor's six year old to write it in crayon and post a picture of it for you?


Evidently I was wrong earlier and there are two people who wouldn't be able to blow their noses now.

hard to believe that anybody could think Clemson doesn't have enough money.

(05-29-2016 12:43 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  hard to believe that anybody could think Clemson doesn't have enough money.

Better tell that to everybody from the BOT to the IPTAY BOD to everybody working in the Jervey Center.

It's not a problem now, but by the time the ACC contract runs it's course it's going to be a serious problem and they along with anybody with the intelligence God gave a head of lettuce knows it.

Sadly there aren't that many of those kinds of people on this board.

Some random thoughts:

*per Warchant.com, FSU has been losing support staff because FSU won't/can't match salary offers. Many FSU fans think it is nothing....others do.

*It is being reported by a trusted poster on warchant that Jimbo is very concerned with the ACC's revenue situation. Many at FSU believe Jimbo will move on to LSU/Bama soon to avoid having to beg for money. This is controversial, but at the end of the day......it takes money to keep a coach like Jimbo.

*GaTechFletch claims these revenue reports are good news, yet the gap actually grew.

*It has never been about how the ACC compares against the Pac 12 and Big 12. It is how we compare to the P2. No, ACC does not need to match those dollars.....but as a few on this board have agreed.....it must stay within a percentage (maybe 80%). We are hovering around 81% right now....next year will fall below 80%.

*The REAL story is what next years revenue gap projects to be .....I think we see the first double digit revenue gap with SEC/B1G.

*The ACC doesn't just need a Network from ESPN. It needs a network that produces 80-90% of the revenue that the SEC network does. Getting one that produces say 50% of the SEC network.....that is a fail.

*The ACC also needs ESPN to provide GOOD exposure compared to the SEC. Almost every SEC school got their spring game on national TV. FSU's with 50K fans in Orlando was on the internet stream. Even our smaller sports like baseball and Olympic sports are getting crushed compared to SEC peers. FSU fans are also seeing this in all the Noon start times in football (FSU vs Louisville at noon? Really? Great for FSU but HORRIBLE for the ACC....maybe the 2 or 3 best game of the season for the ACC and it is at noon). Recruits see this......ACC is noon....SEC is prime time. Ask coaches if this matters in recruiting.

*The ACC also needs ESPN to provide POSITIVE exposure compared to the SEC. While ESPN ignores the sex scandal at Tenn and Ole Miss players admitting on national TV coaches pay them, they are dragging FSU into the Baylor scandal (one they spend much time on.....granted, it is deserved). This is small, but one of a million examples, where ESPN has an active narrative to hide all SEC misdeeds and tear everyone else down. With friends like these...who needs enemies. Again, ask coaches if this matters in recruiting.

(05-29-2016 06:52 AM)nole Wrote:  Some random thoughts:

*per Warchant.com, FSU has been losing support staff because FSU won't/can't match salary offers. Many FSU fans think it is nothing....others do.

*It is being reported by a trusted poster on warchant that Jimbo is very concerned with the ACC's revenue situation. Many at FSU believe Jimbo will move on to LSU/Bama soon to avoid having to beg for money. This is controversial, but at the end of the day......it takes money to keep a coach like Jimbo.

*GaTechFletch claims these revenue reports are good news, yet the gap actually grew.

*It has never been about how the ACC compares against the Pac 12 and Big 12. It is how we compare to the P2. No, ACC does not need to match those dollars.....but as a few on this board have agreed.....it must stay within a percentage (maybe 80%). We are hovering around 81% right now....next year will fall below 80%.

*The REAL story is what next years revenue gap projects to be .....I think we see the first double digit revenue gap with SEC/B1G.

*The ACC doesn't just need a Network from ESPN. It needs a network that produces 80-90% of the revenue that the SEC network does. Getting one that produces say 50% of the SEC network.....that is a fail.

*The ACC also needs ESPN to provide GOOD exposure compared to the SEC. Almost every SEC school got their spring game on national TV. FSU's with 50K fans in Orlando was on the internet stream. Even our smaller sports like baseball and Olympic sports are getting crushed compared to SEC peers. FSU fans are also seeing this in all the Noon start times in football (FSU vs Louisville at noon? Really? Great for FSU but HORRIBLE for the ACC....maybe the 2 or 3 best game of the season for the ACC and it is at noon). Recruits see this......ACC is noon....SEC is prime time. Ask coaches if this matters in recruiting.

