Better question is, what could ACC schools doing with the additional revenue if the gap didn't exist and wasn't poised to get larger?

(03-26-2015 10:58 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 07:02 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 06:21 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 06:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

All I know is, since we have been in the ACC, the ACC has had a team in the CFP, won the Orange Bowl, has a winning record against the SEC in football, had 11 bowl teams, Produced the men's national champion in Soccer, and have 5 teams in the men's basketball sweet 16 (haven't checked the ladies).

I haven't been in this conference long enough to be sad and disgusted with it. All I see are winners and opportunity.

So that was a nice little diversion. Can we get back to discussing conference revenue and ncaat monies?

Well for this Academic/Sports Year with the bump from ESPN/ABC, the Revenue Earned from the CFP & Orange Bowl along with the Current NCAA Basketball Revenue the ACC isn't lacking in $$$...

Ok, what about once SECN revenue kicks in (right now)? Or when the Big Ten's tier 1 deal is renegotiated?

Is the ACC closing the gap? Is it maintaining the gap? Is it widening? Pretty valid questions and pertinent to all this "ACC is awesome and flush with NCAAT cash" talk.

I think that he meant that the ACC is flush with cash bc the ACC got OB money, whereas the Big XII didn't get Sugar Bowl money, and the PAc and the B1G didn't get Rose Bowl money.

(03-26-2015 11:29 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Better question is, what could ACC schools doing with the additional revenue if the gap didn't exist and wasn't poised to get larger?

What are they doing with the extra "$" we'll be getting this year?

Ultimately the only place where more money really matters is hiring away coaches. IMO, the ACC schools should propose / push a salary cap for all coaches. I suspect most schools would agree with that, and it might end the "arms race" before it gets any further out of hand.

Facilities are also important, but only go so far in terms of creating a competitive advantage.

(03-26-2015 11:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Ultimately the only place where more money really matters is hiring away coaches. IMO, the ACC schools should propose / push a salary cap for all coaches. I suspect most schools would agree with that, and it might end the "arms race" before it gets any further out of hand.

Facilities are also important, but only go so far in terms of creating a competitive advantage.

I'm not sure how a salary cap would play out with anti-trust laws. However, I suspect that you're right. Any profits are being consumed by drunked sailor-style spending on inputs (coaches, assistant coaches, etc.). Sure, capping coaches would pressure schools to spend on facilities, but you can only guild that lilly so much...

*Btw Terry, I threw in the phrase guild the lilly just for you.

(03-26-2015 11:41 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 11:29 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Better question is, what could ACC schools doing with the additional revenue if the gap didn't exist and wasn't poised to get larger?

What are they doing with the extra "$" we'll be getting this year?

What extra money are "we" getting, the maybe $100K/school more than the Big Ten and $300K/school more than the SEC from the NCAAT? I'm not sure if that's what you're getting at or not.

(03-26-2015 12:51 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 11:41 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 11:29 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Better question is, what could ACC schools doing with the additional revenue if the gap didn't exist and wasn't poised to get larger?

What are they doing with the extra "$" we'll be getting this year?

What extra money are "we" getting, the maybe $100K/school more than the Big Ten and $300K/school more than the SEC from the NCAAT? I'm not sure if that's what you're getting at or not.

CFP and Bowl $ and extra TV $ from addition of ND.

You realize they're getting as much playoff money, more bowl money and more tv revenue than the ACC, right?

(03-26-2015 11:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Ultimately the only place where more money really matters is hiring away coaches. IMO, the ACC schools should propose / push a salary cap for all coaches. I suspect most schools would agree with that, and it might end the "arms race" before it gets any further out of hand.

Good luck if you think any other P5 league would sign up with that. The SEC and B10 would never go for it. Without them it's d.o.a. It would also expose weakness IMHO.

(03-26-2015 06:39 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  You realize they're getting as much playoff money, more bowl money and more tv revenue than the ACC, right?

