That makes sense, but not what swofford said regarding nd.

(03-15-2013 04:00 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  That makes sense, but not what swofford said regarding nd.

ND has a full buyout? That's awesome (for everyone here except Terry).

(03-14-2013 09:34 PM)7fielder Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 08:56 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I'm not in favor of having affiliate/associate members from any of the Big 5. Especially in a sport that the ACC officially sponsors. As an extreme example, what if the SEC school(s) dumped all their non-revenue sports in the ACC? The SEC gets all the gravy from the revenue sports plus all those non-revenue sports are suddenly break-even. The ACC gets the administrative headaches and may have to subsidize (in one form or another) those sports.

Did you know loyola was in the big east since 2005?(womens lacrosse)
Did you know Boise and SDSU are in the PAC? (wresting and soccer, respectively)
Did you know Texas, Alabama, Kansas, Oklahoma, WVU were in CUSA? (womens rowing)
Did you know South Carolina and Kentucky are in CUSA? (mens soccer)

Yes. Well, yes to most of those. None of those are an example of a Big 5 school with a team/sport in another Big 5 conference. Why would the ACC want to help out a competitor?

(03-15-2013 03:55 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:14 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Just a thought. ND's exit fee's for the ACC are 3x 1/15 of revenues dispersed. If you add John Hopkins for Lacrosse, do ND's exit fees then become 3x 1/16 of revenues dispersed? And smaller and smaller for the more affiliates we add?

The exit fee is tied to the conference's budget, which is tied to TV distributions in most conferences (including the ACC - I think). If that's true, then it makes the most sense make the exit fee of a partial member a factor of how much a conference TV distribution they get (and thus how much of a member they are).

Since ND only gets a .2 share, I would imagine that their exit fees are [(3)*(.2/14.2)*(total distributions)].

Johns Hopkins wouldn't get a .2 share. I would imagien that they would not participate in conference distributions, so it wouldn't affect anyone's exit fees.

Well... I'm pretty sure in the press release they said that Notre Dame is bound by the same $52M exit fee that Maryland is trying to get out of... I hear you on what's fair & all that, but let's face it - ND is VERY valuable to the ACC, so reducing it from $50M to $10M is not something I'd favor.

(03-15-2013 04:07 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 09:34 PM)7fielder Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 08:56 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I'm not in favor of having affiliate/associate members from any of the Big 5. Especially in a sport that the ACC officially sponsors. As an extreme example, what if the SEC school(s) dumped all their non-revenue sports in the ACC? The SEC gets all the gravy from the revenue sports plus all those non-revenue sports are suddenly break-even. The ACC gets the administrative headaches and may have to subsidize (in one form or another) those sports.

Did you know loyola was in the big east since 2005?(womens lacrosse)
Did you know Boise and SDSU are in the PAC? (wresting and soccer, respectively)
Did you know Texas, Alabama, Kansas, Oklahoma, WVU were in CUSA? (womens rowing)
Did you know South Carolina and Kentucky are in CUSA? (mens soccer)

Yes. Well, yes to most of those. None of those are an example of a Big 5 school with a team/sport in another Big 5 conference. Why would the ACC want to help out a competitor?

I would agree with you but that isn't the case with Hopkins? The rest of their athletic teams participate in D3. The only sports that are D1 and men's and women's lax. So, in this case we wouldn't be helping out any other conference?

I think the thing everyone (myself included) keeps missing is that the ACC exit fee is tied, NOT to the team's share, but to the conference operating budget, which is the SAME for everybody since there is only one conference HQ.

(03-15-2013 04:23 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 03:55 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:14 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Just a thought. ND's exit fee's for the ACC are 3x 1/15 of revenues dispersed. If you add John Hopkins for Lacrosse, do ND's exit fees then become 3x 1/16 of revenues dispersed? And smaller and smaller for the more affiliates we add?

The exit fee is tied to the conference's budget, which is tied to TV distributions in most conferences (including the ACC - I think). If that's true, then it makes the most sense make the exit fee of a partial member a factor of how much a conference TV distribution they get (and thus how much of a member they are).

Since ND only gets a .2 share, I would imagine that their exit fees are [(3)*(.2/14.2)*(total distributions)].

Johns Hopkins wouldn't get a .2 share. I would imagien that they would not participate in conference distributions, so it wouldn't affect anyone's exit fees.

Well... I'm pretty sure in the press release they said that Notre Dame is bound by the same $52M exit fee that Maryland is trying to get out of... I hear you on what's fair & all that, but let's face it - ND is VERY valuable to the ACC, so reducing it from $50M to $10M is not something I'd favor.