*The ACC also needs ESPN to provide POSITIVE exposure compared to the SEC. While ESPN ignores the sex scandal at Tenn and Ole Miss players admitting on national TV coaches pay them, they are dragging FSU into the Baylor scandal (one they spend much time on.....granted, it is deserved). This is small, but one of a million examples, where ESPN has an active narrative to hide all SEC misdeeds and tear everyone else down. With friends like these...who needs enemies. Again, ask coaches if this matters in recruiting.

This is good news because this time last year everyone said the gap would be 10 to 12 million and that is not true. In fact GT and FSU could have easily made 28M had the ACC not taken 3M off the top for legal fees and TV network research.

The fact of the matter is that there is no way to catch the SEC or BIG in the true revenue gap....the ACC school just do not recieve 20 million plus from donors...Doesn't Happen... Notre Dame maybe....wake forest....Hell No...

To rush on a network that would look like the longhorn network or the Pac 12 network would be foolish...

So let's talk real football...ACC Football were they do not get 20M in Donor support or have a dedicated network that poors in millions.... somehow we have put teams in the both CFP...We had GT win the OB over an SEC team in 14...FSU made the Peach Bowl in 15... I mean the way everyone complians the ACC should fold....How in the heck do we compete?? You whiners give ACC fans a bad name!

ACC SHARES FOR 2014-15

Florida State: $27.6M

Georgia Tech: $27.4M

North Carolina; $27.0M

Duke: $27.0M

N.C. State: $26.8M

Boston College: $26.8M

Virginia Tech: $26.7M

Clemson: $26.6M

Miami: $26.6M

Virginia: $25.8M

Wake Forest: $25.5M

Pittsburgh: $25.0M

Louisville: $24.0M

Syracuse: $24.0M

Notre Dame: $6.2M

Hey Fletch, I noticed from your list that the newest members received the lowest payout from the ACC. Is there something to this, such as the newest members not receiving a full share or something along those lines?

(05-29-2016 09:17 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Hey Fletch, I noticed from your list that the newest members received the lowest payout from the ACC. Is there something to this, such as the newest members not receiving a full share or something along those lines?

Not Sure... My guess it has something to do with the Maryland exit fee??

I am also interested to see what the rights fee bump for 2015-16 is and then add in the ESPN payment for not having an ACC Network by July 1 2017 (I am hearing up to 50M to 60M, also hearing that we might not see that money if ESPN agrees to a channel in 2018 as it will be used to invest in channel). Bottom line is that things are looking very good for the ACC.

SCHOOL SHARES FOR 2013-14
Clemson: $21.3M
Florida State: $20.2M
Duke: $20.2M
North Carolina: $19.8M
Miami: $19.5M
Boston College: $19.4M
Virginia Tech: $19.3M
Georgia Tech: $19.2M
Syracuse: $19.2M
Pittsburgh: $18.9M
Virginia: $18.3M
N.C. State: $18.2M
Wake Forest: $17.9M
Notre Dame: $4.9M

ACC SHARES FOR 2014-15
Florida State: $27.6M
Georgia Tech: $27.4M
North Carolina; $27.0M
Duke: $27.0M
N.C. State: $26.8M
Boston College: $26.8M
Virginia Tech: $26.7M
Clemson: $26.6M
Miami: $26.6M
Virginia: $25.8M
Wake Forest: $25.5M
Pittsburgh: $25.0M
Louisville: $24.0M
Syracuse: $24.0M
Notre Dame: $6.2M

I thought GT was reporting $23.8?

Could NCAA tourney shares be the reason why UL, Pitt & Syracuse are bringing in the lowest conference shares? I believe those 3 left there's with the AAC.

(05-29-2016 10:08 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I thought GT was reporting $23.8?

Could NCAA tourney shares be the reason why UL, Pitt & Syracuse are bringing in the lowest conference shares? I believe those 3 left there's with the AAC.

Good point. That may be the reason.

(05-29-2016 10:08 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I thought GT was reporting $23.8?

Could NCAA tourney shares be the reason why UL, Pitt & Syracuse are bringing in the lowest conference shares? I believe those 3 left there's with the AAC.

Reported/Budgeted... But hey they made more, I was just off and tired of trying to talk sense to those Kook narratives about the ACC Doom and Gloom!! You can lead a horse (or FSU fan) to water but you can not make them drink. (or listen to common sense)

(05-28-2016 10:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 10:11 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Let's help out the Clemson fan. By your own argument

Not even close basketball boy. The only two people who brought up total revenue are you and the clown from Rawlee.


News flash.....we are well aware that our total revenue is lacking. We are working to address what we can. Part of our problem is the fact that other FSU and GT we simply do not have attractive home conference games the demand premium ticket prices so that is out of our hands as we can't control the fact that the vast majority of this conference is so bad their own fans don't want to pay to see them.

