(06-14-2015 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 12:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 12:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC can at least be like the Pac-12 in football, if not better.
FSU already IS like Auburn. Nobody is like Alabama.
Clemson can step up a little higher than they are now, IMO

That's insulting.

Yep you're right. We've both only won 2 national championships and Auburn holds a 13-5-1 advantage in the series with the Noles. I'm insulted.

Actually, FSU has 3 NC's; 1993, 1999 and 2013

Duly noted but it doesn't change the analogy, or the series record. Actually F.S.U. in the last 35 years has played about like Auburn. Before the last 35 years they were bad to middling with a few good years.

Well, I think that we can all agree that none of these teams are as good as Alabama...

(06-14-2015 02:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 12:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  That's insulting.

Yep you're right. We've both only won 2 national championships and Auburn holds a 13-5-1 advantage in the series with the Noles. I'm insulted.

Actually, FSU has 3 NC's; 1993, 1999 and 2013

Duly noted but it doesn't change the analogy, or the series record. Actually F.S.U. in the last 35 years has played about like Auburn. Before the last 35 years they were bad to middling with a few good years.

Well, I think that we can all agree that none of these teams are as good as Alabama...

It depends upon how old you are. Auburn has a losing record to Alabama who leads the series 43-35-1. The only era in which Auburn fell behind the Tide was from 1972-81 during Bear Bryant's reign at Alabama when Alabama won 10 straight. Before then, since then, even with Saban, the record has been fairly even with Auburn holding the slight advantage.

(06-14-2015 09:29 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-13-2015 01:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  smh at the notion that you know anything about TV contracts or timing of negotiations.

No way, no how does the B12 get their last contract if negotiated at the same time that the ACC contract was in 2011 with their current make-up.

Cheers,
Neil

Unlike you, I know the definition of the phrase "fair market value." Something is worth what someone will pay for it. The idea that, fraud aside, any party as sophisticated as FOX overpaid for any of this content was cooked up by nBE fans to explain market forces that they don't fully understand in order to justify the nBE getting a $20+ mm/yr/school contract and was apparently bought by you.

"No way, no how does the B12 get their last contract if negotiated at the same time that the ACC contract was in 2011 with their current make-up."

Once again, you do realize that A) *all* these contracts get renegotiated in the event of material changes to conference membership* and B) the B12's contract went up at that renegotiation, right?

Even if the B12's 2010 lineup was worth more than the B12's 2015 lineup, the payout would have been adjusted when after all the changes.

That said, very clearly the market was inefficient in a way that favored FOX (and might still favor FOX) and/or the new lineup is more valuable because the media deal actually increased when they renegotiated.

But no, feel free to throw around your obviously unsubstantiated opinion as a statement of fact, and feel free to include a healthy dosage of a laughably unearned air of superiority (like usual).

*Hence the "key members" provision of the AAC contract, the SEC having the leverage to renegotiate for a network, the ACC renegotiating from $13 mm to $17 mm with the SU + Pitt add and from $17 mm to $20 mm with the UL + ND add, and the B12 renegotiating shortly after the WVU + TCU add.

As usual, you miss the point. The "free market" was different at the points in time in which the two contracts were negotiated which greatly influenced "market value". When the ACC tv contract was negotiated, ESPN and FOX were competing for it against each other.

You do know it's the networks involved that have the ultimate say as to whether or not the contract will be renegotiated due to membership changes,right? Which is why most conferences have waited until the end of a tv contract period to add teams in the past.

When the ACC added Miami and VT, it was at the end of their TV contract cycle of that period. When the B1G added Nebraska, there was no increase in their national TV contract. They simply recouped the add by getting the $$$ for the championship game. When they recently added Rutgers and Maryland, they didn't get an increase for their network TV contract, they are paying for it through increases in the BTN.

The PAC added Colorado and Utah at the end of their TV contract as well.

When the B12 started to fall apart, they still had four years on their existing contract with ESPN. Prior to falling apart the B12 had already taken renegotiated their secondary rights deal with FSN/FOX. There was no renegotiation for that deal. Why do you think ESPN was willing to renegotiate with four years still remaining?

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...ig-12.aspx

Reasons number one and two are explained in the above link. The other reason was that ESPN didn't want to risk the B12 surviving and then four years later losing the entire package to FOX who was willing to keep the secondary contract as is. ESPN had no concerns about any of that with the ACC since they were already locked into a long-term deal, no risk of keeping Comcast/NBC out of the picture, and no LHN to keep afloat. All they had to do was keep the ACC competitive with the B12 and they could say when the TV contracts come up for renegotiation in 2025, "We did what we could. We kept you at the same level as B12."

Now, back to my original question. Do you still truly think the 10 team B12 without even a championship game is worth the same as the 14 team ACC if both went on the open market tomorrow?

Here is what the last three years data shows, and networks aren't idiots, ESPN had to realize this as well.

B12

7 conference games have rated a 3.0 or higher in the past three years.

3 OOC games have rated a 3.0 or higher in the past three years.

Of the 7 conference games that have rated 3.0 or higher

0 were above a 5.0
1 was between 4.5-4.9
1 was between 4.0-4.4
1 was between 3.5-3.9
4 were between 3.0-3.4

Of the 3 OOC games that have rated 3.0 or higher

1 was between 5.0-5.4 (ND vs OU)
1 was between 4.0-.4.4
1 was between 3.5-3.9

ACC

12 conference games have rated over 3.0 or higher

1 was between 6.0-6.4
2 were between 5.0-5.4
1 was between 4.5-4.9
2 were between 3.5-3.9
6 were between 3.0-3.4

7 OOC games have rated over 3.0 or higher

1 was between 7.5-7.9 (ND vs FSU)
1 was between 5.0-5.4
1 was between 4.5-4.9
2 were between 3.5-3.9
2 were between 3.0-3.4

(and yes JRsec, I know the above data pales in comparison with the mighty SEC numbers, but we are not discussing a comparison with them).

Now try and project out what future trends will be, which is what tv networks need to do.

