(05-23-2018 11:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2018 09:55 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-23-2018 08:58 AM)nole Wrote:  

(05-23-2018 12:10 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  As I have stated earlier....it shouldn't surprise anyone not firmly in the rainbow and unicorns camp that everything coming from ACC sources is tamping down expectations. We've become used to the ACC failing to meet expectations.

Just can't wait to see the spin from the rainbows crowd since FSU and Clemson have carried the ACC in football so far since that was the excuse in the last discussions about the TV contract. The excuses should lead to some entertaining mental gymnastics this go round. Since FSU and Clemson have produced the last BCS champion, another CFP champion and a participant in every CFP held. You SOB's can't pin this on us this time around. Perhaps it's time to recognize the shortcomings in your own programs for a change. Especially one add that several prominent posters on here insist was a football add but thus far has yet to deliver.

ACC football gonna have a tough time competing with theses SEC schools moving forward with a $15-$25 Million revenue gap.


ACC just doesn't react to revenue gaps, they don't care. Response is always...'FSU/Clemson should win more and we would make more money.' Then ACC locks in the lowest revenue for 30 years. Brilliant business sense. Then ex Big East schools chime in with 'who cares, we are just happy not to be in the Big East' (news flash, this revenue gap could turn us into the next Big East. Wake up before it is too late).

I cant speak for other BE fans, but from what I gather, it seems that most Louisville, SU and Pitt fans would have preferred to stay in a BE with P5 access than to come to the ACC. The BE had a culture that we all shared and there werent folks who were divisive between north and south like there is in the ACC. But now that we are part of the ACC we want to see this league thrive because whats good for the league is good for our schools. Whats good for our schools is good for the local economies where our schools reside.

I think that all of the programs are concerned about the revenue gaps. People react to these concerns in different ways. Some want to whine about it negatively every chance they get and lash out at others because they dont react in a similar way. Those folks have already decided that the ACCN will not help close the gap with the SEC and BIG, without any evidence to support their feelings, other than reading between the lines of some statement from an AD or such. Those folks think because the ACC made some serious mistakes in the past that these folks cant possibly get anything right even with consultants who are helping in these matters.

Then there is everyone else who also have concerns but choose not to constantly complain about things that have happened in the past but forward thinking folks who are looking towards an ACCN to help with closing revenue gaps of other leagues. Those folks arent just happy to be here. We are all genuinely concerned about the revenue gaps, but most folks are waiting to see more evidence that the gaps can be closed or not beore already deciding that it wont. But one of the dumbest statements on this board is that "the ACC doesnt care about revenue gaps."

Cuseroc, all of our conferences' pay models are under attack. The Big 10 Network's total worth has been going down by 70 million a year. It makes me strongly suspect that they have been divesting their original shares in preparation for a model of operations change that won't include a buy in at some point within the next 5 years.

If I'm right it is a smart move, but it is also why for the short term their payouts are hitting the 50 million mark. They took a big jump last year when the new contract wasn't even in place, but the BTN lost about 6.5 million per fully vested institution in value. