(04-13-2014 05:58 AM)nole Wrote:  Thoughts:

1. The ACC contract is in line with the other conferences. There is little gap between the media deals. There are also regular look-ins going forward. It is not in ESPN's interest as the primary rights holder destabilize a primary partner by letting the ACC fall far behind. That said, for the latest numbers available FY2012, the ACC actually had the third highest revenue among the conferences, behind the B10 and SEC. Add to that the unseen complications, such as with the Pac-12's media deal, that is causing all kinds of problems because they gave up all control of game scheduling for the extra payday that wasn't so extra.

2. No one knows if an ACC cable network will come to fruition. Quotes about the possibility of an ACC cable network have all been positive from athletic directors and broadcast industry experts. But, they are watching the SEC Network because that is the likely model they will use. If it doesn't happen, apparently ESPN will reportedly pay $2 million more per year per team. That compares to the whopping $300K per team that is being expected from the SEC Network in its first year (see here). The Long Horn Network has been an outright failure for ESPN, and the SEC and Pac aren't making significant money yet from their networks, so this is being watched carefully before stepping off a cliff. If the SECN doesn't take off to levels that make the investment seem worthwhile to either the conference or ESPN, the ACC certainly won't get a network of its own, that is for sure, but in any scenario, the ACC is apparently guaranteed a pay bump. There also the matter of investing in broadcast equipment, which SEC teams are still doing, but the ACC is largely already on top of. These networks are long-term investments and are to be approached cautiously. They do no print money from day one like kook/dude math would have people believe.

3. The Youtube thing already exists. That's the ACCDN and the conference is out in front on that whether it makes any money or not (no one knows). That has nothing to do with a potential cable channel, despite ignorant kook arguments to the contrary that have floated around the interwebs.

4. This notion that FSU is getting poor because of the ACC is wholly embarrassing one for someone to try to argue, particularly considering they won a national championship while making less money from its conference than UF, but when Florida was wining its national championships, FSU was making more from the ACC. And the differences are not huge. Last year, FSU was #13 in the nation in athletic revenue, ahead of over half of the SEC with $100 million on $90 million in expenses. As far as conference disbursements, the SEC schools got between $19.5 - 21 million from the SEC. (here). Meanwhile, FSU received $19.7 million in ACC disbursements in revenue before expenses, that dropped to $18.2 million after expenses were paid out. Depending on how you are comparing apples to oranges, that somewhere between a $0 to $2.8 million difference, or less than 3% of FSU's athletics revenue at worst. And that percentage is likely headed down, because the biggest bumps going forward for every school aren't going to be conference disbursements tied to media contract value, but the disbursements arising from ungodly money generated by the College Football Playoff.

(04-13-2014 01:23 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 05:58 AM)nole Wrote:  Thoughts:

1. The ACC contract is in line with the other conferences. There is little gap between the media deals. There are also regular look-ins going forward. It is not in ESPN's interest as the primary rights holder destabilize a primary partner by letting the ACC fall far behind. That said, for the latest numbers available FY2012, the ACC actually had the third highest revenue among the conferences, behind the B10 and SEC. Add to that the unseen complications, such as with the Pac-12's media deal, that is causing all kinds of problems because they gave up all control of game scheduling for the extra payday that wasn't so extra.

2. No one knows if an ACC cable network will come to fruition. Quotes about the possibility of an ACC cable network have all been positive from athletic directors and broadcast industry experts. But, they are watching the SEC Network because that is the likely model they will use. If it doesn't happen, apparently ESPN will reportedly pay $2 million more per year per team. That compares to the whopping $300K per team that is being expected from the SEC Network in its first year (see here). The Long Horn Network has been an outright failure for ESPN, and the SEC and Pac aren't making significant money yet from their networks, so this is being watched carefully before stepping off a cliff. If the SECN doesn't take off to levels that make the investment seem worthwhile to either the conference or ESPN, the ACC certainly won't get a network of its own, that is for sure, but in any scenario, the ACC is apparently guaranteed a pay bump. There also the matter of investing in broadcast equipment, which SEC teams are still doing, but the ACC is largely already on top of. These networks are long-term investments and are to be approached cautiously. They do no print money from day one like kook/dude math would have people believe.

3. The Youtube thing already exists. That's the ACCDN and the conference is out in front on that whether it makes any money or not (no one knows). That has nothing to do with a potential cable channel, despite ignorant kook arguments to the contrary that have floated around the interwebs.

