(10-20-2022 06:02 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 06:11 PM)green Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/murphsturph/status/1...5023962112

SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

Easy fix: let the bowl teams keep a much greater share of the revenue instead of dividing it 15 ways (one share for the conference). Just spitballing, but say they keep half - that's a nice reward for success and it also provides an incentive for other schools to invest in their programs.

I know some schools have a greater TVQ but I would keep the media contract split equally.

I would apply your post-season split to all sports. 50% would be the minimum. Possibly as high as 75%.

(10-21-2022 10:33 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 04:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 10:07 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The conference HQ should be the first to give back a piece of their cut.

Then how will they pay for their unnecessary move?

FWIW - generous taxpayers in the state of North Carolina, and city of Charlotte, are adequately compensating the ACC for the HQ relocation.

As a lifelong resident and taxpayer of the Old North State I am appalled that our legislature would approve incentives for the Conference to relocate outside the state. No man is safe while the legislature sit.

(10-22-2022 10:10 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-21-2022 10:33 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 04:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 10:07 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The conference HQ should be the first to give back a piece of their cut.

Then how will they pay for their unnecessary move?

FWIW - generous taxpayers in the state of North Carolina, and city of Charlotte, are adequately compensating the ACC for the HQ relocation.

As a lifelong resident and taxpayer of the Old North State I am appalled that our legislature would approve incentives for the Conference to relocate outside the state. No man is safe while the legislature sit.

You do realize that Charlotte is INSIDE the state, right?

This week, Duke would have collected Miami's. Sorry, Pitt. Yours goes to Louisville. etc

It's kill or be killed in the ACC these days!

(10-22-2022 10:10 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-21-2022 10:33 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 04:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 10:07 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The conference HQ should be the first to give back a piece of their cut.

Then how will they pay for their unnecessary move?

FWIW - generous taxpayers in the state of North Carolina, and city of Charlotte, are adequately compensating the ACC for the HQ relocation.

As a lifelong resident and taxpayer of the Old North State I am appalled that our legislature would approve incentives for the Conference to relocate outside the state. No man is safe while the legislature sit.

I share your concern Dawg.

I am even more concerned that some folks actually think Charlotte IS in NC.

(10-23-2022 12:21 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-22-2022 10:10 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-21-2022 10:33 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-20-2022 04:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 10:07 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The conference HQ should be the first to give back a piece of their cut.

Then how will they pay for their unnecessary move?

FWIW - generous taxpayers in the state of North Carolina, and city of Charlotte, are adequately compensating the ACC for the HQ relocation.

As a lifelong resident and taxpayer of the Old North State I am appalled that our legislature would approve incentives for the Conference to relocate outside the state. No man is safe while the legislature sit.

You do realize that Charlotte is INSIDE the state, right?

Is it? It's not what folks from Charlotte have been saying for the last 100 years.

Charlotte is actually located in the GREAT STATE OF MECKLENBURG - an imaginary place in the minds of some of friends who think they are neither Tarheel nor Sandlapper.

At least those in the GREAT STATE OF FRANKLIN know better.

(10-19-2022 09:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 08:49 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  It should be based on success in Football and Men's basketball.

Not on ratings.

I don't agree at all. Ask yourself, why are some ACC teams more valuable than others in realignment? Is TCU more valuable than Oklahoma because they're ahead of them in the standings? Is Kansas more valuable than Notre Dame because they won the Men's Basketball Championship? NO! The thing that makes one team more valuable than another is TV ratings. If there is to be unequal sharing, it MUST correlated with value.

Agreed. It should be based on ratings for football and men's basketball and that includes ACCN ratings as well. The BTN ratings of college football games are posted along with the OTA games. I hope someday once it is more established the ACCN does the same.

Now obviously the amount (whatever the fixed amount agreed upon to be set aside) should be along the 80/20 line for the two sports. And it might need to be limited to the top 5 schools in both sports.

The pool of $$$ should come from the ACC's share of the CFP and the NCAA basketball tourney.

Those are my initial thoughts on this however I must admit I don't know if the ACC is already doing something along these lines just not in terms of ratings.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-23-2022 05:17 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 09:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 08:49 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  It should be based on success in Football and Men's basketball.

Not on ratings.

I don't agree at all. Ask yourself, why are some ACC teams more valuable than others in realignment? Is TCU more valuable than Oklahoma because they're ahead of them in the standings? Is Kansas more valuable than Notre Dame because they won the Men's Basketball Championship? NO! The thing that makes one team more valuable than another is TV ratings. If there is to be unequal sharing, it MUST correlated with value.