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2014/...e-payouts/

For 2014/15:

SEC $6.25 per team
ACC $5.90 per team
B12 $5.80 per team
P12 $5.00 per team
B10 $4.29 per team

Two out of three years the B10 will get more per team than the ACC. But the Big 10 max is about $117 million total - Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Playoff. The SEC will always have a little more money than the ACC unless they don't have the Sugar Bowl and don't get the Orange in the same year. The worst the ACC can do is $56 million or $4 million each - that's a year without the Orange Bowl and the ACC champion only going to an Access bowl. That can only happen every third year. The best the ACC can do is the Playoff Spot, Orange Bowl v. ND which gives us an extra payout of $13.5 million, and an Access Bowl and Citrus Bowl - $100 million or $7.14 million.

Why should the ACC get equal football money when we only have one top national draw - FSU, and four second tier draws - Clemson, Miami, VT, and GT. The SEC has 7 top national draws for football - Bama, Florida, LSU, TAMU, Georgia, Auburn, and Tennessee. The B10 has six - Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, MSU, and Nebraska.

Until and unless Miami reemerges and one of UNC, NC State, or UVa up their game to match or get near to Clemson, we just don't have the football Aces to command equal money to the B10 and SEC.

(03-26-2015 12:51 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 11:41 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 11:29 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Better question is, what could ACC schools doing with the additional revenue if the gap didn't exist and wasn't poised to get larger?

What are they doing with the extra "$" we'll be getting this year?

What extra money are "we" getting, the maybe $100K/school more than the Big Ten and $300K/school more than the SEC from the NCAAT? I'm not sure if that's what you're getting at or not.

As it stands now we are about a million dollars per team ahead of the SEC. Granted we are only a few hundred thousand ahead of the B10. FSU should be worried about the SEC though.

(03-26-2015 06:39 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  You realize they're getting as much playoff money, more bowl money and more tv revenue than the ACC, right?

What I'm getting at is, you and others concentrate on the gap between the ACC and other P5 conferences while I'm looking at the gap between ACC pre-PITT/Cuse/ND & UofL and today.

The decisions on what to do with new revenue (coaching salaries, facilities, recruiting budgets, etc.) seem most important.

Bowl revenue is a variable. ACC did well this past year as illustrated by lumberpack4's figures. Is that money going to increase spending in football?

And as I've said, this thread is focusing on small wins, while losing the conference revenue war against our two nearest geographical counterparts. Yippee.

(03-27-2015 11:31 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  And as I've said, this thread is focusing on small wins, while losing the conference revenue war against our two nearest geographical counterparts. Yippee.

You can only argue volume if percentages are equal. Do ACC teams spend their money the same way as SEC/B1G teams do and in the same %?

(03-26-2015 08:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 06:39 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  You realize they're getting as much playoff money, more bowl money and more tv revenue than the ACC, right?

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2014/...e-payouts/

For 2014/15:

SEC $6.25 per team
ACC $5.90 per team
B12 $5.80 per team
P12 $5.00 per team
B10 $4.29 per team

Two out of three years the B10 will get more per team than the ACC. But the Big 10 max is about $117 million total - Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Playoff. The SEC will always have a little more money than the ACC unless they don't have the Sugar Bowl and don't get the Orange in the same year. The worst the ACC can do is $56 million or $4 million each - that's a year without the Orange Bowl and the ACC champion only going to an Access bowl. That can only happen every third year. The best the ACC can do is the Playoff Spot, Orange Bowl v. ND which gives us an extra payout of $13.5 million, and an Access Bowl and Citrus Bowl - $100 million or $7.14 million.

Why should the ACC get equal football money when we only have one top national draw - FSU, and four second tier draws - Clemson, Miami, VT, and GT. The SEC has 7 top national draws for football - Bama, Florida, LSU, TAMU, Georgia, Auburn, and Tennessee. The B10 has six - Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, MSU, and Nebraska.

Until and unless Miami reemerges and one of UNC, NC State, or UVa up their game to match or get near to Clemson, we just don't have the football Aces to command equal money to the B10 and SEC.