From 2015-2022 the B12 has in place already a total 26 OOC games either at home or at a neutral site that might be attractive to TV (not that all will likely get a 3.0 or higher rating).

Baylor has 1 - against Duke
ISU has 4 - all against Iowa
Kansas has none
K-State has 1 - against Miss. State
OU has 2 - against Ohio State and Nebraska
Okla State has 2 - against Pitt and Boise
TCU has 2 - against Arkansas and Ohio State
Texas has 5 - against ND, Maryland, USC, LSU and Ohio State
TTU has 2 - against Arizona and Arizona State
WVU has 7 - against Maryland (twice), Mizzou, BYU, VT (twice) and Tenn


The ACC has 55, more than twice as many. Obviously helped by an 8 game schedule, the ND tie-in, and of course the regular SEC match-ups of Fla-FSU, South Carolina-Clemson, and UGa-GT. But all of these factors were known going into the last ACC renegotiations.

(aside, btw, I didn't even include the Kentucky-Louisville series in the total above).

As I stated above, the "free market" system is very dependent upon times and circumstances.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-14-2015 09:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Way too many posters here assume that when a conference signs a contract that they are locked into those terms for the duration of the contract. They are not. As you point out the contracts are always open for renegotiation by one party or another. If the SEC or ACC makes additions they may renegotiate prior to their contract ending. A contract extension would then be forthcoming with the new terms. The GOR is insurance against losses where the network may have asked for a renegotiation. Consequently if there are transfers of schools between conferences which are essentially controlled by the same network the GOR's will prove to be little threat to the transaction. If however there is a hostile move between conferences not controlled by the same networks then they become the roadblock that they were intended to be.

If the ACC is stuck with a bad contract another addition would be the best way out of it. Likewise once the Big 10 has renegotiated if the SEC needs a leg back up an addition would be the best way to do it. The interesting part for the SEC (and it is not a negative) is that CBS is satisfied with what they are getting and likely will pay no more no matter who we might add. ESPN can monetize content, and to some extent markets through all facets of its present arrangement with the SEC (and ACC should that be the case). Therefore with the right additions the SEC and ACC could yet make more prior to the end of their existing contracts. I posit that as just another reason we should work together to absorb the Big 12.

A. It gives us reason to revisit the terms of our existing contracts.
B. It could dramatically add to our content value or our market values.
C. The elimination of any one of the P5 means that the remainder would automatically qualify for all of the bowl revenue shares, CFP money, and access bowl money equally every year and for the ACC that's another leg up.
D. It also means that shares of the CFP money is reduced from 5 to 4 a significant bump per school in payouts through the surviving conferences.
E. The Big 12 holds the last viable realignment property available to the East coast.

The bolded part is not accurate. The conference can ask that the contract be re-opened due to additions, but the network(s) have the ultimate say as to whether or not they will increase the terms of the contract. It basically is like a "look-in" where the network(s) has most of the power. Which is why I am not hopeful for the every 5 year "look-in" clause that the ACC got with the last renegotiated contract with ESPN.

The power residing with tv on this is why conferences usually ask the network(s) if they add so-and-so to the conference how much might that increase the value of the TV contract prior to extending the offer and why the majority of additions have tended to be at the end of a TV contract cycle. Conference networks have the potential to change that paradigm though.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-14-2015 03:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 09:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Way too many posters here assume that when a conference signs a contract that they are locked into those terms for the duration of the contract. They are not. As you point out the contracts are always open for renegotiation by one party or another. If the SEC or ACC makes additions they may renegotiate prior to their contract ending. A contract extension would then be forthcoming with the new terms. The GOR is insurance against losses where the network may have asked for a renegotiation. Consequently if there are transfers of schools between conferences which are essentially controlled by the same network the GOR's will prove to be little threat to the transaction. If however there is a hostile move between conferences not controlled by the same networks then they become the roadblock that they were intended to be.

If the ACC is stuck with a bad contract another addition would be the best way out of it. Likewise once the Big 10 has renegotiated if the SEC needs a leg back up an addition would be the best way to do it. The interesting part for the SEC (and it is not a negative) is that CBS is satisfied with what they are getting and likely will pay no more no matter who we might add. ESPN can monetize content, and to some extent markets through all facets of its present arrangement with the SEC (and ACC should that be the case). Therefore with the right additions the SEC and ACC could yet make more prior to the end of their existing contracts. I posit that as just another reason we should work together to absorb the Big 12.

A. It gives us reason to revisit the terms of our existing contracts.
B. It could dramatically add to our content value or our market values.
C. The elimination of any one of the P5 means that the remainder would automatically qualify for all of the bowl revenue shares, CFP money, and access bowl money equally every year and for the ACC that's another leg up.
D. It also means that shares of the CFP money is reduced from 5 to 4 a significant bump per school in payouts through the surviving conferences.
E. The Big 12 holds the last viable realignment property available to the East coast.

The bolded part is not accurate. The conference can ask that the contract be re-opened due to additions, but the network(s) have the ultimate say as to whether or not they will increase the terms of the contract. It basically is like a "look-in" where the network(s) has most of the power. Which is why I am not hopeful for the every 5 year "look-in" clause that the ACC got with the last renegotiated contract with ESPN.

The power residing with tv on this is why conferences usually ask the network(s) if they add so-and-so to the conference how much might that increase the value of the TV contract prior to extending the offer and why the majority of additions have tended to be at the end of a TV contract cycle. Conference networks have the potential to change that paradigm though.

Cheers,
Neil

That's a bit nit picky there Neil. Obviously no additions would be made unless the networks were in agreement to reopen the contracts. And since we are specifically speaking of the absorption of Big 12 schools I would think that adding content value and markets to ESPN's possessions would be indeed open for renegotiation. Particularly open to it if ESPN were adding a Texas to the ACC or an Oklahoma or Kansas to either.

And as I stated earlier, in the SEC's case I doubt that CBS would add much if anything since they already have what they want.