Agreed. It should be based on ratings for football and men's basketball and that includes ACCN ratings as well. The BTN ratings of college football games are posted along with the OTA games. I hope someday once it is more established the ACCN does the same.

Now obviously the amount (whatever the fixed amount agreed upon to be set aside) should be along the 80/20 line for the two sports. And it might need to be limited to the top 5 schools in both sports.

The pool of $$$ should come from the ACC's share of the CFP and the NCAA basketball tourney.

Those are my initial thoughts on this however I must admit I don't know if the ACC is already doing something along these lines just not in terms of ratings.

Cheers,
Neil

The whole concept is a double-edged sword. If you use any formula for unequal revenue sharing the collective loses power to the earners and the earners are always the ones which will eventually optimize their position with a move. Emphasis on eventually. If you remain a collective where the average is well below the potential of the top earners then you will also suffer the same risk, but at least you have to make decisions as a unit. If you have unequal revenue sharing you involuntarily, even accidentally, imbue the earners with a larger say and your conference becomes a tiered power structure where more weight has to be given to the whims and desires of the earners and oft times at the expense of the newly created underclass.

This board should know the risks well because you cited Texas and Oklahoma's stranglehold on the Big 12 for so long. Do you want to fall under the aegis of a Clemson/Louisville/Florida State triumvirate? They are your top earners and by a decent margin on most years, though last year Duke replaced F.S.U. in that grouping.

The only answer to the ACC's problems is to add schools which raise your average revenue total. From the Big 12 that would be Baylor, Kansas, and Texas Christian. West Virginia is #12 in the Big 12 at 64 million a year. For those wanting to add the Eers that's like taking a tired swimmer and tying two 10lb weights to the ankles. Now could WVU actually help itself with that total in the ACC? Yes. But your average payout is 92 million per school in Gross Total Revenue. Will WVU in the ACC make on it's own 42 million more which is enough to pay its own way in and earn every other program 1 million more? No.

Does UConn add more money? No. But nobody should feel badly about it. I bet nobody here has checked the Big 10 individual school revenue totals and discovered that 8 Big 10 schools could not add to the ACC's revenue average, but it's true! Only one SEC would fail to do so, Missouri. (And nothing against EnterSandman's numbers on the main board / he does a terrific job of laying out all schools' revenue, but the numbers on the SEC forum's important thread section are 1 year more current as I pieced it together from EADA earlier this year.)

It seems to me the obvious move for the ACC would be to consider adding T.C.U., Baylor, and Kansas and try to get N.D. all in (which is a Herculean task). I don't rule out Kansas to the Big 10, SEC or PAC 12 so just start with Baylor and T.C.U. and a presence in DFW and Houston (with Baylor) and pick up market for the ACCN and you will have made a decent start with 16. There would at least be some allure for Clemson and FSU to recruit and play games in Texas.

If you move to unequal revenue sharing you absolutely will meet the same fate as the PAC 12 and Big 12. People forget but equal revenue sharing came way too late for the PAC and the failure of the PACN simply added a fuse to the powder keg!

It seems strange that Kansas may hold the key to any future realignment, but we have discussed that very subject on this board before.

The talk of unequal revenue is just another reason that Phillips was a poor choice for the ACC.

Baylor and TCU make sense. Texas as a market could help the ACC and the ACCN. The crossover of those Texas schools could become OOC matchups for Texas and Texas A&M in the same way that Florida/FSU, Georgia/GT, South Carolina/Clemson and Kentucky/Louisville are.

BTW, it really makes no sense to be talking about the ACC adding any more than two teams. It's really hard for any conference to digest new schools. Two at one time is difficult, any more than that, in one move, is unpleasant and smacks of desperation (see the Big 12).

(10-23-2022 07:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  BTW, it really makes no sense to be talking about the ACC adding any more than two teams. It's really hard for any conference to digest new schools. Two at one time is difficult, any more than that, in one move, is unpleasant and smacks of desperation (see the Big 12).

I actually agree with this sentiment. And would understand a Baylor/TCU combo being the most likely to generate more $$$ than any other realistic combo. But will it be enough $$$ to interest those two teams that are right now in the conference they should be?

It seems to me the only other combo that might make almost as much $$$ as Baylor/TCU and would actually benefit them I think is WVU and Cincy. Although I don't see that combo making as much $$$ for the ACCN as Baylor/TCU, I could see that combo making slightly more $$$ in terms of OTA college football content.

But that's just a guess on my part.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-23-2022 07:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  BTW, it really makes no sense to be talking about the ACC adding any more than two teams. It's really hard for any conference to digest new schools. Two at one time is difficult, any more than that, in one move, is unpleasant and smacks of desperation (see the Big 12).

