(04-18-2013 01:41 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: I don't see how this reads as "this destroys the 6-game ACC" possibility -- the press release read "minimum of 7 home games", but no where in the language did it limit the number of "ACC" games.
If both parties are interested at some point in the next 3-7 years (or so), they an agree to add a game, making it an even 3 ND home games vs. ACC schools and 3 road games vs. ACC schools. You know, somewhere around the next ACC contract "look-in" (2017).
Reading is fundamental around these parts -- don't allow your hatred of the ACC ruin that basic tenet. Thanks :)
True, but this all but ends the talk about ND one day choosing to join the ACC, which is a big blow to that conference. Now the ACC is stuck with a partial member getting special treatment with little hope of it being a gateway to full membership. No one should pretend that ND becoming a full member was not the hope of many in the ACC.
I don't see how this ends the talk. 10 years ago what conference was Nebraska, Colorado, A&M, and Missouri in? Not the one they are in today. When the new BCS agreement ends in 12 years, who knows what's going to happen.
Second, how is this a big blow to the conference? ACC teams stand to make millions more per home game when ND comes to town. Take Miami for instance. It's widely known they have a problem with attendance. They have a 74k stadium and alot of games they don't even crack 40k. When ND comes to town that will be a sellout. Tack on an extra 34k fans at $100 a pop, now you're talking about 3.4 mil for one game and that's being very conservative.
I, for one, don't mind ND remaining independent for now. There's a mystique there that's a sellable commodity.
$100 times 34k tickets is not being very conservative. I don't think ND is enough to sell out Miami and I don't know of many tickets going for 100 dollars right now.
ND's ticket prices are going up to $95.00 next year.
(04-18-2013 01:41 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: I don't see how this reads as "this destroys the 6-game ACC" possibility -- the press release read "minimum of 7 home games", but no where in the language did it limit the number of "ACC" games.
If both parties are interested at some point in the next 3-7 years (or so), they an agree to add a game, making it an even 3 ND home games vs. ACC schools and 3 road games vs. ACC schools. You know, somewhere around the next ACC contract "look-in" (2017).
Reading is fundamental around these parts -- don't allow your hatred of the ACC ruin that basic tenet. Thanks :)
True, but this all but ends the talk about ND one day choosing to join the ACC, which is a big blow to that conference. Now the ACC is stuck with a partial member getting special treatment with little hope of it being a gateway to full membership. No one should pretend that ND becoming a full member was not the hope of many in the ACC.
I don't see how this ends the talk. 10 years ago what conference was Nebraska, Colorado, A&M, and Missouri in? Not the one they are in today. When the new BCS agreement ends in 12 years, who knows what's going to happen.
Second, how is this a big blow to the conference? ACC teams stand to make millions more per home game when ND comes to town. Take Miami for instance. It's widely known they have a problem with attendance. They have a 74k stadium and alot of games they don't even crack 40k. When ND comes to town that will be a sellout. Tack on an extra 34k fans at $100 a pop, now you're talking about 3.4 mil for one game and that's being very conservative.
I, for one, don't mind ND remaining independent for now. There's a mystique there that's a sellable commodity.
$100 times 34k tickets is not being very conservative. I don't think ND is enough to sell out Miami and I don't know of many tickets going for 100 dollars right now.
That $100 is an average, and you don't think fans would pay that for a big game? If you check out StubHub, the cheapest Florida tickets at Miami are $90 and goes to well over $400. FSU is generally Miami's sellout. However, Miami did draw 66k two years ago against a "decent" Ohio State team. Even if the ND game only drew 66k, that's still 2.6 mil more for that one game. This is why big schools expand their stadiums. Butts in the seats = $$$$$
(04-18-2013 01:41 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: I don't see how this reads as "this destroys the 6-game ACC" possibility -- the press release read "minimum of 7 home games", but no where in the language did it limit the number of "ACC" games.