What we are discussing in this thread is CONFERENCE REVENUE DISTRIBUTION

Let me say it one more time so maybe it will sink in.......CONFERENCE REVENUE DISTRIBUTION

Get it now or do I need to type it slower or wake up the next door neighbor's six year old to write it in crayon and post a picture of it for you?


Evidently I was wrong earlier and there are two people who wouldn't be able to blow their noses now.

Try reading what was written. I plainly include conference distributions and revenues, though not in the same chart.

Clemson ranked #2 in the rankings, ahead of 27 teams that had higher conference revenues, 21 of which had more total revenues, too.

The fact that FSU and Clemson (and the rest of the ACC, Big 12 and PAC) lag the B1G and SEC in conference payouts is far less impressive when compared to the gap in revenues.

The theory that the gap in TV money is the what makes teams non-competitive might have some merit if FSU and Clemson were not competing for the championship. However, the theory would take a very distant back seat to the gap in revenues when one analyzes the numbers. Yet, FSU and Clemson are still in the thick of things with Louisville, Miami, UNC showing promise.

Hint: Being down $10MM in TV revenue is a fraction of being down $30MM-$80MM or more in revenues, thus the reason I brought up total revenues, but that probably is too complicated for you as you want to bash Swofford (which is alright by me, bash Swofford all you want, he's paid to take the abuse, right or wrong, besides, I am ambivalent as far as Swofford goes).

We all know that every bit helps. Whining about it doesn't hep.

How many marquee games does Alabama play at home? 2: TAMU and Auburn, Conference games garner moderate money, the body bag games are far less than the marquee games.

Western Kentucky $50 Non-marquee
Kent State $50 Non-marquee
Kentucky $75 Conference, non-marquee (wouldn't come close to this level if it weren't a conference game)
Texas A&M $100 Marquee
Mississippi State $75 Conference (not debatable as a marquee game as it is priced the same as Kentucky)
Chattanooga $45 Non-marquee
Auburn $115 Marquee

(I checked the Clemsontigers.com for single game ticket pricing but it is not yet posted - If you have insight into this, it might be interesting)

You have before you more facts verifying that you have no facts to support you supposition that TV money is what makes Clemson unable to compete. Just the opposite. Keep whining, sooner or later you might get lucky and it will cone true.

(05-29-2016 06:52 AM)nole Wrote:  Some random thoughts:

*per Warchant.com, FSU has been losing support staff because FSU won't/can't match salary offers. Many FSU fans think it is nothing....others do.

*It is being reported by a trusted poster on warchant that Jimbo is very concerned with the ACC's revenue situation. Many at FSU believe Jimbo will move on to LSU/Bama soon to avoid having to beg for money. This is controversial, but at the end of the day......it takes money to keep a coach like Jimbo.

*GaTechFletch claims these revenue reports are good news, yet the gap actually grew.

*It has never been about how the ACC compares against the Pac 12 and Big 12. It is how we compare to the P2. No, ACC does not need to match those dollars.....but as a few on this board have agreed.....it must stay within a percentage (maybe 80%). We are hovering around 81% right now....next year will fall below 80%.

*The REAL story is what next years revenue gap projects to be .....I think we see the first double digit revenue gap with SEC/B1G.

*The ACC doesn't just need a Network from ESPN. It needs a network that produces 80-90% of the revenue that the SEC network does. Getting one that produces say 50% of the SEC network.....that is a fail.

*The ACC also needs ESPN to provide GOOD exposure compared to the SEC. Almost every SEC school got their spring game on national TV. FSU's with 50K fans in Orlando was on the internet stream. Even our smaller sports like baseball and Olympic sports are getting crushed compared to SEC peers. FSU fans are also seeing this in all the Noon start times in football (FSU vs Louisville at noon? Really? Great for FSU but HORRIBLE for the ACC....maybe the 2 or 3 best game of the season for the ACC and it is at noon). Recruits see this......ACC is noon....SEC is prime time. Ask coaches if this matters in recruiting.

*The ACC also needs ESPN to provide POSITIVE exposure compared to the SEC. While ESPN ignores the sex scandal at Tenn and Ole Miss players admitting on national TV coaches pay them, they are dragging FSU into the Baylor scandal (one they spend much time on.....granted, it is deserved). This is small, but one of a million examples, where ESPN has an active narrative to hide all SEC misdeeds and tear everyone else down. With friends like these...who needs enemies. Again, ask coaches if this matters in recruiting.