4. This notion that FSU is getting poor because of the ACC is wholly embarrassing one for someone to try to argue, particularly considering they won a national championship while making less money from its conference than UF, but when Florida was wining its national championships, FSU was making more from the ACC. And the differences are not huge. Last year, FSU was #13 in the nation in athletic revenue, ahead of over half of the SEC with $100 million on $90 million in expenses. As far as conference disbursements, the SEC schools got between $19.5 - 21 million from the SEC. (here). Meanwhile, FSU received $19.7 million in ACC disbursements in revenue before expenses, that dropped to $18.2 million after expenses were paid out. Depending on how you are comparing apples to oranges, that somewhere between a $0 to $2.8 million difference, or less than 3% of FSU's athletics revenue at worst. And that percentage is likely headed down, because the biggest bumps going forward for every school aren't going to be conference disbursements tied to media contract value, but the disbursements arising from ungodly money generated by the College Football Playoff.

Dadgum CP. You just let the air out of a lot of tires with that post.

Diff vs ACC-Total Diff vs ACC-As % 2012-2011 2011-2010
ACC Per Team $18,200,000 $16,900,000
SEC Per Team ($2,600,000) 87.50% $20,800,000 $20,400,000
Big 12 Per Team ($3,800,000) 82.73% $22,000,000 $12,000,000
PAC Per Team ($2,800,000) 86.67% $21,000,000 $11,100,000
BIG Per Team ($7,500,000) 70.82% $25,700,000 $23,800,000





ACC is at 70% of the Big 10......BEFORE the Big 10 upcoming renegotiation.

ACC is at 87% BEFORE SEC network revenue.


The gap will continue to grow. Not in line at all......but repeat it over and over and maybe someone outside of the ACC will believe you. But I doubt it.

Dear internet sports contract expert,
Thank you for providing your thoughts on the ACC tv revenue situation. This can only mean that the presidents of 15 ACC schools (including the ones Jim Delaney covets) that signed the GOR willingly did so with full knowledge of this dire financial gap. Their knowledge is by no means as vast and comprehensive as your understanding of tv contracts, which is also evidence of their gross negligence in not consulting you during the decision making process. Thanks again for your thoughts.

(04-13-2014 03:15 PM)nole Wrote:  Diff vs ACC-Total Diff vs ACC-As % 2012-2011 2011-2010
ACC Per Team $18,200,000 $16,900,000
SEC Per Team ($2,600,000) 87.50% $20,800,000 $20,400,000
Big 12 Per Team ($3,800,000) 82.73% $22,000,000 $12,000,000
PAC Per Team ($2,800,000) 86.67% $21,000,000 $11,100,000
BIG Per Team ($7,500,000) 70.82% $25,700,000 $23,800,000





ACC is at 70% of the Big 10......BEFORE the Big 10 upcoming renegotiation.

ACC is at 87% BEFORE SEC network revenue.


The gap will continue to grow. Not in line at all......but repeat it over and over and maybe someone outside of the ACC will believe you. But I doubt it.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(04-13-2014 07:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 01:14 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  Just to add my two cents about PSU, it would be a massive coup for any conference, particularly for the ACC. I'm not sure people in the south realize how massive and rabid that fanbase is. It rivals any fanbase in the country including Alabama, Florida etc. PSU has a huge base of support in Philadelphia, New Jersey and parts of Maryland that Pitt just doesn't have. Plus, Pitt and Syracuse would instantly consider PSU their biggest rival in the league. It will never happen but PSU should be choice number one on any expansion list even over Texas because it makes much more sense geographically,

Ding, Ding, Ding - correct answer.

The main reason the BiG expanded with Rutgers and Maryland was to ensure that PSU didn't get any roving eyes. This doesn't mean PSU would have definitely left the BiG if they hadn't expanded, but the threat of it happening was all that was required.

For years, the BiG wanted ND to be #12. There was a reason for that, because PSU and ND combined deliver all of the northeast in terms of college football.

The ESPN/TNS Poll data shows this year after year after year.

Cheers,
Neil

Of course this is correct.
It's not easy to merge two cultures into one and have everybody on board even if they aren't completely satisfied. Swofford has done a remarkable job in some very difficult times to get the old ACC and old Big East to accept one another and move forward as one.
Don't you know that Delany's rear end drew up quite a bit when Notre Dame joined the ACC? Less than three months later Maryland and Rutgers were in the B1G. Delany had to move fast and he knew it.
Everything is still in place for Penn State to join the ACC. All we need now is the catalyst and patience. The question is how long do we have to wait before we move on to plan B? The GOR has bought the ACC some time to complete plan A.
Swofford's plan from the very beginning......I think so.
UConn to the ACC? That was never part of any ACC expansion scenario.