You're mostly right but I disagree with your claim of one top national draw.

Source: http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013/12/1...-final-sec

For the 2013 season, FSU was the 14th most watched team and Clemson was the 17th most watched team. If you're considering FSU to be a top national draw, you also need to consider Clemson to be one as well. The difference is a mere 250k viewers (while we're talking about the 3 million range).

However, we drop off a lot after that and don't have any other top 25 tv ratings teams.

Compare this to the SEC who have 6 teams in the top 10 and it's not looking too good.

(03-27-2015 11:31 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  And as I've said, this thread is focusing on small wins, while losing the conference revenue war against our two nearest geographical counterparts. Yippee.

The ACC is not losing a "Conference Revenue War".

What is happening is that you are fixated on getting the same amount of income from football as does Bama, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, Ohio State and Michigan while continually forgetting that you sell on average 125,000 fewer football tickets because your stadium is so much smaller than theirs.

The following is from the US Department of Ed website:

School Home Games, Stadium Size, Tickets To Sale FB Revenue FB Revenue Per Seat

Bama - 7 - 714,000, 102K $95 million, $128 (Actually they sold another 35K for the Chick Fil-A opener 740,000)

Michigan - 7 - 763,000, 109K $91 million, $120 a seat

LSU - 7 - 714,000, 88K $88 million, $119 a seat, (And they sold another 35K to Dallas for that opener 740,000)

Florida - 7 - 623,000, 89K, $69 million, $110 a seat

Tenn - 7 - 714,000, 102K $70 million, $98 a seat - and they did not sell out last year

FSU - 7 - 574,000, 82K, $57 million, $96 a seat (and you sold about 20K for the opener in Dallas so 594,000)

Ohio State - 7 - 735,000, 105K, $66 million, $90 a seat

Clemson - 7 - 567,000, 81K, $42 million, $74 a seat

FSU sells 125,000 fewer tickets each and every year than the biggest programs. If you made $96 at seat on those seats you would make an additional $12 million a year. That would get your football revenue up to $70 million - equal to Tennessee and Florida but still far behind Bama, LSU, and Michigan.

What you continue to spin as a "Conference" thing is a actually a function of the drawing power of your own program, your history as a girls school, the geographic location of you school in your state, and the fact that in Florida there are other things to spend money upon whereas in places like Alabama, college football is the only game in town.

The average ACC football stadium seats 50K. The average SEC and B10 football stadium seats 85K and 75K, respectively. Why should a collection of schools with half the number of alumni as the B10, and 60% of the football seats per stadium make equal money to the B10 and SEC in football on televised football? What sense does that make?

You need to be realistic.

What I have found in life...those with too much money just finds ways to waste it.

Law of diminishing returns applies here

(03-27-2015 01:55 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  What I have found in life...those with too much money just finds ways to waste it.

Law of diminishing returns applies here

So True, LOL.

(03-27-2015 01:35 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 11:31 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  And as I've said, this thread is focusing on small wins, while losing the conference revenue war against our two nearest geographical counterparts. Yippee.

The ACC is not losing a "Conference Revenue War".

What is happening is that you are fixated on getting the same amount of income from football as does Bama, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, Ohio State and Michigan while continually forgetting that you sell on average 125,000 fewer football tickets because your stadium is so much smaller than theirs.

The following is from the US Department of Ed website:

School Home Games, Stadium Size, Tickets To Sale FB Revenue FB Revenue Per Seat

Bama - 7 - 714,000, 102K $95 million, $128 (Actually they sold another 35K for the Chick Fil-A opener 740,000)

Michigan - 7 - 763,000, 109K $91 million, $120 a seat

LSU - 7 - 714,000, 88K $88 million, $119 a seat, (And they sold another 35K to Dallas for that opener 740,000)

Florida - 7 - 623,000, 89K, $69 million, $110 a seat

Tenn - 7 - 714,000, 102K $70 million, $98 a seat - and they did not sell out last year

FSU - 7 - 574,000, 82K, $57 million, $96 a seat (and you sold about 20K for the opener in Dallas so 594,000)

Ohio State - 7 - 735,000, 105K, $66 million, $90 a seat

Clemson - 7 - 567,000, 81K, $42 million, $74 a seat

FSU sells 125,000 fewer tickets each and every year than the biggest programs. If you made $96 at seat on those seats you would make an additional $12 million a year. That would get your football revenue up to $70 million - equal to Tennessee and Florida but still far behind Bama, LSU, and Michigan.