While what you are saying is true, it is quite obvious that no realignment in the last 5 years has occurred without some network agreeing to the payments beforehand. Even Maryland's defection had FOX's go ahead. So that is a precondition that is a given.

And as to your aside, I wasn't even thinking in terms of comparing the SEC's TV numbers here. My point is a simple one. If your goal is to make within 15% of the SEC and Big 10 then you need to invest in athletics at a rate that places you within 15% of the SEC and Big 10 in terms of athletic investment.

Content additions would help to cover that deficit, but so would development.

(06-14-2015 03:25 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 09:29 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-13-2015 01:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  smh at the notion that you know anything about TV contracts or timing of negotiations.

No way, no how does the B12 get their last contract if negotiated at the same time that the ACC contract was in 2011 with their current make-up.

Cheers,
Neil

Unlike you, I know the definition of the phrase "fair market value." Something is worth what someone will pay for it. The idea that, fraud aside, any party as sophisticated as FOX overpaid for any of this content was cooked up by nBE fans to explain market forces that they don't fully understand in order to justify the nBE getting a $20+ mm/yr/school contract and was apparently bought by you.

"No way, no how does the B12 get their last contract if negotiated at the same time that the ACC contract was in 2011 with their current make-up."

Once again, you do realize that A) *all* these contracts get renegotiated in the event of material changes to conference membership* and B) the B12's contract went up at that renegotiation, right?

Even if the B12's 2010 lineup was worth more than the B12's 2015 lineup, the payout would have been adjusted when after all the changes.

That said, very clearly the market was inefficient in a way that favored FOX (and might still favor FOX) and/or the new lineup is more valuable because the media deal actually increased when they renegotiated.

But no, feel free to throw around your obviously unsubstantiated opinion as a statement of fact, and feel free to include a healthy dosage of a laughably unearned air of superiority (like usual).

*Hence the "key members" provision of the AAC contract, the SEC having the leverage to renegotiate for a network, the ACC renegotiating from $13 mm to $17 mm with the SU + Pitt add and from $17 mm to $20 mm with the UL + ND add, and the B12 renegotiating shortly after the WVU + TCU add.

As usual, you miss the point. The "free market" was different at the points in time in which the two contracts were negotiated which greatly influenced "market value". When the ACC tv contract was negotiated, ESPN and FOX were competing for it against each other.

You do know it's the networks involved that have the ultimate say as to whether or not the contract will be renegotiated due to membership changes,right? Which is why most conferences have waited until the end of a tv contract period to add teams in the past.

When the ACC added Miami and VT, it was at the end of their TV contract cycle of that period. When the B1G added Nebraska, there was no increase in their national TV contract. They simply recouped the add by getting the $$$ for the championship game. When they recently added Rutgers and Maryland, they didn't get an increase for their network TV contract, they are paying for it through increases in the BTN.

The PAC added Colorado and Utah at the end of their TV contract as well.

When the B12 started to fall apart, they still had four years on their existing contract with ESPN. Prior to falling apart the B12 had already taken renegotiated their secondary rights deal with FSN/FOX. There was no renegotiation for that deal. Why do you think ESPN was willing to renegotiate with four years still remaining?

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...ig-12.aspx

Reasons number one and two are explained in the above link. The other reason was that ESPN didn't want to risk the B12 surviving and then four years later losing the entire package to FOX who was willing to keep the secondary contract as is. ESPN had no concerns about any of that with the ACC since they were already locked into a long-term deal, no risk of keeping Comcast/NBC out of the picture, and no LHN to keep afloat. All they had to do was keep the ACC competitive with the B12 and they could say when the TV contracts come up for renegotiation in 2025, "We did what we could. We kept you at the same level as B12."

Now, back to my original question. Do you still truly think the 10 team B12 without even a championship game is worth the same as the 14 team ACC if both went on the open market tomorrow?

Here is what the last three years data shows, and networks aren't idiots, ESPN had to realize this as well.

B12

7 conference games have rated a 3.0 or higher in the past three years.

3 OOC games have rated a 3.0 or higher in the past three years.

Of the 7 conference games that have rated 3.0 or higher

0 were above a 5.0
1 was between 4.5-4.9
1 was between 4.0-4.4
1 was between 3.5-3.9
4 were between 3.0-3.4

Of the 3 OOC games that have rated 3.0 or higher

1 was between 5.0-5.4 (ND vs OU)
1 was between 4.0-.4.4
1 was between 3.5-3.9

ACC

12 conference games have rated over 3.0 or higher

1 was between 6.0-6.4
2 were between 5.0-5.4
1 was between 4.5-4.9
2 were between 3.5-3.9
6 were between 3.0-3.4

7 OOC games have rated over 3.0 or higher

1 was between 7.5-7.9 (ND vs FSU)
1 was between 5.0-5.4
1 was between 4.5-4.9
2 were between 3.5-3.9
2 were between 3.0-3.4

(and yes JRsec, I know the above data pales in comparison with the mighty SEC numbers, but we are not discussing a comparison with them).

Now try and project out what future trends will be, which is what tv networks need to do.

From 2015-2022 the B12 has in place already a total 26 OOC games either at home or at a neutral site that might be attractive to TV (not that all will likely get a 3.0 or higher rating).

Baylor has 1 - against Duke
ISU has 4 - all against Iowa
Kansas has none
K-State has 1 - against Miss. State
OU has 2 - against Ohio State and Nebraska
Okla State has 2 - against Pitt and Boise
TCU has 2 - against Arkansas and Ohio State
Texas has 5 - against ND, Maryland, USC, LSU and Ohio State
TTU has 2 - against Arizona and Arizona State
WVU has 7 - against Maryland (twice), Mizzou, BYU, VT (twice) and Tenn


The ACC has 55, more than twice as many. Obviously helped by an 8 game schedule, the ND tie-in, and of course the regular SEC match-ups of Fla-FSU, South Carolina-Clemson, and UGa-GT. But all of these factors were known going into the last ACC renegotiations.

(aside, btw, I didn't even include the Kentucky-Louisville series in the total above).