+1

(04-13-2014 05:58 AM)nole Wrote:  Thoughts:

*UConn is a fine school with awesome basketball. They add ZERO to the revenue....maybe actually lose money for the conference. Revenue comes from football now. Bad idea to even think of them.



*What good does the ACC markets do it if the subpar TV contract it has (due to Swofford wanting his son taken care of above all else), does NOT take advantage of it?

No doubt the ACC has great markets. As it stands for the net 15 plus years....doesn't do the ACC a lick of good.



*Talk of PSU joining the ACC is nuts....beyond nuts.



*Even if the ACC gets a network, it doesn't matter unless revenue (and a LOT of it) comes with it.

My guess is we never see an ACC network or we see some weak version of one (like on youtube or something) with little to no revenue.......with the ACC giving it a lot of fanfare to make it look like a win.



*Keep in mind....ACC has great TV ratings (top 3 in bball and football)......it has NO contract that capitalizes on it.

Fans keep ignoring the key point....doesn't matter what markets, teams, titles, etc the conference has if it is locked into a long term TV contract that prevents the conference from monetizing any of it.






Barring a miracle announcement of a real ACC network with revenue, the ACC is going to spend the next 15 years plus trying to explain why huge revenue difference don't matter........and thus trying to keep some of it's schools in VA and NC from getting poached by wealthier conferences once the GOR expires. A decade plus of those revenue differences will have those schools eager to jump as they watch lesser programs get rich.

Hello Dude - I like you new penname.

How are things going at WVa?

(04-13-2014 03:15 PM)nole Wrote:  Diff vs ACC-Total Diff vs ACC-As % 2012-2011 2011-2010
ACC Per Team $18,200,000 $16,900,000
SEC Per Team ($2,600,000) 87.50% $20,800,000 $20,400,000
Big 12 Per Team ($3,800,000) 82.73% $22,000,000 $12,000,000
PAC Per Team ($2,800,000) 86.67% $21,000,000 $11,100,000
BIG Per Team ($7,500,000) 70.82% $25,700,000 $23,800,000





ACC is at 70% of the Big 10......BEFORE the Big 10 upcoming renegotiation.

ACC is at 87% BEFORE SEC network revenue.


The gap will continue to grow. Not in line at all......but repeat it over and over and maybe someone outside of the ACC will believe you. But I doubt it.

First off, your numbers are wrong, and you aren't remotely comparing the same things: a classic kook maneuver. Stay away from whoever generated that comparison and completely ignore the content farm that is called Forbes.

A favorite pastime of these types is to 1) Use averages reported in the media that are over the life of the contract (when they are all in reality backloaded) and compare it directly to a single year exactly known disbursement, like the FSU one that was obtain from a FOIA request; and/or 2) compare total conference disbursement to disbursement just from the media contracts. Whatever best suits their narrative.

We already know from articles linked above, that just from the media contract, the ACC is reportedly going to be getting at least at $20 million per team following the addition of Notre Dame when averaged over the life of the contract. So lets compare, as much as possible, apples to apples even though that's not even really possible. The media deal averages over the life of the current contracts are reportedly:
Pac-12 $20.8 million (the ACC is reportedly at least at 96.2% of that)
Big 12 $20 million (at least 100%, perhaps more)
Big 10 $20.7 (with 12 teams, or at least 96.7%, although that undoubtedly is going to go up when renegotiated)
SEC $25 million (estimated, at least 80%)

We don't have FY2013 results yet, nor will any report probably get to $20 million for the media deal because it is early in the contract, not the contract average over the lifetime. Of course, none of this includes cable networks, bowl distribution, NCAA unit payouts, or anything else.

Total revenue, as reported from the previous linked USAToday article for FY2012:
Big Ten $315.5 (a disbursement of $24.3M per entity, 12 schools+conference hq cut)
SEC $314.5 ($21.0M per entity, 14 schools+conference hq))
ACC $223.3 ($17.2M per entity, 12 schools+conference hq)
Pac12 $175.9 million ($13.5M per entity, 12 schools+conference hq)
Big12 not reported in article

Obviously, these numbers, the latest available, aren't with the current membership or new deals. And obviously, they represent the conference average, because the exact amount of revenue reported to be received by FSU for FY2012 was $19.7 million, $2.5 million above the conference average. Note that above, when dividing reported total revenues by the number of teams doesn't account for FOIA reported expenses paid back to the ACC by FSU (nor do we know if other conference work that way, although they might and these more general total landscape articles don't go into the detail that the FSU one did), which in FSU's case, dropped its net take to $18.2 million from the ACC, still above the conference average either way that you figure it.