We don't have divisions, so we could add just one. WV or Cincinnati, not both. Would that be enough to reopen contract negotiations?

(10-23-2022 08:07 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 07:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  BTW, it really makes no sense to be talking about the ACC adding any more than two teams. It's really hard for any conference to digest new schools. Two at one time is difficult, any more than that, in one move, is unpleasant and smacks of desperation (see the Big 12).

We don't have divisions, so we could add just one. WV or Cincinnati, not both. Would that be enough to reopen contract negotiations?

Ren it is fairly standard in most of the ESPN contracts that additions (implied of which they approve) will open a renegotiation of the value of the contract you are in. That helps, but is not the same as a new contract.

(10-23-2022 05:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 05:17 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 09:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 08:49 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  It should be based on success in Football and Men's basketball.

Not on ratings.

I don't agree at all. Ask yourself, why are some ACC teams more valuable than others in realignment? Is TCU more valuable than Oklahoma because they're ahead of them in the standings? Is Kansas more valuable than Notre Dame because they won the Men's Basketball Championship? NO! The thing that makes one team more valuable than another is TV ratings. If there is to be unequal sharing, it MUST correlated with value.

Agreed. It should be based on ratings for football and men's basketball and that includes ACCN ratings as well. The BTN ratings of college football games are posted along with the OTA games. I hope someday once it is more established the ACCN does the same.

Now obviously the amount (whatever the fixed amount agreed upon to be set aside) should be along the 80/20 line for the two sports. And it might need to be limited to the top 5 schools in both sports.

The pool of $$$ should come from the ACC's share of the CFP and the NCAA basketball tourney.

Those are my initial thoughts on this however I must admit I don't know if the ACC is already doing something along these lines just not in terms of ratings.

Cheers,
Neil

The whole concept is a double-edged sword. If you use any formula for unequal revenue sharing the collective loses power to the earners and the earners are always the ones which will eventually optimize their position with a move. Emphasis on eventually. If you remain a collective where the average is well below the potential of the top earners then you will also suffer the same risk, but at least you have to make decisions as a unit. If you have unequal revenue sharing you involuntarily, even accidentally, imbue the earners with a larger say and your conference becomes a tiered power structure where more weight has to be given to the whims and desires of the earners and oft times at the expense of the newly created underclass.

This board should know the risks well because you cited Texas and Oklahoma's stranglehold on the Big 12 for so long. Do you want to fall under the aegis of a Clemson/Louisville/Florida State triumvirate? They are your top earners and by a decent margin on most years, though last year Duke replaced F.S.U. in that grouping.

The only answer to the ACC's problems is to add schools which raise your average revenue total. From the Big 12 that would be Baylor, Kansas, and Texas Christian. West Virginia is #12 in the Big 12 at 64 million a year. For those wanting to add the Eers that's like taking a tired swimmer and tying two 10lb weights to the ankles. Now could WVU actually help itself with that total in the ACC? Yes. But your average payout is 92 million per school in Gross Total Revenue. Will WVU in the ACC make on it's own 42 million more which is enough to pay its own way in and earn every other program 1 million more? No.

Does UConn add more money? No. But nobody should feel badly about it. I bet nobody here has checked the Big 10 individual school revenue totals and discovered that 8 Big 10 schools could not add to the ACC's revenue average, but it's true! Only one SEC would fail to do so, Missouri. (And nothing against EnterSandman's numbers on the main board / he does a terrific job of laying out all schools' revenue, but the numbers on the SEC forum's important thread section are 1 year more current as I pieced it together from EADA earlier this year.)

It seems to me the obvious move for the ACC would be to consider adding T.C.U., Baylor, and Kansas and try to get N.D. all in (which is a Herculean task). I don't rule out Kansas to the Big 10, SEC or PAC 12 so just start with Baylor and T.C.U. and a presence in DFW and Houston (with Baylor) and pick up market for the ACCN and you will have made a decent start with 16. There would at least be some allure for Clemson and FSU to recruit and play games in Texas.

If you move to unequal revenue sharing you absolutely will meet the same fate as the PAC 12 and Big 12. People forget but equal revenue sharing came way too late for the PAC and the failure of the PACN simply added a fuse to the powder keg!

JR, I respect your opinion very much. And you have been proven right over time moreso than any other poster on these boards imho.

