+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: ACCbbs (/forum-381.html)
+---- Forum: ACC Conference Talk (/forum-351.html)
+---- Thread: ACC Network or bust? (/thread-738866.html)
ACC Network or bust? - uofl05 - 05-29-2015 03:22 PM
I have been reading for years about realignment, revenue, etc and wanted to see what you guys thought. We know the SEC and B1G will not be touched as far as revenue goes. My question is, can the ACC keep all of its members without a successful conference network? If yes, what other sources of revenue would be in play that would take the place of a network? It just seems like so much is riding on this network not only getting done, but being hugely successful. If we get closer to the end of the GOR, will it be a free for all as far as teams looking to leave? Its the offseason so fun to speculate.
RE: ACC Network or bust? - nole - 05-29-2015 03:32 PM
(05-29-2015 03:22 PM)uofl05 Wrote: I have been reading for years about realignment, revenue, etc and wanted to see what you guys thought. We know the SEC and B1G will not be touched as far as revenue goes. My question is, can the ACC keep all of its members without a successful conference network? If yes, what other sources of revenue would be in play that would take the place of a network? It just seems like so much is riding on this network not only getting done, but being hugely successful. If we get closer to the end of the GOR, will it be a free for all as far as teams looking to leave? Its the offseason so fun to speculate.
I have been hearing recently that even if the ACC gets a network, it will bring very little revenue compared to the big 2.
That is 90% of what the issue is about...revenue.
According to Andy Staples today in 2 years he sees SEC and B1G at $45-$50 Million. If the ACC is still in the $20 something range......I think you are going to see big movement (NC and VA schools will be gone IMHO).....same with Big 12.
RE: ACC Network or bust? - Hokie Mark - 05-29-2015 04:04 PM
If the discrepancy remains in the $5 to $10 million/year range, it might be possible to keep things as they are, but if it balloons to $20 million/year or more then the SEC and Big Ten may end up cherry-picking the best teams from the other 3 conferences and then splitting off into a new division... at that point college athletics would be DEAD, and we'd be left with an NFL farm system run by a group of 40 or so "schools" (no academics intended).
RE: ACC Network or bust? - Dr. Isaly von Yinzer - 05-29-2015 04:17 PM
I have no fears whatsoever any of that will happen.
The SEC and B1G will always be the wealthiest and everyone else will always lag behind. The ACC will get its network and it will be the third most popular college sports network because of where it is located.
Nobody will be going anywhere anytime soon. Now, 25 years from now, who knows? However, in the foreseeable future, the ACC will be fine irrespective of the doomsday predictions of the bored and/or aggrieved.
RE: ACC Network or bust? - GTTiger - 05-29-2015 09:10 PM
(05-29-2015 04:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: If the discrepancy remains in the $5 to $10 million/year range, it might be possible to keep things as they are, but if it balloons to $20 million/year or more then the SEC and Big Ten may end up cherry-picking the best teams from the other 3 conferences and then splitting off into a new division... at that point college athletics would be DEAD, and we'd be left with an NFL farm system run by a group of 40 or so "schools" (no academics intended).
Just waiting for the 32 Team Big 10 and 32 Team SEC...
RE: ACC Network or bust? - georgia_tech_swagger - 05-29-2015 10:30 PM
These people will not deal kindly to being substantially behind in conference payout due to their in state SEC rivals:
- Georgia Tech
- Clemson
- Florida State
The GTAA is in a poor state financially despite already sponsoring the ACC and Title IX minimums, so that goes double for GT. I don't include Louisville because Kentucky doesn't much seem to care about football and it is hard to see Kentucky getting up off the mat.
The problem is if teams peel off out of the South, they tend to come as a non-solo package. UNC and Duke are a bundle deal. And where they go, they want UVA and GT to go. Where GT goes it wants Clemson to follow -- almost mandatory unless GT goes to the SEC where it picks up 4 major rivals in the move. NCST/VT/Wake in that order would have the next highest pull. Everybody north of the Potomac or south of Orlando would be screwed.
The better question is -- is any conference within reason (B1G/SEC) capable of absorbing 4 ACC teams AND still making more money? Because I think that's the minimum they'd have to take if they're pulling out of the south. Realistically, they'd need to take 6. And at that point whatever is left of the ACC is just the Big East again.
SEC: Vandy, TN, UK, Mizzou, TAMU, Miss State, Ole Miss, Auburn, Bama, UGAg, USC-East, UF, LSU, Arkansas + 4/6 ACC?
B1G: Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, Maryland, Rutgers, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska + 4/6 ACC?