If both parties are interested at some point in the next 3-7 years (or so), they an agree to add a game, making it an even 3 ND home games vs. ACC schools and 3 road games vs. ACC schools. You know, somewhere around the next ACC contract "look-in" (2017).
Reading is fundamental around these parts -- don't allow your hatred of the ACC ruin that basic tenet. Thanks :)
True, but this all but ends the talk about ND one day choosing to join the ACC, which is a big blow to that conference. Now the ACC is stuck with a partial member getting special treatment with little hope of it being a gateway to full membership. No one should pretend that ND becoming a full member was not the hope of many in the ACC.
Why do people on this forum act like when it comes to expansion 10 years is a long time? It is a mere blip. This new ND contract says nothing about their home for the next 100 years. It simply says for the next 10 they will be with NBC.
If you are old, retired, and interested in seeing how realignment will turn out 10 years could be a lifetime.
(04-18-2013 01:41 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: I don't see how this reads as "this destroys the 6-game ACC" possibility -- the press release read "minimum of 7 home games", but no where in the language did it limit the number of "ACC" games.
If both parties are interested at some point in the next 3-7 years (or so), they an agree to add a game, making it an even 3 ND home games vs. ACC schools and 3 road games vs. ACC schools. You know, somewhere around the next ACC contract "look-in" (2017).
Reading is fundamental around these parts -- don't allow your hatred of the ACC ruin that basic tenet. Thanks :)
True, but this all but ends the talk about ND one day choosing to join the ACC, which is a big blow to that conference. Now the ACC is stuck with a partial member getting special treatment with little hope of it being a gateway to full membership. No one should pretend that ND becoming a full member was not the hope of many in the ACC.
I don't see how this ends the talk. 10 years ago what conference was Nebraska, Colorado, A&M, and Missouri in? Not the one they are in today. When the new BCS agreement ends in 12 years, who knows what's going to happen.
Second, how is this a big blow to the conference? ACC teams stand to make millions more per home game when ND comes to town. Take Miami for instance. It's widely known they have a problem with attendance. They have a 74k stadium and alot of games they don't even crack 40k. When ND comes to town that will be a sellout. Tack on an extra 34k fans at $100 a pop, now you're talking about 3.4 mil for one game and that's being very conservative.
I, for one, don't mind ND remaining independent for now. There's a mystique there that's a sellable commodity.
$100 times 34k tickets is not being very conservative. I don't think ND is enough to sell out Miami and I don't know of many tickets going for 100 dollars right now.
That $100 is an average, and you don't think fans would pay that for a big game? If you check out StubHub, the cheapest Florida tickets at Miami are $90 and goes to well over $400. FSU is generally Miami's sellout. However, Miami did draw 66k two years ago against a "decent" Ohio State team. Even if the ND game only drew 66k, that's still 2.6 mil more for that one game. This is why big schools expand their stadiums. Butts in the seats = $$$$$
My understanding is that 100 bucks is a ballpark estimate typically used to account for the average price of all seating (premium and general admission), parking passes, concessions, and other gameday revenue. So taking that all into account 100 is pretty fair. It works better for larger attendance teams though.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2013 08:08 AM by 1845 Bear.)
I think the key words in that article are "for Football". Apparently the new contract will encompass human interest stories, and other sports. So we will have to wait and see if those receive separate funds from the network, or are indeed part of the "for Football" package.
I don't know. You'd think they'd get SOME increase. That probably was a quote of the prior amount if I had to guess based on the phrasing of "had run".
I think the key words in that article are "for Football". Apparently the new contract will encompass human interest stories, and other sports. So we will have to wait and see if those receive separate funds from the network, or are indeed part of the "for Football" package.
1- Lennay programming?
2- Non-fb revenue is given to ND via whatever league hosts their non-fb. So expect 3-4mm from the ACC as that's 20% of what a full member would get and 80% of the contract is football.