That said, at this point I am not sure I agree with your take on WVU. From the 2015-2016 through 2019-2020 fiscal years, WVU's average revenue was $96,053M and Baylor's average revenue was $98,555M. And it took the 2019-2020 revenue year to have Baylor squeak ahead. Now since neither of us knows how each institution reports their data we will probably never know why the $8M drop-off for the Eers between 2018-19 and 2019-20 while Baylor saw an increase of $5.5M. But that $13M difference was enough to have Baylor pull ahead of the Eers. And I do admit that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

I, myself, will ignore 2020-2021 numbers (where the $64M number was for WVU) and will await the 2021-2022 numbers to see if the disparity between WVU and other B12 realistic candidates continues. Obviously Kansas and TCU will remain ahead since they were ahead of both WVU and Baylor in every year between 2015-2020.

In the meantime, I know that in terms of this year's attendance figures both the WVU/Pitt game and the WVU/VT game were well attended and the WVU at Pitt game had the highest ratings of any game with an ACC team NOT including Clemson, FSU, ND, or Tennessee (also against Pitt).

Of course whether or not that would happen on an annual basis if the Eers became a member of the ACC is unknown.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-23-2022 08:55 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 05:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 05:17 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 09:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 08:49 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  It should be based on success in Football and Men's basketball.

Not on ratings.

I don't agree at all. Ask yourself, why are some ACC teams more valuable than others in realignment? Is TCU more valuable than Oklahoma because they're ahead of them in the standings? Is Kansas more valuable than Notre Dame because they won the Men's Basketball Championship? NO! The thing that makes one team more valuable than another is TV ratings. If there is to be unequal sharing, it MUST correlated with value.

Agreed. It should be based on ratings for football and men's basketball and that includes ACCN ratings as well. The BTN ratings of college football games are posted along with the OTA games. I hope someday once it is more established the ACCN does the same.

Now obviously the amount (whatever the fixed amount agreed upon to be set aside) should be along the 80/20 line for the two sports. And it might need to be limited to the top 5 schools in both sports.

The pool of $$$ should come from the ACC's share of the CFP and the NCAA basketball tourney.

Those are my initial thoughts on this however I must admit I don't know if the ACC is already doing something along these lines just not in terms of ratings.

Cheers,
Neil

The whole concept is a double-edged sword. If you use any formula for unequal revenue sharing the collective loses power to the earners and the earners are always the ones which will eventually optimize their position with a move. Emphasis on eventually. If you remain a collective where the average is well below the potential of the top earners then you will also suffer the same risk, but at least you have to make decisions as a unit. If you have unequal revenue sharing you involuntarily, even accidentally, imbue the earners with a larger say and your conference becomes a tiered power structure where more weight has to be given to the whims and desires of the earners and oft times at the expense of the newly created underclass.

This board should know the risks well because you cited Texas and Oklahoma's stranglehold on the Big 12 for so long. Do you want to fall under the aegis of a Clemson/Louisville/Florida State triumvirate? They are your top earners and by a decent margin on most years, though last year Duke replaced F.S.U. in that grouping.

The only answer to the ACC's problems is to add schools which raise your average revenue total. From the Big 12 that would be Baylor, Kansas, and Texas Christian. West Virginia is #12 in the Big 12 at 64 million a year. For those wanting to add the Eers that's like taking a tired swimmer and tying two 10lb weights to the ankles. Now could WVU actually help itself with that total in the ACC? Yes. But your average payout is 92 million per school in Gross Total Revenue. Will WVU in the ACC make on it's own 42 million more which is enough to pay its own way in and earn every other program 1 million more? No.

Does UConn add more money? No. But nobody should feel badly about it. I bet nobody here has checked the Big 10 individual school revenue totals and discovered that 8 Big 10 schools could not add to the ACC's revenue average, but it's true! Only one SEC would fail to do so, Missouri. (And nothing against EnterSandman's numbers on the main board / he does a terrific job of laying out all schools' revenue, but the numbers on the SEC forum's important thread section are 1 year more current as I pieced it together from EADA earlier this year.)

It seems to me the obvious move for the ACC would be to consider adding T.C.U., Baylor, and Kansas and try to get N.D. all in (which is a Herculean task). I don't rule out Kansas to the Big 10, SEC or PAC 12 so just start with Baylor and T.C.U. and a presence in DFW and Houston (with Baylor) and pick up market for the ACCN and you will have made a decent start with 16. There would at least be some allure for Clemson and FSU to recruit and play games in Texas.

If you move to unequal revenue sharing you absolutely will meet the same fate as the PAC 12 and Big 12. People forget but equal revenue sharing came way too late for the PAC and the failure of the PACN simply added a fuse to the powder keg!

JR, I respect your opinion very much. And you have been proven right over time moreso than any other poster on these boards imho.