What you continue to spin as a "Conference" thing is a actually a function of the drawing power of your own program, your history as a girls school, the geographic location of you school in your state, and the fact that in Florida there are other things to spend money upon whereas in places like Alabama, college football is the only game in town.

The average ACC football stadium seats 50K. The average SEC and B10 football stadium seats 85K and 75K, respectively. Why should a collection of schools with half the number of alumni as the B10, and 60% of the football seats per stadium make equal money to the B10 and SEC in football on televised football? What sense does that make?

You need to be realistic.

We have pretty much sold out the last two years, so I don't think we have a drawing problem.

Maybe if our conference had more than one or two draws capable of getting a higher ticket price the revenue gap wouldn't be as big.

Or if our conference didn't force us to play one of the few teams capable of being a bigger draw on Thursday Night where we have to cut the ticket price.

Maybe if our conference had some better draws we could add some additional seats and close the gap.

Maybe it's a conference problem afterall.

(03-27-2015 02:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 01:35 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 11:31 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  And as I've said, this thread is focusing on small wins, while losing the conference revenue war against our two nearest geographical counterparts. Yippee.

The ACC is not losing a "Conference Revenue War".

What is happening is that you are fixated on getting the same amount of income from football as does Bama, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, Ohio State and Michigan while continually forgetting that you sell on average 125,000 fewer football tickets because your stadium is so much smaller than theirs.

The following is from the US Department of Ed website:

School Home Games, Stadium Size, Tickets To Sale FB Revenue FB Revenue Per Seat

Bama - 7 - 714,000, 102K $95 million, $128 (Actually they sold another 35K for the Chick Fil-A opener 740,000)

Michigan - 7 - 763,000, 109K $91 million, $120 a seat

LSU - 7 - 714,000, 88K $88 million, $119 a seat, (And they sold another 35K to Dallas for that opener 740,000)

Florida - 7 - 623,000, 89K, $69 million, $110 a seat

Tenn - 7 - 714,000, 102K $70 million, $98 a seat - and they did not sell out last year

FSU - 7 - 574,000, 82K, $57 million, $96 a seat (and you sold about 20K for the opener in Dallas so 594,000)

Ohio State - 7 - 735,000, 105K, $66 million, $90 a seat

Clemson - 7 - 567,000, 81K, $42 million, $74 a seat

FSU sells 125,000 fewer tickets each and every year than the biggest programs. If you made $96 at seat on those seats you would make an additional $12 million a year. That would get your football revenue up to $70 million - equal to Tennessee and Florida but still far behind Bama, LSU, and Michigan.

What you continue to spin as a "Conference" thing is a actually a function of the drawing power of your own program, your history as a girls school, the geographic location of you school in your state, and the fact that in Florida there are other things to spend money upon whereas in places like Alabama, college football is the only game in town.

The average ACC football stadium seats 50K. The average SEC and B10 football stadium seats 85K and 75K, respectively. Why should a collection of schools with half the number of alumni as the B10, and 60% of the football seats per stadium make equal money to the B10 and SEC in football on televised football? What sense does that make?

You need to be realistic.

We have pretty much sold out the last two years, so I don't think we have a drawing problem.

Maybe if our conference had more than one or two draws capable of getting a higher ticket price the revenue gap wouldn't be as big.

Or if our conference didn't force us to play one of the few teams capable of being a bigger draw on Thursday Night where we have to cut the ticket price.

Maybe if our conference had some better draws we could add some additional seats and close the gap.

Maybe it's a conference problem afterall.

Always somebody else's fault.