There are some serious fit issues there. For one ... those are ENORMOUS leagues. But I think the revenue would actually go up with the TV networks. More seriously ... if you're the SEC ... and you have to take on 4 to 6 .... why the hell would you choose 4 out of the ACC over Texas, OU, Oklahoma State, TCU, [Baylor/Kansas/Kansas State]? If you're in the ACC as presently formed ... why would you go to the B1G where demographics are going to be relentlessly against you as the rust belt bleeds out from its political policies? You'd need to have a foreign AD willing to piss off the fans for short term gain (UMD), or have serious financial pressures against your primary competitors (FSU, Clemson, GT).
To me .... if makes the most sense if Swofford ever gets the ACCN up and running and presses home the ACC's enormous TV set advantage to turn gaze to the SEC/B1G. If the ACC were money top dog, I really do think raiding the SEC and other nearby teams is viable. The biggest financial wins would be Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, and Kentucky. And the SEC wouldn't be TOO bitter about that if they swap out those four for Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and TCU.
If you want to draw a hypothetical landscape of four mega conferences that is realistic both in culture, combo deal relocations, and punting geography over dollars:
ACC Coastal South: Miami, FSU, UCF, Clemson, Georgia Tech,
ACC Coastal North: Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville
ACC Atlantic South: UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Virginia
ACC Atlantic North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Virginia Tech
SEC Eastern: USC-East, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
SEC Central: Ole Miss, Miss State, LSU, Arkansas
SEC Western: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Mizzou
SEC Texan: TAMU, Texas, TCU, Baylor
Pac-12: As-is ... don't see TTU or Boise adding net money.
B1G: As-is ... maybe + Iowa State/K State
Tah dah ... four super conferences ... each with its own TV network. You could probably do another variation where the B1G eats the ACC's northern teams and so the ACC picks up ... maybe Vandy, UF, USF, etc. And the SEC picks what is left of the Big 12 for whatever it needs.
Hey GTS, why didn't the ACC take UF/UGAg/USC-East ..... because the ACC is already in those markets. Yea they all make great sense ... but bigger dollars are out there to be had.
RE: ACC Network or bust? - 4x4hokies - 05-29-2015 10:48 PM
In 15 years VT is projecting 40k to 50k students. All the talk is about research rankings and lab space. The peer institutions VT lists are nearly all in the Big 10. The Big10 has the most large land grant schools of any conference. The recent hires have all been from the Big10. Everyone that went to Columbus enjoyed the trip. VT is going to be playing Michigan, Wisconsin, Purdue, and Penn State in the coming years. The fans are getting fed up with the talk of being in a second tier league. Everyone thinks VT turned down overtures from the SEC.
The winds of public opinion are changing. So to answer the OP, I think it really is "ACC network or bust". The ACC is doing a horrible job at PR. Perception becomes reality after a while.
RE: ACC Network or bust? - Marge Schott - 05-29-2015 11:02 PM
Hokie Mark, is it acceptable to be $10M behind our "peer" conferences in conference payouts?
RE: ACC Network or bust? - CardinalJim - 05-29-2015 11:03 PM
Much to do about nothing....
No one will know about network details until they are done. The ACC isn't The Big 12. Swofford doesn't share the details with the media before sharing with conference membership.
The expansion yahoos that had half the ACC leaving for The Big Ten or Big 12 until the morning that the GOR was signed are simply grasping at straws....again.
Relax and let Swofford do his job. If Jurich is content to let him do his job, we (Louisville fans) should be too.
CJ
RE: ACC Network or bust? - CardinalJim - 05-29-2015 11:09 PM
(05-29-2015 11:02 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: Hokie Mark, is it acceptable to be $10M behind our "peer" conferences in conference payouts?
Not everyone in the conference will be 10 million behind. Some in the conference will make more than some teams in The Big Ten and SEC. Being gifted and grandfathered into a conference like The ACC has made some members fat, happy and lazy. Time to get out and earn it....
CJ
RE: ACC Network or bust? - Marge Schott - 05-29-2015 11:19 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Hokie Mark specifically said upwards of a $10M discrepancy between the ACC and Big Ten/SEC conference payouts would keep the ACC together. In that scenario, everyone in the conference WILL be $10M behind in conference payouts. That's the entire basis of the hypothetical.
RE: ACC Network or bust? - 4x4hokies - 05-29-2015 11:31 PM
VT isn't close enough to their alumni base to compete with 100k seat stadiums. This is why the ACC is very attractive to VT now. So the other sources argument doesn't help them. Those stadiums will always be bringing in 20 million more than we can. Rural Virginia is not going to be able to support the sweetheart basketball deal that UL got from the city. There isn't enough demand for mid-week games and unless global warming speeds up, nobody wants to spend a January Saturday in Blacksburg.
The options are pretty much...try to keep the ACC together because we can be competitive there. Or accept a bigger paycheck to be a smaller player in a bigger pond.