That said, at this point I am not sure I agree with your take on WVU. From the 2015-2016 through 2019-2020 fiscal years, WVU's average revenue was $96,053M and Baylor's average revenue was $98,555M. And it took the 2019-2020 revenue year to have Baylor squeak ahead. Now since neither of us knows how each institution reports their data we will probably never know why the $8M drop-off for the Eers between 2018-19 and 2019-20 while Baylor saw an increase of $5.5M. But that $13M difference was enough to have Baylor pull ahead of the Eers. And I do admit that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

I, myself, will ignore 2020-2021 numbers (where the $64M number was for WVU) and will await the 2021-2022 numbers to see if the disparity between WVU and other B12 realistic candidates continues. Obviously Kansas and TCU will remain ahead since they were ahead of both WVU and Baylor in every year between 2015-2020.

In the meantime, I know that in terms of this year's attendance figures both the WVU/Pitt game and the WVU/VT game were well attended and the WVU at Pitt game had the highest ratings of any game with an ACC team NOT including Clemson, FSU, ND, or Tennessee (also against Pitt).

Of course whether or not that would happen on an annual basis if the Eers became a member of the ACC is unknown.

Cheers,
Neil

Well, a lot of things fell off the table in 2020-1. No doubt WVU has synergy with the former Big East schools and adding them would restore games of interest in that subregion and it likely would energize the Eer fan base because travel would be reasonable.

I'm just not sure what the money would be for West Virginia or any Big 12 school when Texas and Oklahoma are gone since that pair represented 56.7% of all Big 12 revenue values. So, the question in my mind is how much is WVU worth in the Big 12 sans OU and UT? But that same question is applicable to TCU and Baylor. And there is where the difference comes in. T.C.U. in DFW draws more eyes than WVU. Baylor in the greater part of the state of Texas has a better dispersed fan base as the oldest university in the State. Houston has a good many Baylor fans and the Baylor seminary has a good many connections to the Southern Baptist all across the SE and SW. I'm not a Baylor fan per se (nothing against them either) but I'd hazard a guess that the interest a state of 27 million would have in them is a heckuva lot more than WVU draws.

So, let's say apples to apples you have two slots. Do you double down in Texas providing a big instate game and two campuses for the ACC to travel to which enhances all ACC members in their attempts to recruit the state, or do you take WVU? And I have nothing but respect for West Virginia and what the school does for their state as it is almost exactly the same mission Mississippi State has for its state.

At 18 you can justify WVU, especially with Cincinnati. I'm not sure you can justify them at 16. And Tulane is hanging out there as well as a destination game on the way to Texas.

The ACC isn't out of options. It's out of home runs, unless it reels N.D. in and we all know you can't count on that.

(10-23-2022 09:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 08:55 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 05:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 05:17 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 09:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't agree at all. Ask yourself, why are some ACC teams more valuable than others in realignment? Is TCU more valuable than Oklahoma because they're ahead of them in the standings? Is Kansas more valuable than Notre Dame because they won the Men's Basketball Championship? NO! The thing that makes one team more valuable than another is TV ratings. If there is to be unequal sharing, it MUST correlated with value.

Agreed. It should be based on ratings for football and men's basketball and that includes ACCN ratings as well. The BTN ratings of college football games are posted along with the OTA games. I hope someday once it is more established the ACCN does the same.

Now obviously the amount (whatever the fixed amount agreed upon to be set aside) should be along the 80/20 line for the two sports. And it might need to be limited to the top 5 schools in both sports.

The pool of $$$ should come from the ACC's share of the CFP and the NCAA basketball tourney.

Those are my initial thoughts on this however I must admit I don't know if the ACC is already doing something along these lines just not in terms of ratings.

Cheers,
Neil

The whole concept is a double-edged sword. If you use any formula for unequal revenue sharing the collective loses power to the earners and the earners are always the ones which will eventually optimize their position with a move. Emphasis on eventually. If you remain a collective where the average is well below the potential of the top earners then you will also suffer the same risk, but at least you have to make decisions as a unit. If you have unequal revenue sharing you involuntarily, even accidentally, imbue the earners with a larger say and your conference becomes a tiered power structure where more weight has to be given to the whims and desires of the earners and oft times at the expense of the newly created underclass.

This board should know the risks well because you cited Texas and Oklahoma's stranglehold on the Big 12 for so long. Do you want to fall under the aegis of a Clemson/Louisville/Florida State triumvirate? They are your top earners and by a decent margin on most years, though last year Duke replaced F.S.U. in that grouping.

The only answer to the ACC's problems is to add schools which raise your average revenue total. From the Big 12 that would be Baylor, Kansas, and Texas Christian. West Virginia is #12 in the Big 12 at 64 million a year. For those wanting to add the Eers that's like taking a tired swimmer and tying two 10lb weights to the ankles. Now could WVU actually help itself with that total in the ACC? Yes. But your average payout is 92 million per school in Gross Total Revenue. Will WVU in the ACC make on it's own 42 million more which is enough to pay its own way in and earn every other program 1 million more? No.