+1

(03-15-2013 04:29 PM)7fielder Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 04:07 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 09:34 PM)7fielder Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 08:56 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I'm not in favor of having affiliate/associate members from any of the Big 5. Especially in a sport that the ACC officially sponsors. As an extreme example, what if the SEC school(s) dumped all their non-revenue sports in the ACC? The SEC gets all the gravy from the revenue sports plus all those non-revenue sports are suddenly break-even. The ACC gets the administrative headaches and may have to subsidize (in one form or another) those sports.

Did you know loyola was in the big east since 2005?(womens lacrosse)
Did you know Boise and SDSU are in the PAC? (wresting and soccer, respectively)
Did you know Texas, Alabama, Kansas, Oklahoma, WVU were in CUSA? (womens rowing)
Did you know South Carolina and Kentucky are in CUSA? (mens soccer)

Yes. Well, yes to most of those. None of those are an example of a Big 5 school with a team/sport in another Big 5 conference. Why would the ACC want to help out a competitor?

I would agree with you but that isn't the case with Hopkins? The rest of their athletic teams participate in D3. The only sports that are D1 and men's and women's lax. So, in this case we wouldn't be helping out any other conference?

Sorry for the confusion. Hopkins = YES! Any school/team from SEC/B12/B1G/P12 = NO!

I would consider Gof5 (i.e. CUSA, et. al.) schools on an individual basis.

(03-16-2013 05:22 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Sorry for the confusion. Hopkins = YES! Any school/team from SEC/B12/B1G/P12 = NO!

I would consider Gof5 (i.e. CUSA, et. al.) schools on an individual basis.

Considering CUSA schools and turning down those that actually have power and money is beyond stupid to me.

(03-16-2013 07:50 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 05:22 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Sorry for the confusion. Hopkins = YES! Any school/team from SEC/B12/B1G/P12 = NO!

I would consider Gof5 (i.e. CUSA, et. al.) schools on an individual basis.

Considering CUSA schools and turning down those that actually have power and money is beyond stupid to me.

Ouch! I haven't been called stupid since CatDaddy left.

Alabama is going to spend the least they can to keep the mens soccer program afloat. They are not going to use any power to promote mens soccer. They are not going to the SEC media partners and say, "How about showing a mens soccer game?" If they wanted to promote mens soccer they would be pushing the SEC to sponsor it.

Alabama has a $125,000,000 athletics budget with a $20,000,000 surplus. Suppose they do decide to promote mens soccer and spend that surplus for 3 or 4 years. That is an extreme example but I am just trying to make a point.

Having Alabama mens soccer as an associate member is going to give the impression the ACC is 2nd class. A dumping ground for sports the "real schools" don't care about.

(03-16-2013 08:44 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 07:50 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 05:22 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Sorry for the confusion. Hopkins = YES! Any school/team from SEC/B12/B1G/P12 = NO!

I would consider Gof5 (i.e. CUSA, et. al.) schools on an individual basis.

Considering CUSA schools and turning down those that actually have power and money is beyond stupid to me.

Ouch! I haven't been called stupid since CatDaddy left.

Alabama is going to spend the least they can to keep the mens soccer program afloat. They are not going to use any power to promote mens soccer. They are not going to the SEC media partners and say, "How about showing a mens soccer game?" If they wanted to promote mens soccer they would be pushing the SEC to sponsor it.

Alabama has a $125,000,000 athletics budget with a $20,000,000 surplus. Suppose they do decide to promote mens soccer and spend that surplus for 3 or 4 years. That is an extreme example but I am just trying to make a point.

Having Alabama mens soccer as an associate member is going to give the impression the ACC is 2nd class. A dumping ground for sports the "real schools" don't care about.

Alabama doesn't even have soccer.

If their hypothetical soccer team needed a home, I would want Alabama's team over UAB's any day. The amount of casual interest from Alabama fans would far exceed the interest by UAB fans. The Alabama brand is so big that it doesn't matter if the soccer team is the one wearing it.

So if you have a soccer tournament that includes some ACC teams plus WVU, Kentucky, USC, Alabama etc it will gather interest from outside of just the ACC. These are the types of events that end up on conference networks. Having a soccer tournament with UAB, WKU, Charleston, and Marshall would probably have the opposite effect on viewership. That would be a small-time tournament.

Being the premier conference for all Olympic sports doesn't make you a "dumping" ground. It is about bringing in other successful brands to boost your own brand.

Also, didn't call you stupid. That idea that CUSA teams should be chosen over SEC teams is what is stupid.

(03-14-2013 08:56 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I'm not in favor of having affiliate/associate members from any of the Big 5.

I have to say I feel the same way as Wolfman. If a Big 5 team wants to sponsor a sport, it needs to convince its own home conference to spend the money to sponsor it. In general, I'm usually not in favor of affiliate membership but I wouldn't mind picking up JHU for men's Lax, Edinboro for men's wrestling, GWU for women's gymnastics.