So will the gap widen? No one knows how much the Big10 is going to get despite all the chest pounding of super dollars, and remember, they want as much content for the BTN. Is ESPN going to pay the Big Ten SEC rates when the BTN, that ESPN has no stake in unlike the SECN, siphons off quality content? No doubt, whatever happens, it will be presented in the magnanimous way possible as the Big Ten always does, and the fan boys with off and run with it like they do with their ridiculous interpretations of the totals printed in the CIC brochures. And if recent history instructs us, if something positive happens to the ACC, like an actual cable network, everyone will predict it will lose money and go bankrupt.

For all the nonsense thrown around the last couple of years about how the ACC was so far behind and couldn't survive, the truth is, even though the timing of the ACC's deal really worked against it...being first up and having a poor quality product at the time... the ACC is not far behind anyone, and is certainly not far enough behind where it impacts anyone's ability to compete at the national stage. We also don't know how much the SECN or Pac-12 Networks are going to generate, but we do know the probable minimum the ACC is going to get is $2 million regardless (which is >6X what the SEC expects to make out of it this year). All of that is going to be dwarfed by the Playoff Payouts as well, making these media contract difference even more irrelevant.

Doom and gloom types putting any credence into dude-like kooks need to let these things play out instead of relying on math done by sensationalists that have no sense of reality and no ability nor enough intellectual honest to try to honestly compare things. All indications actually suggest that the ACC is well positioned to keep pace in the midsts of the other P5 conferences. That's why everyone signed a GOR and that is also why all the fans need to stop the ridiculous fad of cheering for dollars over their actual teams. Let yourselves enjoy the sports as well as the conference, and dare I suggest that you also allow yourselves some pride in it, particularly in the face of all the haters, because y'all going to be calling it home for a very long time.

Thanks so much folks for laying it out. These vocal minority of fans have really no idea. First, they don't see conferences as unified entities but a group of individual members who expect individually to get the benefits and no return. Thats not what conferences are about. THe membership leadership (not the novices who complain) know all about it.

(04-14-2014 08:02 AM)Fburghokie Wrote:  Thanks so much folks for laying it out. These vocal minority of fans have really no idea. First, they don't see conferences as unified entities but a group of individual members who expect individually to get the benefits and no return. Thats not what conferences are about. THe membership leadership (not the novices who complain) know all about it.

I agree and that was reason for the demise of the Big East conference. Louisville will be a team player in the ACC!

While it is true that newbies in particular may have partial data and incorrect conclusions, I think we as a ACCBBS community need to be more patient and cordial with them. It serves no purpose to call a user with only 13 posts various names or otherwise slam him/her. Some of these errors being tossed out as fact on the internet are buried fairly deep or otherwise hard to spot, and sadly, not everyone is good at math. (This is the voice of conscience).
[/REPROOF]

OK, carry on with the smack talk!

(04-09-2014 05:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  A simple survey of the options. The more + or - the bigger deal it is.


West Virginia:
+++ Good football program
++ Decent basketball program
+++ Geographic fit
++ Built in rivalries with VT and Pitt
+ Bolsters existing media markets of DC/Pittsburgh
----- Deplorable fan behavior
--- Bad academics.
----- No new major media markets delivered

Penn State:
+++ Good football team
+ Not a horrible basketball team
+ Decent academics
+++ Geographic fit
+ Built in rivalry with Pitt
+ Bolsters several media markets (DC, Pittsburgh, Harrisonburg, Philly, NYC)
----- Delivers no new media markets
---- Pedo State

Tennessee:
++ Good football
++ Good basketball
++ Good geographic fit
+++++ Delivers major new media markets (Nashville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Kingsport/Johnson City)
+ Seems like it should be an easy rivalry to create with VT/UNC/GT
- So-So Academics

Cincinnati
+++ Great geographic fit
++++ Delivers new media market (Cincinnati ... I don't think they can deliver much more than that (Dayton/Columbus/etc) though)
+ Decent academics
++ Natural rivalry with Pitt/UofL
++ Great basketball
+ Okay football
--- Hugely overshadowed in state
----- Poor football following

Texas:
++++ Outstanding football
++ Pretty good basketball
+ Decent academics
+++++ Delivers several major new media markets (DFW, Austin, Waco, Houston, San Antonio)
----- Makes no geographic sense what so ever ... travel on non-revenue sports will suck
---- No natural rivals


There is no point in others and I'm not interested in partial members. If I could wave my magic wand ... I'd have Notre Dame join as a full member and have Tennessee as #16. I think both would be worth more than $40m annually.