Does UConn add more money? No. But nobody should feel badly about it. I bet nobody here has checked the Big 10 individual school revenue totals and discovered that 8 Big 10 schools could not add to the ACC's revenue average, but it's true! Only one SEC would fail to do so, Missouri. (And nothing against EnterSandman's numbers on the main board / he does a terrific job of laying out all schools' revenue, but the numbers on the SEC forum's important thread section are 1 year more current as I pieced it together from EADA earlier this year.)

It seems to me the obvious move for the ACC would be to consider adding T.C.U., Baylor, and Kansas and try to get N.D. all in (which is a Herculean task). I don't rule out Kansas to the Big 10, SEC or PAC 12 so just start with Baylor and T.C.U. and a presence in DFW and Houston (with Baylor) and pick up market for the ACCN and you will have made a decent start with 16. There would at least be some allure for Clemson and FSU to recruit and play games in Texas.

If you move to unequal revenue sharing you absolutely will meet the same fate as the PAC 12 and Big 12. People forget but equal revenue sharing came way too late for the PAC and the failure of the PACN simply added a fuse to the powder keg!

JR, I respect your opinion very much. And you have been proven right over time moreso than any other poster on these boards imho.

That said, at this point I am not sure I agree with your take on WVU. From the 2015-2016 through 2019-2020 fiscal years, WVU's average revenue was $96,053M and Baylor's average revenue was $98,555M. And it took the 2019-2020 revenue year to have Baylor squeak ahead. Now since neither of us knows how each institution reports their data we will probably never know why the $8M drop-off for the Eers between 2018-19 and 2019-20 while Baylor saw an increase of $5.5M. But that $13M difference was enough to have Baylor pull ahead of the Eers. And I do admit that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

I, myself, will ignore 2020-2021 numbers (where the $64M number was for WVU) and will await the 2021-2022 numbers to see if the disparity between WVU and other B12 realistic candidates continues. Obviously Kansas and TCU will remain ahead since they were ahead of both WVU and Baylor in every year between 2015-2020.

In the meantime, I know that in terms of this year's attendance figures both the WVU/Pitt game and the WVU/VT game were well attended and the WVU at Pitt game had the highest ratings of any game with an ACC team NOT including Clemson, FSU, ND, or Tennessee (also against Pitt).

Of course whether or not that would happen on an annual basis if the Eers became a member of the ACC is unknown.

Cheers,
Neil

Well, a lot of things fell off the table in 2020-1. No doubt WVU has synergy with the former Big East schools and adding them would restore games of interest in that subregion and it likely would energize the Eer fan base because travel would be reasonable.

I'm just not sure what the money would be for West Virginia or any Big 12 school when Texas and Oklahoma are gone since that pair represented 56.7% of all Big 12 revenue values. So, the question in my mind is how much is WVU worth in the Big 12 sans OU and UT? But that same question is applicable to TCU and Baylor. And there is where the difference comes in. T.C.U. in DFW draws more eyes than WVU. Baylor in the greater part of the state of Texas has a better dispersed fan base as the oldest university in the State. Houston has a good many Baylor fans and the Baylor seminary has a good many connections to the Southern Baptist all across the SE and SW. I'm not a Baylor fan per se (nothing against them either) but I'd hazard a guess that the interest a state of 27 million would have in them is a heckuva lot more than WVU draws.

So, let's say apples to apples you have two slots. Do you double down in Texas providing a big instate game and two campuses for the ACC to travel to which enhances all ACC members in their attempts to recruit the state, or do you take WVU? And I have nothing but respect for West Virginia and what the school does for their state as it is almost exactly the same mission Mississippi State has for its state.

At 18 you can justify WVU, especially with Cincinnati. I'm not sure you can justify them at 16. And Tulane is hanging out there as well as a destination game on the way to Texas.

The ACC isn't out of options. It's out of home runs, unless it reels N.D. in and we all know you can't count on that.

Agree with all of the bold statements. XLance seems to be on the same page as well. Expansion by two with Baylor/TCU is the best two-team realistic option. But is ESPN going to give the ACC more than enough to make leaving the Big 12 only to face the same issues WVU (and soon Cincy and UCF) face - is it enough money to make the move worth it for them? Especially when taking into consideration all sports?

Being invited to the SEC or the B1G it's a no-brainer. But the ACC? Especially if the rumors of a $33-35M per school contract for the B12 are true.