RE: ACC Network or bust? - nole - 05-30-2015 05:12 AM
"The options are pretty much...try to keep the ACC together because we can be competitive there. Or accept a bigger paycheck to be a smaller player in a bigger pond. "
This is often repeated, but I disagree completely.
FSU's mindset is like an SEC team....we are playing for national titles.
If the ACC falls to $10-$20 million behind....we are NOT competing for national titles anymore...period, not matter what conference we are in. FSU knows this....everyone knows this even if they don't want to accept it.
IF it gets to this point....the ACC is no longer an acceptable vehicle for FSU...that is reality. It would be like UNC being in a conference with no basketball.....they just can't do it.
The logic is much simpler than you state....if the gap is $10-$20 million.....FSU HAS to go somewhere else because it won't even be in the pond (so to speak).
But in reality......I think once the gap gets that big...I think you see the SEC and B1G poach the NC/VA schools and the ACC dies that way. It won't be FSU leaving first IMHO.
'keeping the ACC together'...is a nice thought....but the revenue gap is a MUCH bigger issue than folks on this board understand or are admitting to.
Plus, that implies a healthy relationship environment where schools want to stay together. It is an odd ball conference.....bball schools that dominate the conference in a football world, privates and large publics, a conference that often doesn't back it's own (see Swofford not backing FSU in playoff discussion), factions (see Clemsom being punished extra over NCAA punishment .....while UNC gets to run ACC while they have huge NCAA issues over it), etc, etc. This isn't a family.....this is a forced relationship of schools that don't really work together because they don't fit together.
You can't believe the unhealthy relationships in the ACC paired with revenue issues, and TV issues equals stable ACC.....it just isn't reality.
Swofford has failed more than likely and the ACC has huge revenue issues here now, a struggle to accept the reality of football over bbasketball (Big East part 2), a horrible TV contract with a network that is more interested in taking cheap shots at our football product than promoting it.................Swofford sweet talked the conference into a GOR and sat on his fat back side believing a forced relationship would salvage the ACC.
It won't. The ACC should of taken a MUCH bigger view than that....but they are satisfied with "well they can't go anywhere....we aren't changing".....guess what Tobacco Road, it won't happen soon....but sooner than you think, things ARE going to change, you won't have a choice how it looks. You did, but you refused to change....soon most of your schools will be in B1G/SEC and it will be a different world. Shame the ACC didn't make the moves it could have to truly save the conference the right way.
RE: ACC Network or bust? - CardinalJim - 05-30-2015 07:55 AM
Not one Big 12 / WVU apologist, masquerading as a disgruntled ACC fan here, has yet to EVER point out how making more money equals more championships. If simply making more money equates to championships then Texas would already be winning everything.
CJ
RE: ACC Network or bust? - Marge Schott - 05-30-2015 09:39 AM
(05-30-2015 07:55 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: Not one Big 12 / WVU apologist, masquerading as a disgruntled ACC fan here, has yet to EVER point out how making more money equals more championships. If simply making more money equates to championships then Texas would already be winning everything.
CJ
That's really not the point. FSU's athletic revenue these past few years was around that of UGA, Auburn, etc. It's behind Bama and UF (I forget where LSU lands). Believe it or not, those are the types of schools FSU is competing with for recruits and coaches, and fan/alumni dollars.
Do you NOT think an extra $10M/year over the next 15 years can create a significant gap in facilities,the fan experience and coaching salaries? It doesn't "guarantee" championships, but it definitely doesn't hurt, either.
It would be very #goacc of this board to go from saying "As long as we keep it sort of close in revenue, we'll be ok" to - once revenue isn't sort of close, "Revenue doesn't win championships anyways."
RE: ACC Network or bust? - 44AndThe23 - 05-30-2015 09:43 AM
(05-30-2015 07:55 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: Not one Big 12 / WVU apologist, masquerading as a disgruntled ACC fan here, has yet to EVER point out how making more money equals more championships. If simply making more money equates to championships then Texas would already be winning everything.
CJ
Notre Dame too.
RE: ACC Network or bust? - CardinalJim - 05-30-2015 09:54 AM
(05-30-2015 09:39 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:(05-30-2015 07:55 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: Not one Big 12 / WVU apologist, masquerading as a disgruntled ACC fan here, has yet to EVER point out how making more money equals more championships. If simply making more money equates to championships then Texas would already be winning everything.
CJ
That's really not the point. FSU's athletic revenue these past few years was around that of UGA, Auburn, etc. It's behind Bama and UF (I forget where LSU lands). Believe it or not, those are the types of schools FSU is competing with for recruits and coaches, and fan/alumni dollars.