As I stated above, the "free market" system is very dependent upon times and circumstances.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-14-2015 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 03:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 09:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Way too many posters here assume that when a conference signs a contract that they are locked into those terms for the duration of the contract. They are not. As you point out the contracts are always open for renegotiation by one party or another. If the SEC or ACC makes additions they may renegotiate prior to their contract ending. A contract extension would then be forthcoming with the new terms. The GOR is insurance against losses where the network may have asked for a renegotiation. Consequently if there are transfers of schools between conferences which are essentially controlled by the same network the GOR's will prove to be little threat to the transaction. If however there is a hostile move between conferences not controlled by the same networks then they become the roadblock that they were intended to be.

If the ACC is stuck with a bad contract another addition would be the best way out of it. Likewise once the Big 10 has renegotiated if the SEC needs a leg back up an addition would be the best way to do it. The interesting part for the SEC (and it is not a negative) is that CBS is satisfied with what they are getting and likely will pay no more no matter who we might add. ESPN can monetize content, and to some extent markets through all facets of its present arrangement with the SEC (and ACC should that be the case). Therefore with the right additions the SEC and ACC could yet make more prior to the end of their existing contracts. I posit that as just another reason we should work together to absorb the Big 12.

A. It gives us reason to revisit the terms of our existing contracts.
B. It could dramatically add to our content value or our market values.
C. The elimination of any one of the P5 means that the remainder would automatically qualify for all of the bowl revenue shares, CFP money, and access bowl money equally every year and for the ACC that's another leg up.
D. It also means that shares of the CFP money is reduced from 5 to 4 a significant bump per school in payouts through the surviving conferences.
E. The Big 12 holds the last viable realignment property available to the East coast.

The bolded part is not accurate. The conference can ask that the contract be re-opened due to additions, but the network(s) have the ultimate say as to whether or not they will increase the terms of the contract. It basically is like a "look-in" where the network(s) has most of the power. Which is why I am not hopeful for the every 5 year "look-in" clause that the ACC got with the last renegotiated contract with ESPN.

The power residing with tv on this is why conferences usually ask the network(s) if they add so-and-so to the conference how much might that increase the value of the TV contract prior to extending the offer and why the majority of additions have tended to be at the end of a TV contract cycle. Conference networks have the potential to change that paradigm though.

Cheers,
Neil

That's a bit nit picky there Neil. Obviously no additions would be made unless the networks were in agreement to reopen the contracts. And since we are specifically speaking of the absorption of Big 12 schools I would think that adding content value and markets to ESPN's possessions would be indeed open for renegotiation. Particularly open to it if ESPN were adding a Texas to the ACC or an Oklahoma or Kansas to either.

And as I stated earlier, in the SEC's case I doubt that CBS would add much if anything since they already have what they want.

While what you are saying is true, it is quite obvious that no realignment in the last 5 years has occurred without some network agreeing to the payments beforehand. Even Maryland's defection had FOX's go ahead. So that is a precondition that is a given.

And as to your aside, I wasn't even thinking in terms of comparing the SEC's TV numbers here. My point is a simple one. If your goal is to make within 15% of the SEC and Big 10 then you need to invest in athletics at a rate that places you within 15% of the SEC and Big 10 in terms of athletic investment.

Content additions would help to cover that deficit, but so would development.

I don't see it as being nitpicky. I see it as correcting a factually wrong statement.

Again, the B1G TV contract stayed the same with Nebraska. CBS chose not to renegotiate their contract with the SEC when they added A&M and Missouri. The additions of Rutgers and Maryland had no impact whatsoever on FOX. FOX gets 51% of the BTN net revenue. Adding Rutgers and Maryland does not decrease that pot, it can only increase it. Only the B1G members risked anything with the additions, not FOX.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-14-2015 04:57 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 03:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 09:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Way too many posters here assume that when a conference signs a contract that they are locked into those terms for the duration of the contract. They are not. As you point out the contracts are always open for renegotiation by one party or another. If the SEC or ACC makes additions they may renegotiate prior to their contract ending. A contract extension would then be forthcoming with the new terms. The GOR is insurance against losses where the network may have asked for a renegotiation. Consequently if there are transfers of schools between conferences which are essentially controlled by the same network the GOR's will prove to be little threat to the transaction. If however there is a hostile move between conferences not controlled by the same networks then they become the roadblock that they were intended to be.

If the ACC is stuck with a bad contract another addition would be the best way out of it. Likewise once the Big 10 has renegotiated if the SEC needs a leg back up an addition would be the best way to do it. The interesting part for the SEC (and it is not a negative) is that CBS is satisfied with what they are getting and likely will pay no more no matter who we might add. ESPN can monetize content, and to some extent markets through all facets of its present arrangement with the SEC (and ACC should that be the case). Therefore with the right additions the SEC and ACC could yet make more prior to the end of their existing contracts. I posit that as just another reason we should work together to absorb the Big 12.

A. It gives us reason to revisit the terms of our existing contracts.
B. It could dramatically add to our content value or our market values.
C. The elimination of any one of the P5 means that the remainder would automatically qualify for all of the bowl revenue shares, CFP money, and access bowl money equally every year and for the ACC that's another leg up.
D. It also means that shares of the CFP money is reduced from 5 to 4 a significant bump per school in payouts through the surviving conferences.
E. The Big 12 holds the last viable realignment property available to the East coast.

The bolded part is not accurate. The conference can ask that the contract be re-opened due to additions, but the network(s) have the ultimate say as to whether or not they will increase the terms of the contract. It basically is like a "look-in" where the network(s) has most of the power. Which is why I am not hopeful for the every 5 year "look-in" clause that the ACC got with the last renegotiated contract with ESPN.

The power residing with tv on this is why conferences usually ask the network(s) if they add so-and-so to the conference how much might that increase the value of the TV contract prior to extending the offer and why the majority of additions have tended to be at the end of a TV contract cycle. Conference networks have the potential to change that paradigm though.