Like all things, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

If you take 1 in Texas, then you have to take 2. TCU and Baylor seem to be the best options and the ACC is fine with the private Christian schools. And if you go that far out west then you might as well grab Kansas and maybe Oklahoma St. before someone else does.

I don’t like the idea of going down this path. I’d rather keep the ACC in its current region and tuff out a bad contract until it’s time to renegotiate. WVU does not bring much eyes from West Virginia, but when playing Pitt, VT, Miami, SU they can peak the interest of the casual fan flipping through channels in search of a good game.

(10-23-2022 09:36 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  [...]
I don’t like the idea of going down this path. I’d rather keep the ACC in its current region and tuff out a bad contract until it’s time to renegotiate. WVU does not bring much eyes from West Virginia, but when playing Pitt, VT, Miami, SU they can peak the interest of the casual fan flipping through channels in search of a good game.

Yes. And that's the name of the game for ratings - matchups.

(10-23-2022 09:33 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 09:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 08:55 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 05:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 05:17 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Agreed. It should be based on ratings for football and men's basketball and that includes ACCN ratings as well. The BTN ratings of college football games are posted along with the OTA games. I hope someday once it is more established the ACCN does the same.

Now obviously the amount (whatever the fixed amount agreed upon to be set aside) should be along the 80/20 line for the two sports. And it might need to be limited to the top 5 schools in both sports.

The pool of $$$ should come from the ACC's share of the CFP and the NCAA basketball tourney.

Those are my initial thoughts on this however I must admit I don't know if the ACC is already doing something along these lines just not in terms of ratings.

Cheers,
Neil

The whole concept is a double-edged sword. If you use any formula for unequal revenue sharing the collective loses power to the earners and the earners are always the ones which will eventually optimize their position with a move. Emphasis on eventually. If you remain a collective where the average is well below the potential of the top earners then you will also suffer the same risk, but at least you have to make decisions as a unit. If you have unequal revenue sharing you involuntarily, even accidentally, imbue the earners with a larger say and your conference becomes a tiered power structure where more weight has to be given to the whims and desires of the earners and oft times at the expense of the newly created underclass.

This board should know the risks well because you cited Texas and Oklahoma's stranglehold on the Big 12 for so long. Do you want to fall under the aegis of a Clemson/Louisville/Florida State triumvirate? They are your top earners and by a decent margin on most years, though last year Duke replaced F.S.U. in that grouping.

The only answer to the ACC's problems is to add schools which raise your average revenue total. From the Big 12 that would be Baylor, Kansas, and Texas Christian. West Virginia is #12 in the Big 12 at 64 million a year. For those wanting to add the Eers that's like taking a tired swimmer and tying two 10lb weights to the ankles. Now could WVU actually help itself with that total in the ACC? Yes. But your average payout is 92 million per school in Gross Total Revenue. Will WVU in the ACC make on it's own 42 million more which is enough to pay its own way in and earn every other program 1 million more? No.

Does UConn add more money? No. But nobody should feel badly about it. I bet nobody here has checked the Big 10 individual school revenue totals and discovered that 8 Big 10 schools could not add to the ACC's revenue average, but it's true! Only one SEC would fail to do so, Missouri. (And nothing against EnterSandman's numbers on the main board / he does a terrific job of laying out all schools' revenue, but the numbers on the SEC forum's important thread section are 1 year more current as I pieced it together from EADA earlier this year.)

It seems to me the obvious move for the ACC would be to consider adding T.C.U., Baylor, and Kansas and try to get N.D. all in (which is a Herculean task). I don't rule out Kansas to the Big 10, SEC or PAC 12 so just start with Baylor and T.C.U. and a presence in DFW and Houston (with Baylor) and pick up market for the ACCN and you will have made a decent start with 16. There would at least be some allure for Clemson and FSU to recruit and play games in Texas.

If you move to unequal revenue sharing you absolutely will meet the same fate as the PAC 12 and Big 12. People forget but equal revenue sharing came way too late for the PAC and the failure of the PACN simply added a fuse to the powder keg!

JR, I respect your opinion very much. And you have been proven right over time moreso than any other poster on these boards imho.

That said, at this point I am not sure I agree with your take on WVU. From the 2015-2016 through 2019-2020 fiscal years, WVU's average revenue was $96,053M and Baylor's average revenue was $98,555M. And it took the 2019-2020 revenue year to have Baylor squeak ahead. Now since neither of us knows how each institution reports their data we will probably never know why the $8M drop-off for the Eers between 2018-19 and 2019-20 while Baylor saw an increase of $5.5M. But that $13M difference was enough to have Baylor pull ahead of the Eers. And I do admit that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

I, myself, will ignore 2020-2021 numbers (where the $64M number was for WVU) and will await the 2021-2022 numbers to see if the disparity between WVU and other B12 realistic candidates continues. Obviously Kansas and TCU will remain ahead since they were ahead of both WVU and Baylor in every year between 2015-2020.