Jimbo has been rumored for both jobs for years, even before taking over FSU it was rumored he would move to the SEC. He could be paving the way for his exit (and potential ultra high dollar contract) or trying to force the AD/BoT to pay his staff more or both. It also may be that Fisher is simply tired of training staff, which makes no sense as any successful coach will lose staff due to success (that is why the other staffs are poaching his staff - their staff have moved on to more lucrative jobs).

Fully agree that ESPN has been playing favorites and is now in a spot where they have to put up or shut up. Failure on the ACCN front could hurt ESPN as they have losing networks that could easily be making money by creating the ACCN. Agree that the money differential needs to be at least 80%, but could be much closer due to the non-football season ad revenues for live games (hoops and lacrosse are the best there is and baseball holds its own against the other powers).

(05-29-2016 03:45 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 10:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 10:11 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Let's help out the Clemson fan. By your own argument

Not even close basketball boy. The only two people who brought up total revenue are you and the clown from Rawlee.


News flash.....we are well aware that our total revenue is lacking. We are working to address what we can. Part of our problem is the fact that other FSU and GT we simply do not have attractive home conference games the demand premium ticket prices so that is out of our hands as we can't control the fact that the vast majority of this conference is so bad their own fans don't want to pay to see them.

What we are discussing in this thread is CONFERENCE REVENUE DISTRIBUTION

Let me say it one more time so maybe it will sink in.......CONFERENCE REVENUE DISTRIBUTION

Get it now or do I need to type it slower or wake up the next door neighbor's six year old to write it in crayon and post a picture of it for you?


Evidently I was wrong earlier and there are two people who wouldn't be able to blow their noses now.

Try reading what was written. I plainly include conference distributions and revenues, though not in the same chart.

Clemson ranked #2 in the rankings, ahead of 27 teams that had higher conference revenues, 21 of which had more total revenues, too.

The fact that FSU and Clemson (and the rest of the ACC, Big 12 and PAC) lag the B1G and SEC in conference payouts is far less impressive when compared to the gap in revenues.

The theory that the gap in TV money is the what makes teams non-competitive might have some merit if FSU and Clemson were not competing for the championship. However, the theory would take a very distant back seat to the gap in revenues when one analyzes the numbers. Yet, FSU and Clemson are still in the thick of things with Louisville, Miami, UNC showing promise.

Hint: Being down $10MM in TV revenue is a fraction of being down $30MM-$80MM or more in revenues, thus the reason I brought up total revenues, but that probably is too complicated for you as you want to bash Swofford (which is alright by me, bash Swofford all you want, he's paid to take the abuse, right or wrong, besides, I am ambivalent as far as Swofford goes).

We all know that every bit helps. Whining about it doesn't hep.

How many marquee games does Alabama play at home? 2: TAMU and Auburn, Conference games garner moderate money, the body bag games are far less than the marquee games.

Western Kentucky $50 Non-marquee
Kent State $50 Non-marquee
Kentucky $75 Conference, non-marquee (wouldn't come close to this level if it weren't a conference game)
Texas A&M $100 Marquee
Mississippi State $75 Conference (not debatable as a marquee game as it is priced the same as Kentucky)
Chattanooga $45 Non-marquee
Auburn $115 Marquee

(I checked the Clemsontigers.com for single game ticket pricing but it is not yet posted - If you have insight into this, it might be interesting)

You have before you more facts verifying that you have no facts to support you supposition that TV money is what makes Clemson unable to compete. Just the opposite. Keep whining, sooner or later you might get lucky and it will cone true.

Clemson single game ticket prices for 2016:

Troy $40
SC State $40
Louisville $60
NC State $60
Syracuse $60
Pittsburgh $60
South Carolina $95

Honestly we should flip the prices for SC State and NC State/Syracuse and probably Pitt because SC State actually sells out their allotment and we know from experience the other two don't and Pitt probably doesn't either. Honestly if Troy travels like they did in 2011 they'll give the majority of our ACC opponents a run for their money in road game support.



And for the umpteenth million time on this forum.....we are working on doing what we can to up the revenue the school generates. That's not the topic at discussion here no matter how much you want to divert attention away from the failure of this conference's leadership to enhance the revenue of the conference as much as possible. It does Clemson no good to make every effort they can to narrow the revenue gap if the conference continues to fall further and further behind our regional opposition.

Now do you want to continue the muddying of the waters by discussing a topic that the only reason has been brought up is because you and the clown from Rawlee brought it up or do you want to discuss the topic at hand?

I used to wonder why people kept bringing up ticket sales in discussions of tv revenue, but I think get it now. Why focus on being $8M behind in TV revenue if you are $80M behind in ticket sales? It's a case of "straining out the gnat only to gulp down the camel".