Cheers,
Neil

That's a bit nit picky there Neil. Obviously no additions would be made unless the networks were in agreement to reopen the contracts. And since we are specifically speaking of the absorption of Big 12 schools I would think that adding content value and markets to ESPN's possessions would be indeed open for renegotiation. Particularly open to it if ESPN were adding a Texas to the ACC or an Oklahoma or Kansas to either.

And as I stated earlier, in the SEC's case I doubt that CBS would add much if anything since they already have what they want.

While what you are saying is true, it is quite obvious that no realignment in the last 5 years has occurred without some network agreeing to the payments beforehand. Even Maryland's defection had FOX's go ahead. So that is a precondition that is a given.

And as to your aside, I wasn't even thinking in terms of comparing the SEC's TV numbers here. My point is a simple one. If your goal is to make within 15% of the SEC and Big 10 then you need to invest in athletics at a rate that places you within 15% of the SEC and Big 10 in terms of athletic investment.

Content additions would help to cover that deficit, but so would development.

I don't see it as being nitpicky. I see it as correcting a factually wrong statement.

Again, the B1G TV contract stayed the same with Nebraska. CBS chose not to renegotiate their contract with the SEC when they added A&M and Missouri. The additions of Rutgers and Maryland had no impact whatsoever on FOX. FOX gets 51% of the BTN net revenue. Adding Rutgers and Maryland does not decrease that pot, it can only increase it. Only the B1G members risked anything with the additions, not FOX.

Cheers,
Neil

In the end Neil when someone in retrospect writes about the great realignment era, it will all be network driven, 1991 somewhat excluded. What a company does behind closed doors and what it says and does publicly is regrettably two different things and those who choose to state otherwise are either complicit in the illusion, or naive. Therefore while my statement is technically wrong by public protocol and with regard to contractual language, it is nevertheless accurate, either before the fact of the additions or with a wink for remuneration to come at a later time.

The corruption within the NCAA, and at various of our institutions, is but a mere reflection of the massive corruption within corporate life which has been revealed institutionally with Madoff (former Securities and Exchange Commission chair), the bailout in general, and the lobby system which has become so intertwined with our government that it circumvents logical legislation, right on down to the local big box tax perks that have ruined independent business. You can talk about the bag man, but the real bag men work within the legal system, and throughout our monetary and governmental systems. What transpires in realignment is just the trickle down of a society bereft of morals and ethics.

Sine Die, JR

(06-14-2015 12:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 11:48 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 09:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-13-2015 09:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  As currently structured, the ACC's contract with ESPN will max out at about $26 million a year.

The TV contract is structured to pay an average of $20 million a year per school to 2026. Take 2026, a 12 year contract and fix 2020 as the mid contract year - that's the year paying $20 million for TV, each year after pays more, each year before 2020 pays less. What that means is that baring any other change or addition, the TV is set to pay out a million more per school per year through 2026. Actual TV for the ACC by contract in 2013/14 is about $14 million, the rest of the league money are NCAA revenues for basketball, etc., and the BCS, and the Orange Bowl.

So were per school revenues for 13/14 $22 million per school or $20.3 or so - we will need to see the actual 13/14 990 to tease that out.

Without a change, network, look-in, or some other bump ESPN TV money goes as follows:

14 - 14 million
15 - 15 million
16 - 16 million
17 - 17 million
18 - 18 million
19 - 19 million
20 - 20 million
21 - 21 million
22 - 22 million
23 - 23 million
24 - 24 million
25 - 25 million
26 - 26 million

Every year the ACC is going to get at least $4 million plus from NCAA revenues - that assumes the league continues to play good basketball.
Every year the ACC is going to get at least $3-4 million from the football playoff
Every two of three years the ACC will get Orange Bowl money - annualized that's $1.25 million a school, on a an every two year basis with the third year at zero - that's 1.8 million, 1.8 million and zero.

That's a minimum of $7 million a year from those sources in year with no OB and a max of about $9 million - on an annualized basis its $8 million. Add that 8 million to the TV number and you have a revenue projection for the ACC over the next 12 years. Make the Playoff - get 400K more in a year, make an access bowl, get 250 K - but let's assume none.

Here's what you get at a minimum:

Fiscal Year - Money

14 - $22 m
15 - $24 m
16 - $24 m (no OB in this fiscal year)
17 - $26 m
18 - $27 m
19 - $27 m (no OB in this fiscal year)
20 - $29 m
21 - $30 m
22 - $30 m (no OB in this fiscal year)
23 - $32 m
24 - $33 m
25 - $33 m (no OB in this fiscal year)
26 - $35 m

I don't see the sky falling especially considering that in the money war every additional 10K seats in your football stadium will be producing some $3.5 to $8 million a year. If Bama, TAMU, Tennessee, OSU, Michigan, PSU, etc., are your measuring stick you better have a 100K seat football stadium and be able to fill it even for a chump. If you are 20K seats behind them, you are going to be behind them in revenue some $7 to $16 million a year right off the bat. No league TV deal solves that problem - if it did, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, and MD would have bright futures in the B10 and Vandy, UK, and the Mississippi schools should be able to fully compete with Bama, Auburn, and LSU - but they don't.

Obviously the addition of a network, a contract look-in, or a payment in lieu of a network changes the curve upward.

I tend to agree that the sky isn't falling, but it's worth noting that you can't look at the numbers in your projections in the abstract. You have to look at then relative to the other conferences. Additionally, your point about stadium capacity (and implied demand) is true, but it those factors highlight the importance of TV revenue. Favorable contracts can obviously mitigate unfavorable differences, and unfavorable contracts can obviously exacerbate unfavorable differences.

More TV money always helps. More money from any source helps. However the way I look it at is that certain schools have almost ALWAYS had more money because of the WPA building or adding to a stadium in the 30's, a large alumni base, or a fan base without many other options for their entertainment dollar.

As nice as Newark or Staten Island make themselves, they will never be Manhattan. Some advantages can not be overcome - however a football team still has only 24 or so starters.