In the meantime, I know that in terms of this year's attendance figures both the WVU/Pitt game and the WVU/VT game were well attended and the WVU at Pitt game had the highest ratings of any game with an ACC team NOT including Clemson, FSU, ND, or Tennessee (also against Pitt).

Of course whether or not that would happen on an annual basis if the Eers became a member of the ACC is unknown.

Cheers,
Neil

Well, a lot of things fell off the table in 2020-1. No doubt WVU has synergy with the former Big East schools and adding them would restore games of interest in that subregion and it likely would energize the Eer fan base because travel would be reasonable.

I'm just not sure what the money would be for West Virginia or any Big 12 school when Texas and Oklahoma are gone since that pair represented 56.7% of all Big 12 revenue values. So, the question in my mind is how much is WVU worth in the Big 12 sans OU and UT? But that same question is applicable to TCU and Baylor. And there is where the difference comes in. T.C.U. in DFW draws more eyes than WVU. Baylor in the greater part of the state of Texas has a better dispersed fan base as the oldest university in the State. Houston has a good many Baylor fans and the Baylor seminary has a good many connections to the Southern Baptist all across the SE and SW. I'm not a Baylor fan per se (nothing against them either) but I'd hazard a guess that the interest a state of 27 million would have in them is a heckuva lot more than WVU draws.

So, let's say apples to apples you have two slots. Do you double down in Texas providing a big instate game and two campuses for the ACC to travel to which enhances all ACC members in their attempts to recruit the state, or do you take WVU? And I have nothing but respect for West Virginia and what the school does for their state as it is almost exactly the same mission Mississippi State has for its state.

At 18 you can justify WVU, especially with Cincinnati. I'm not sure you can justify them at 16. And Tulane is hanging out there as well as a destination game on the way to Texas.

The ACC isn't out of options. It's out of home runs, unless it reels N.D. in and we all know you can't count on that.

Agree with all of the bold statements. XLance seems to be on the same page as well. Expansion by two with Baylor/TCU is the best two-team realistic option. But is ESPN going to give the ACC more than enough to make leaving the Big 12 only to face the same issues WVU (and soon Cincy and UCF) face - is it enough money to make the move worth it for them? Especially when taking into consideration all sports?

Being invited to the SEC or the B1G it's a no-brainer. But the ACC? Especially if the rumors of a $33-35M per school contract for the B12 are true.

Like all things, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

Well, each of those schools mentioned as future members of the ACC would have less travel in the ACC. So, if the Big 12 would do for those schools what it had done for itself in 2011-2 when it acquired TCU from the Big East after they joined but before they played a game, and let them go on the cheap, I think they would move for lateral money and better academic associations, and easier travel for their fans. At that point they should let WVU out for free in appreciation for their sacrifices to travel so damned far for a decade.

And Neil, the ACC needs to let FSU go for the exit fee should these moves happen. Your rancor would die down. And as Karen learned in Out of Africa, "This water lives in Mombasa anyway!" I just bet people didn't realize Mombasa was a suburb of Birmingham.

(10-23-2022 08:07 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(10-23-2022 07:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  BTW, it really makes no sense to be talking about the ACC adding any more than two teams. It's really hard for any conference to digest new schools. Two at one time is difficult, any more than that, in one move, is unpleasant and smacks of desperation (see the Big 12).

We don't have divisions, so we could add just one. WV or Cincinnati, not both. Would that be enough to reopen contract negotiations?

Expansion for the most part has been made in pairs.
All of the three expansions made by the SEC (South Carolina/Arkansas, Texas A&M/Missouri, Texas/Oklahoma).
The B1G has made both single and pairs (Penn State and Nebraska were single additions) while Rutgers/Maryland and USC/UCLA were made in pairs.
The ACC has been herky-jerky with it's expansion. The ACC matched the B1G with a single addition in Florida State, then went to a pair with Virginia Tech/Miami, but to get to an odd number of schools. Followed by a single addition of Boston College to get to 12, before adding another pair (Syracuse and Pitt).

If there is to be a P4 (or even a P3) it is important to grow and absorb as much value as possible, to be counted among the survivors. I'm not sure ESPN would re-open at 15 (if #15 is not Notre Dame), but they certainly would talk if the ACC expanded with much of the remaining value of the Big 12 (after Texas and Oklahoma).