(04-27-2018 10:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote: (04-27-2018 09:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: (04-27-2018 02:25 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote: I think everyone is reading too much into these comments. How can one fixate on a non-defined vague term like "significantly" while ignoring "conservative and strong" and "very, very beneficial" while also forgetting that it flat out says quantitative projections for the network aren't yet fully developed. The take home point isn't comparing $ to $, it is that it is obvious that the Pitt athletic administration is very high on the ACC Network and its future, and for Pitt specifically, its studio network upgrades are coming in on time and under budget.
Well, at least to me, the entire statement seems to support concerns when it comes to the early years of the ACCN:
"it will take a few years for it to actually increase significantly over what we get right now from television revenue from the ACC."
While you are correct it doesn't say there will be no increase, I think reasonable people can interpret this statement as meaning that the initial increase will likely only be in the $3 million range specifically because the significantly increased monies would be the $8-10 million figure that has been put forth by others like Stan Wilcox at FSU and I believe Whit Babcock at VT but I could be wrong about him being the second AD that has echoed Stan Wilcox' statement. Wilcox also indicated the projections would be $10-15 million down the road. So it seems some think it will be at least $8 million quite soon after the ACCN is up and running.
Considering the ACC only got a little less than $16 million from the ACC TV contracts for 2015-16, would anyone characterize a potential jump by $4-7 million as being not much higher than what we get now, which is what the statement above says to me?
I suppose you know the Pitt administrators better than I do, but that wording is odd.
Cheers,
Neil
Why would anyone be comparing the increase in what a network would bring over other tv money in 2019-20 to what the ACC received in 2015-16? That would be odd. They may not know the exact quantity that the network will bring, other than the "conservative" projections (which is what they'd plan budgets with), but they would pretty much know the amount the other media contracts will bring in FY2020. Academic and athletic administrators definitely don't think like message board posters, I can guarantee that. The only people expressing any sort of concern about the network are people absolutely not plugged into what is going on inside the conference, which I think is telling. There is not the slightest indication out of any one of the 15 members, or ESPN, that the Network isn't going to be successful and beneficial. But it is as if some think there is a big conspiracy in the ACC to dupe people who are primarily fans of conference revenues.
There are start up costs, and those aren't just what is being put up by individual schools for cameras and studios. It is unrealistic to think a brand new network is going to immediately catch up to something with a 5 to 10 year head start and it is equally unrealistic to think that it will never grow from its launch, especially after start-up costs are recouped. I don't get the angst, other than trying to win some message board dick measuring contest with fanboys from other conferences. Contracts are always backloaded. Message board and blog comparisons between conference are never apples to apples. But then, there is a crowd whose SEC-***** envy manifests as ACC loathing and jumps on every chance to be negative. But I've watched their posts for years now, and they been almost entirely wrong at every turn with their predictable predictions of failure and inability to compete. Remember, they were all pretty much adamant a network wasn't even going to happen in the first place. If they end up being right and the ACC is buried by an avalanche of Big10 and SEC dollars, then they may get their fantasy wish to be free agents in 15 years or so. But if the network is successful and other things take care of themselves, baring unforseen upheaval, the GOR will be extended again at some point down the line. If that doesn't happen by 2030 or so, then things might not be panning out. Until then it serves absolutely no purpose to be Eeyores.
Of course contracts are back-loaded, but you do realize the back-loaded end over let's say a 20 year deal isn't like $5 million gaps per team between each and every year, right? They are usually less than $2 million gaps per team, per year. Example, after the ACC TV contract was renegotiated for the additions of SU, Pitt and ND the figures from FY 13-14 to FY 14-15, the total ACC TV package only increased $20.7 million, or just under $1.5 million per team for full members. Based upon ND's total conference shares it appears the Irish gets a 1/15th share of approximately 20% of the total TV contract $$$ that year.
But even if you weren't familiar with all those numbers (since many posters aren't interested in those things)
and even if the administrator actually meant not much different than what they know Pitt will receive from the ACC TV contract in 2019-20, then the statement they made is not in sync with what a couple of other administrators have indicated, particularly Stan Wilcox who said the ACCN would be worth between $8-10 million more for FSU and down the road between $10-15 million more per team.
Based upon what we know was distributed per team for FY 2015-16 (and not adjusted upward for the rumored $3 million a year per school for not having a network in place), the FY 2019-20 tv contract distribution would likely be $22-24 million per team. So an increase of $8 million that year from the ACCN on top of $24 million is substantial, since it would be a 33% increase.
Now back to the statement made by a Pitt administrator, the only figures one can conceivably state would "not be significantly greater" than receiving the projected ACC TV contract for that year would still be in the $2-4 million range (my point in my post), since anything above that would be a 20% increase. And I suspect most of us would LOVE even a 10% increase in our income, no less 20%, especially conservative stoic ADs.
So unless they truly believe the ACCN is only initially going to make $2-4 million per team then their statement is at the very least at odds with a picture others in the conference (not message board fans) are attempting to portray. So is the truth Pitt's $2-4 million a year for the initial 2 years of the ACCN, is it FSU's $8-10 million a year, or is it somewhere in-between? I suspect it is likely the latter, which is why I am standing by my prediction of $5-7 million. I have been known to be wrong so don't bet the house on that prediction.
At the very least I hope you can understand how and why expectations of some posters were raised. It wasn't simply message board posters making crap up.
As for the rest of your post, I don't disagree with much of that rant. But you know that already, so I know that wasn't for my benefit.
Cheers,
Neil