I think the real pressure is on ESPN to keep valuable ACC schools happy, not on the ACC schools to keep up with Ohio State or Alabama - the ACC schools have never kept up with OSU or Bama. It's likely safer and cheaper for ESPN to keep the ACC schools happy than it is to take a crap shoot on what might happen if the league split.

Happy for the ACC is around 85% of what the SEC and or B10 make. That is not happy for FSU or Clemson - that want complete parity, but that is happy for the vast majority of the league. Complete parity is not possible because the ACC football product is not worth parity. Our schools are not as big, our alumni base not as large, we are over-concentrated in NC and VA, and some of the programs have stunk in football for a long time.

Why do I say 85%? That's' because that's the number I have heard in the past from folks attached to three different ACC schools. Now that was several years ago, and many ACC regimes have changed and now feel differently.

I view the FSU and Clemson wish for parity to be understandable, but ultimately delusional. It's a desire to have it all - to be able to dominate a conference in football, yet have that conference be the caliber of the SEC. In short, they want to be Alabama. Who wouldn't?

Hell, for NC State I would settle for being like Auburn once in a while - but you need look no further than the mess in Chapel Hill that was generated while trying to compete at the top level in football. UNC has tried this in football three times in the last 70 years, each time it blew up on them. Why do you think Duke deemphasized football and pushed through the 800 SAT rule back in 1962, and stayed deemphasized for 45 years?

I suspect it will only get worse as more and more middle class parents keep their kids out of pee wee football and push them toward soccer or other "non" contact sports.

If that is your philosophy then you need to rethink it. You do need to up your athletic expenditures. You don't have to be the SEC. But you do need to be more competitive top to bottom. You can't rely on 4 or 5 schools showing up for football while the rest take a pass anymore than you should rely upon 5 or 6 schools showing up in hoops while the rest take a pass. If you want security what you can't afford to do is what you have been doing. If that is the strategy then your parts will truly be worth more than your whole and ESPN may choose to monetize them where their content value would be higher.

What you need are 3 or 4 annual contenders nationally in various big sports. Then you need to have half a dozen schools that could rise up on any given year in any sport. It's okay to have 2 or 3 bottom feeders, every conference has them. What you can't afford to do any longer is to rely on Florida State, Clemson, sometimes Virginia Tech and occasionally Georgia Tech to carry your football banner while everyone else does very little to compete. And you can't rely upon U.N.C., Duke, Syracuse and Virginia to carry hoops while everyone else does little.

Notre Dame and Louisville give you the ingredients you need to build a wider group of contenders. But B.C., Wake, Pitt, N.C. State, and Miami need to step it up. Virginia needs to show up for football too. That's where greater earnings lie outside of expansion and that's where security resides. What you espoused above will lead to your destruction ultimately.

The bottom line LP4 is that if you want to get paid within 85% of the SEC and Big 10 then you need to invest at least 85% of what the SEC and Big 10 invest in athletics, and you are way short in that regard. If you got paid at your level of investment you wound't even be making 21 million.

JR, it's not money that's the problem, it's who you have to admit and keep in school that's the problem with a number of ACC schools. Many SEC schools have had a win at all cost attitude toward football for over 60 years. Everyone bought into that, (except Jan Kemp at UGa).

Hiding an absolute moron who can't read is not easy at most ACC schools. They don't hide well at small schools and two of the ACC largest schools are not liberal arts and research universities, they are STEM's and research (VT and NC State). I'm also unaware of any major at GT that you can get without a semester of Calculus.

Now I'm not saying that the SEC football squads are full of morons or non-students - what I am saying is that the two or three extra defensive monsters and an additional speedy and strong RB are all it takes to make a huge difference.

When you talk about "investment" you are comparing Big 10 schools with populations averaging nearly 45K students with football stadiums that average about 80K against ACC schools that average less than half that size.

You can invest all the money you want into football but if you can't get a kid through the admissions office, and you can't keep him eligible, the money is wasted. As I have said before, UNC-Ch tried this and it blew up in the face.

I doubt that BC, WF, UVa, Duke, NC State, VT, and GT are prepared to do "whatever it takes". Miami quit doing "whatever it took" and look at where they are today. UNC tried it and failed.

You can only do "whatever it takes" when you control your faculty, your students, your fans, your local media, your administration, your governing board, and your Legislature. In today's world, if you don't have everyone on board, you will ratted out and only a few programs can blow off the NCAA.

FSU faces UF tampering in the State of Florida every day - imagine what that's like when your university has no law school or med school. How "all in" would Auburn be if Auburn's governing board was made up primarily of Bama alums?

(06-14-2015 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 02:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yep you're right. We've both only won 2 national championships and Auburn holds a 13-5-1 advantage in the series with the Noles. I'm insulted.

Actually, FSU has 3 NC's; 1993, 1999 and 2013

Duly noted but it doesn't change the analogy, or the series record. Actually F.S.U. in the last 35 years has played about like Auburn. Before the last 35 years they were bad to middling with a few good years.

Well, I think that we can all agree that none of these teams are as good as Alabama...

It depends upon how old you are. Auburn has a losing record to Alabama who leads the series 43-35-1. The only era in which Auburn fell behind the Tide was from 1972-81 during Bear Bryant's reign at Alabama when Alabama won 10 straight. Before then, since then, even with Saban, the record has been fairly even with Auburn holding the slight advantage.

I was 100% just stirring the pot.


I actually like Auburn way more than Alabama, but I used to work with a 'Bama grad and he was adamant that had the two schools not stopped playing each other for however long you two went, that the record would have been very much in Alabama's favor. According to him, Alabama was much better during that era. However, he was overtly heavily biased, so I'm not sure how much weight to put into his claim.

(06-14-2015 05:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 02:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Actually, FSU has 3 NC's; 1993, 1999 and 2013

Duly noted but it doesn't change the analogy, or the series record. Actually F.S.U. in the last 35 years has played about like Auburn. Before the last 35 years they were bad to middling with a few good years.