Do you NOT think an extra $10M/year over the next 15 years can create a significant gap in facilities,the fan experience and coaching salaries? It doesn't "guarantee" championships, but it definitely doesn't hurt, either.
It would be very #goacc of this board to go from saying "As long as we keep it sort of close in revenue, we'll be ok" to - once revenue isn't sort of close, "Revenue doesn't win championships anyways."
Again you are looking for the conference to take care of something that your athletic department should be doing on its own. I have a difficult time believing a university of the caliber of FSU can't find revenue streams that equal or exceed that deficit. The University of Cincinnati just raised 1 Billion in 8 years. I would think FSU to equal or exceed that.
CJ
RE: ACC Network or bust? - nole - 05-30-2015 10:06 AM
(05-30-2015 07:55 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: Not one Big 12 / WVU apologist, masquerading as a disgruntled ACC fan here, has yet to EVER point out how making more money equals more championships. If simply making more money equates to championships then Texas would already be winning everything.
CJ
Money doesn't assure titles.....but lack of it basically assures you won't get one.
Name the last 10 national title winners in football.
Now look at the budget of each.....where do they rank?
Answer? The lowest one is the biggest budget ACC school (FSU).
Money matters...it is beyond foolish to believe it doesn't.
RE: ACC Network or bust? - nole - 05-30-2015 10:10 AM
(05-30-2015 09:54 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:(05-30-2015 09:39 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:(05-30-2015 07:55 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: Not one Big 12 / WVU apologist, masquerading as a disgruntled ACC fan here, has yet to EVER point out how making more money equals more championships. If simply making more money equates to championships then Texas would already be winning everything.
CJ
That's really not the point. FSU's athletic revenue these past few years was around that of UGA, Auburn, etc. It's behind Bama and UF (I forget where LSU lands). Believe it or not, those are the types of schools FSU is competing with for recruits and coaches, and fan/alumni dollars.
Do you NOT think an extra $10M/year over the next 15 years can create a significant gap in facilities,the fan experience and coaching salaries? It doesn't "guarantee" championships, but it definitely doesn't hurt, either.
It would be very #goacc of this board to go from saying "As long as we keep it sort of close in revenue, we'll be ok" to - once revenue isn't sort of close, "Revenue doesn't win championships anyways."
Again you are looking for the conference to take care of something that your athletic department should be doing on its own. I have a difficult time believing a university of the caliber of FSU can't find revenue streams that equal or exceed that deficit. The University of Cincinnati just raised 1 Billion in 8 years. I would think FSU to equal or exceed that.
CJ
FSU has the 17th largest athletic budget now.
In 2-5 years when the conference revenue difference is $10-$20 Million with the 30 or so SEC/B1G teams......FSU will likely fall to 25 or 30.
Also will push other ACC schools much further back.
Making a very difficult national title in football all the more difficult.
Again....look at the last 10 national title winners in football.......now look at their budgets and where they rank.
Money doesn't make sure you win titles.....but without it, you won't ever be in contention.....That is reality....even if you deny it.
RE: ACC Network or bust? - Marge Schott - 05-30-2015 10:47 AM
(05-30-2015 09:54 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:(05-30-2015 09:39 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:(05-30-2015 07:55 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: Not one Big 12 / WVU apologist, masquerading as a disgruntled ACC fan here, has yet to EVER point out how making more money equals more championships. If simply making more money equates to championships then Texas would already be winning everything.
CJ
That's really not the point. FSU's athletic revenue these past few years was around that of UGA, Auburn, etc. It's behind Bama and UF (I forget where LSU lands). Believe it or not, those are the types of schools FSU is competing with for recruits and coaches, and fan/alumni dollars.
Do you NOT think an extra $10M/year over the next 15 years can create a significant gap in facilities,the fan experience and coaching salaries? It doesn't "guarantee" championships, but it definitely doesn't hurt, either.
It would be very #goacc of this board to go from saying "As long as we keep it sort of close in revenue, we'll be ok" to - once revenue isn't sort of close, "Revenue doesn't win championships anyways."
Again you are looking for the conference to take care of something that your athletic department should be doing on its own. I have a difficult time believing a university of the caliber of FSU can't find revenue streams that equal or exceed that deficit. The University of Cincinnati just raised 1 Billion in 8 years. I would think FSU to equal or exceed that.
CJ
You simply don't get it. And that's fine. I'll explain it once more to you, and if you still don't get it you're on your own.
FSU is not asking the ACC to make up its deficit. It's asking the ACC to prevent the deficit from happening in the first place. I am specifically referring to CONFERENCE PAYOUTS. Just 5-10 years ago there wasn't a conference payout discrepancy. Now there is. I have never said it is the ACC's responsibility to assist FSU booster donations or ticket sales, which seems to be the accusation you're making. So just stop with the nonsense.