I have ignored all realignment talk since it started, but today I'm feelin adventurous.

Totally meaningless and really minor, and Ive never posted on another conferences board, Im also not here to start anything, but I think our football at least warrants " ++ good". I guess thats all the input I have Regardless, its all meaningless and with a few more years with this huge monetary divide between conferences, our football may slip down even past "okay".

I look at realignment from a strictly rivalry standpoint. I wanna be where our rivals are, regardless of TV contract. Probably not going to happen, but maybe. In my perfect world, we could join the ACC with WVU (which seemed to be a budding rivalry, at least to me). Nevertheless, gotta make the best outta where we are, at least we should get a lot of wins in the next few years (similar to our last few years!)

Now I remember why I avoided all this talk, talking about on the field stuff is far more fun. Thanks for havin me! EDIT: BTW looking forward to the Miami game this coming season! I expect itll be a good one!

(04-16-2014 10:07 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  West Virginia:
+++ Good football program

Penn State:
+++ Good football team

Tennessee:
++ Good football

Cincinnati
+ Okay football

Texas:
++++ Outstanding football

...I think our football at least warrants " ++ good".
[/quote]

I think the football ratings were tough, and it's probably hard to argue that those other schools are ahead of UC football-wise.

It's frustrating to me that UC doesn't get better support for it's football program. If y'all filled your stadium every week I think you'd be in either the ACC or the Big XII tomorrow. At any rate, I hope VT and the rest of the ACC continues playing the Bearcats in both football AND basketball.

(04-16-2014 10:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:07 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  West Virginia:
+++ Good football program

Penn State:
+++ Good football team

Tennessee:
++ Good football

Cincinnati
+ Okay football

Texas:
++++ Outstanding football

...I think our football at least warrants " ++ good".

I think the football ratings were tough, and it's probably hard to argue that those other schools are ahead of UC football-wise.

It's frustrating to me that UC doesn't get better support for it's football program. If y'all filled your stadium every week I think you'd be in either the ACC or the Big XII tomorrow. At any rate, I hope VT and the rest of the ACC continues playing the Bearcats in both football AND basketball.
[/quote]

Cincy and UConn could join in under my 16/18 or 16/20 plan

add Cincy/UConn fulltime and one or all three of Georgetown/Nova/SJU

Let's talk turkey here:

1) PSU is not leaving the Big 10.
2) Texas is not coming!
3) Notre Dame will never play football in the ACC
4) Tennessee is not leaving the SEC!

So if the ACC is looking to 16 in football these are the only real options"

1) Navy football only/Notre Dame
2) West Virginia would join the ACC in a New York minute.
3) UConn waiting to be asked!
4) Cincinnati waiting to be asked!

Let us be realistic folks, but this is reality!

(04-16-2014 12:23 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Let's talk turkey here:

1) PSU is not leaving the Big 10.
2) Texas is not coming! Many of us thought Syracuse wasn't coming, either.
3) Notre Dame will never play football in the ACC -- actually, they are. They're just not competing for a title.
4) Tennessee is not leaving the SEC!

So if the ACC is looking to 16 in football these are the only real options"

1) Navy football only/Notre Dame
2) West Virginia would join the ACC in a New York minute.
3) UConn waiting to be asked!
4) Cincinnati waiting to be asked!

I like the Navy/Notre Dame and West Virginia option myself as well!

(04-16-2014 12:31 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I like the Navy/Notre Dame and West Virginia option myself as well!

Weren't you pimping UConn, Wilkie?

(04-16-2014 03:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 12:31 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I like the Navy/Notre Dame and West Virginia option myself as well!

Weren't you pimping UConn, Wilkie?

Please, no UConn. However, if Cincinnati could match WVU in terms of fan support - if they could just get CLOSE - I'd take the Bearcats over the Mountaineers. Fewer flying batteries and/or beer bottles.

Yes, but are they more desirable than West Virginia, I think not.

(04-16-2014 10:07 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  [quote='georgia_tech_swagger' pid='10654701' dateline='1397082232']
A simple survey of the options. The more + or - the bigger deal it is.


West Virginia:
+++ Good football program
++ Decent basketball program
+++ Geographic fit
++ Built in rivalries with VT and Pitt
+ Bolsters existing media markets of DC/Pittsburgh
----- Deplorable fan behavior
--- Bad academics.
----- No new major media markets delivered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------fanbase

FIFY