Well, I think that we can all agree that none of these teams are as good as Alabama...

It depends upon how old you are. Auburn has a losing record to Alabama who leads the series 43-35-1. The only era in which Auburn fell behind the Tide was from 1972-81 during Bear Bryant's reign at Alabama when Alabama won 10 straight. Before then, since then, even with Saban, the record has been fairly even with Auburn holding the slight advantage.

I was 100% just stirring the pot.


I actually like Auburn way more than Alabama, but I used to work with a 'Bama grad and he was adamant that had the two schools not stopped playing each other for however long you two went, that the record would have been very much in Alabama's favor. According to him, Alabama was much better during that era. However, he was overtly heavily biased, so I'm not sure how much weight to put into his claim.

We stopped playing because of a riot and killing related to Alabama trying to muster political pressure to close Auburn as a College then (University now).

(06-14-2015 06:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 05:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 02:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Duly noted but it doesn't change the analogy, or the series record. Actually F.S.U. in the last 35 years has played about like Auburn. Before the last 35 years they were bad to middling with a few good years.

Well, I think that we can all agree that none of these teams are as good as Alabama...

It depends upon how old you are. Auburn has a losing record to Alabama who leads the series 43-35-1. The only era in which Auburn fell behind the Tide was from 1972-81 during Bear Bryant's reign at Alabama when Alabama won 10 straight. Before then, since then, even with Saban, the record has been fairly even with Auburn holding the slight advantage.

I was 100% just stirring the pot.


I actually like Auburn way more than Alabama, but I used to work with a 'Bama grad and he was adamant that had the two schools not stopped playing each other for however long you two went, that the record would have been very much in Alabama's favor. According to him, Alabama was much better during that era. However, he was overtly heavily biased, so I'm not sure how much weight to put into his claim.

We stopped playing because of a riot and killing related to Alabama trying to muster political pressure to close Auburn as a College then (University now).

F Bama and the horse they rode into town on....first Auburn, now UAB? Awful school... Aholes for trustees

(06-14-2015 01:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 12:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 12:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC can at least be like the Pac-12 in football, if not better.
FSU already IS like Auburn. Nobody is like Alabama.
Clemson can step up a little higher than they are now, IMO

That's insulting.

Yep you're right. We've both only won 2 national championships and Auburn holds a 13-5-1 advantage in the series with the Noles. I'm insulted.

FSU is 4-1 in the last 5 meetings and is 5-4 in the last 9. Auburn was 8-0 pre-Bowden, congratulations.

FSU also won the most recent matchup...in the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. Let's also not forget Auburn BACKED OUT of the game in 1999, which would've been another loss for your "War Chickens".

And has already been pointed out, FSU leads you in national titles, unless you're still trying to claim the 1993 National Title that FSU won when Auburn wasn't even eligible.

FSU's been to 33 straight bowl games, t-2nd longest streak all-time.

FSU has a higher all-time winning percentage and in bowls.

FSU has 72 weeks at #1 in the AP poll compared to Auburn's 9.

FSU has more 1st Round NFL picks than Auburn.

I'll admit there's similarity, though.

That said, I root for Auburn over Alabama, but if a national title shot is on the line I'll root for the underdog.

(06-14-2015 09:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 12:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 12:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC can at least be like the Pac-12 in football, if not better.
FSU already IS like Auburn. Nobody is like Alabama.
Clemson can step up a little higher than they are now, IMO

That's insulting.

Yep you're right. We've both only won 2 national championships and Auburn holds a 13-5-1 advantage in the series with the Noles. I'm insulted.

FSU is 4-1 in the last 5 meetings and is 5-4 in the last 9. Auburn was 8-0 pre-Bowden, congratulations.

FSU also won the most recent matchup...in the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. Let's also not forget Auburn BACKED OUT of the game in 1999, which would've been another loss for your "War Chickens".

And has already been pointed out, FSU leads you in national titles, unless you're still trying to claim the 1993 National Title that FSU won when Auburn wasn't even eligible.

FSU's been to 33 straight bowl games, t-2nd longest streak all-time.

FSU has a higher all-time winning percentage and in bowls.

FSU has 72 weeks at #1 in the AP poll compared to Auburn's 9.

FSU has more 1st Round NFL picks and more Consensus All-Americans than Auburn.

Check your facts. You got a little over zealous. You need to put timelines on consensus All Americans. We have more. Time in the AP means nothing. And if I was going to claim a title it would have been 2004, but I only claimed 2, I just missed one of yours. And as far as that National Championship contest is concerned we were lucky to represent the SEC. You were lucky to beat what was probably the third best SEC team that year, and then just barely with what you guys claim to be the best team you've had in years. And forgive me if I'm unimpressed with your recent history. I've been to all of the games since the mid 70's when Auburn played your Noles including a very sweet 42-41 win in Tallahassee in the mid 80's when you guys were ranked ahead of us. Stats are what they are and you guys had little history prior to Bowden, but his success, while deserved, coincided with the growth of Florida's population which certainly helped to float all boats in the Sunshine State. You have a fine program, but you aren't all of that and a bag of chips too! You have a long way to go to share status with U.S.C., Notre Dame, Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Michigan just to name a few. But hey, so do we.

"Luck"

LOL. That's all I needed to hear.

Just an FYI, that second-to-last sentence is entirely irrelevant. Nobody was comparing FSU to them. But thanks for playing. Sore keisters, exit left.

(06-14-2015 10:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 09:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 12:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 12:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC can at least be like the Pac-12 in football, if not better.
FSU already IS like Auburn. Nobody is like Alabama.
Clemson can step up a little higher than they are now, IMO

That's insulting.

Yep you're right. We've both only won 2 national championships and Auburn holds a 13-5-1 advantage in the series with the Noles. I'm insulted.

FSU is 4-1 in the last 5 meetings and is 5-4 in the last 9. Auburn was 8-0 pre-Bowden, congratulations.

FSU also won the most recent matchup...in the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. Let's also not forget Auburn BACKED OUT of the game in 1999, which would've been another loss for your "War Chickens".