I think the key words in that article are "for Football". Apparently the new contract will encompass human interest stories, and other sports. So we will have to wait and see if those receive separate funds from the network, or are indeed part of the "for Football" package.
1- Lennay programming?
2- Non-fb revenue is given to ND via whatever league hosts their non-fb. So expect 3-4mm from the ACC as that's 20% of what a full member would get and 80% of the contract is football.
Hey thanks! I'm still laughing at #1. Would it be called, "Finding Lennay" or "Electronic Love"?
As stated above, I think that the article is poorly worded and it is talking about the old contract being worth $15 million per year.
It says "Terms of the new contract have not yet been announced" later in the article quoted.
Does anyone really believe that ND would lock itself down for ten years (prior to the old contract termination date) for no additional money, especially after their 2012 season?
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2013 10:25 AM by TerryD.)
I think the key words in that article are "for Football". Apparently the new contract will encompass human interest stories, and other sports. So we will have to wait and see if those receive separate funds from the network, or are indeed part of the "for Football" package.
1- Lennay programming?
2- Non-fb revenue is given to ND via whatever league hosts their non-fb. So expect 3-4mm from the ACC as that's 20% of what a full member would get and 80% of the contract is football.
Hey thanks! I'm still laughing at #1. Would it be called, "Finding Lennay" or "Electronic Love"?
(04-19-2013 10:22 AM)TerryD Wrote: Does anyone really believe that ND would lock itself down for ten years (prior to the old contract termination date) for no additional money, especially after their 2012 season?
If it through a little more spite in B1G's general direction, sure, I could see that.
I never did learn to spell.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2013 12:58 PM by SeaBlue.)
(04-19-2013 10:22 AM)TerryD Wrote: Does anyone really believe that ND would lock itself down for ten years (prior to the old contract termination date) for no additional money, especially after their 2012 season?
If it through a little more spite in B1G's general direction, sure, I could see that.
Spite is right but money is honey. Combining them together is better. :)
(04-18-2013 01:41 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: I don't see how this reads as "this destroys the 6-game ACC" possibility -- the press release read "minimum of 7 home games", but no where in the language did it limit the number of "ACC" games.
If both parties are interested at some point in the next 3-7 years (or so), they an agree to add a game, making it an even 3 ND home games vs. ACC schools and 3 road games vs. ACC schools. You know, somewhere around the next ACC contract "look-in" (2017).
Reading is fundamental around these parts -- don't allow your hatred of the ACC ruin that basic tenet. Thanks :)
True, but this all but ends the talk about ND one day choosing to join the ACC, which is a big blow to that conference. Now the ACC is stuck with a partial member getting special treatment with little hope of it being a gateway to full membership. No one should pretend that ND becoming a full member was not the hope of many in the ACC.
Um... Notre Dame actually chose the ACC.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2013 01:49 PM by ecuacc4ever.)
(04-18-2013 01:41 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: I don't see how this reads as "this destroys the 6-game ACC" possibility -- the press release read "minimum of 7 home games", but no where in the language did it limit the number of "ACC" games.
If both parties are interested at some point in the next 3-7 years (or so), they an agree to add a game, making it an even 3 ND home games vs. ACC schools and 3 road games vs. ACC schools. You know, somewhere around the next ACC contract "look-in" (2017).
Reading is fundamental around these parts -- don't allow your hatred of the ACC ruin that basic tenet. Thanks :)
True, but this all but ends the talk about ND one day choosing to join the ACC, which is a big blow to that conference. Now the ACC is stuck with a partial member getting special treatment with little hope of it being a gateway to full membership. No one should pretend that ND becoming a full member was not the hope of many in the ACC.
Um... Notre Dame actually chose the ACC.
He obviously mean "choosing to join the ACC in football"
(04-18-2013 07:56 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote: how is this a big blow to the conference? ACC teams stand to make millions more per home game when ND comes to town.
Maybe for some teams. Clemson doesn't need ND to sell out.
/
ND and NBC extend through 2025.