And has already been pointed out, FSU leads you in national titles, unless you're still trying to claim the 1993 National Title that FSU won when Auburn wasn't even eligible.

FSU's been to 33 straight bowl games, t-2nd longest streak all-time.

FSU has a higher all-time winning percentage and in bowls.

FSU has 72 weeks at #1 in the AP poll compared to Auburn's 9.

FSU has more 1st Round NFL picks and more Consensus All-Americans than Auburn.

Check your facts. You got a little over zealous. You need to put timelines on consensus All Americans. We have more. Time in the AP means nothing. And if I was going to claim a title it would have been 2004, but I only claimed 2, I just missed one of yours. And as far as that National Championship contest is concerned we were lucky to represent the SEC. You were lucky to beat what was probably the third best SEC team that year, and then just barely with what you guys claim to be the best team you've had in years. And forgive me if I'm unimpressed with your recent history. I've been to all of the games since the mid 70's when Auburn played your Noles including a very sweet 42-41 win in Tallahassee in the mid 80's when you guys were ranked ahead of us. Stats are what they are and you guys had little history prior to Bowden, but his success, while deserved, coincided with the growth of Florida's population which certainly helped to float all boats in the Sunshine State. You have a fine program, but you aren't all of that and a bag of chips too! You have a long way to go to share status with U.S.C., Notre Dame, Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Michigan just to name a few. But hey, so do we.

FSU, Miami, and Florida have all made their marks on the college football landscape...I'd put FSU and Miami ahead of Michigan

FSU is > than Auburn....they had a recognizable dynasty

(05-29-2015 11:56 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
SEC will distribute $31.07M per school in revenue, sources told @ESPN. League made record $455M past year
10:07 AM - 29 May 2015

I see it was posted on the Realignment board, but I don't think it's been discussed here. And I don't want to jump into a conversation that's already on page 14.

If accurate, the ACC will be a cool ~$8-9M behind SEC payouts this year, and primed to only increase over the next 5-10 years. That's much more than I was expecting. I believe they were around a $21M average last year.

If accurate, I hope FSU's on the phone with Texas, OU and ND about forming their own conference. Heck, even if it's not accurate, I'd still meet with them as a contingency.

OK...Here we go.... next year it will be announced (VIA TAX return) that some ACC Schools (bowl eligible) were close to 30M....I am guessing 28-29M..

Ok were do I get this information from....

First the ACC made 83.5 from the CFP, and the ACC only distributes that to the 11 bowl teams...

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

Second GT budgeted 23M from the ACC, the year before they budgeted 17.9 but tax return shows 19.2M.... SO lets say that GT was smoking crack and they only get 23M you ad that plus 5 Million (after$$ for travel) is 28M....
Not to shabby for a conf without their own network......

Link
http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/07/...ch-budget/

(06-15-2015 02:45 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 11:56 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
SEC will distribute $31.07M per school in revenue, sources told @ESPN. League made record $455M past year
10:07 AM - 29 May 2015

I see it was posted on the Realignment board, but I don't think it's been discussed here. And I don't want to jump into a conversation that's already on page 14.

If accurate, the ACC will be a cool ~$8-9M behind SEC payouts this year, and primed to only increase over the next 5-10 years. That's much more than I was expecting. I believe they were around a $21M average last year.

If accurate, I hope FSU's on the phone with Texas, OU and ND about forming their own conference. Heck, even if it's not accurate, I'd still meet with them as a contingency.

OK...Here we go.... next year it will be announced (VIA TAX return) that some ACC Schools (bowl eligible) were close to 30M....I am guessing 28-29M..

Ok were do I get this information from....

First the ACC made 83.5 from the CFP, and the ACC only distributes that to the 11 bowl teams...

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

Second GT budgeted 23M from the ACC, the year before they budgeted 17.9 but tax return shows 19.2M.... SO lets say that GT was smoking crack and they only get 22M you ad that plus 6 Million (1.5Million for travel) is 28M....
Not to shabby for a conf without their own network..... I bet FSU is over the 30M..

Link
http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/07/...ch-budget/

The ACC's bowl distribution formula is an equal distribution after some travel and expense money is doled out - in 13/14 there were 13 teams in the distribution Syracuse and Pitt in - MD - out. In 14/15 where the league made $83.5 million that is split 14 ways after schools like GT and FSU get a travel and expense check.

(06-15-2015 03:08 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 02:45 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 11:56 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
SEC will distribute $31.07M per school in revenue, sources told @ESPN. League made record $455M past year
10:07 AM - 29 May 2015

I see it was posted on the Realignment board, but I don't think it's been discussed here. And I don't want to jump into a conversation that's already on page 14.

If accurate, the ACC will be a cool ~$8-9M behind SEC payouts this year, and primed to only increase over the next 5-10 years. That's much more than I was expecting. I believe they were around a $21M average last year.

If accurate, I hope FSU's on the phone with Texas, OU and ND about forming their own conference. Heck, even if it's not accurate, I'd still meet with them as a contingency.

OK...Here we go.... next year it will be announced (VIA TAX return) that some ACC Schools (bowl eligible) were close to 30M....I am guessing 28-29M..

Ok were do I get this information from....

First the ACC made 83.5 from the CFP, and the ACC only distributes that to the 11 bowl teams...

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

Second GT budgeted 23M from the ACC, the year before they budgeted 17.9 but tax return shows 19.2M.... SO lets say that GT was smoking crack and they only get 22M you ad that plus 6 Million (1.5Million for travel) is 28M....
Not to shabby for a conf without their own network..... I bet FSU is over the 30M..

Link
http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/07/...ch-budget/

The ACC's bowl distribution formula is an equal distribution after some travel and expense money is doled out - in 13/14 there were 13 teams in the distribution Syracuse and Pitt in - MD - out. In 14/15 where the league made $83.5 million that is split 14 ways after schools like GT and FSU get a travel and expense check.

OK Fixed.... so basically 28M... only 3 million behind SEC without a network....interesting..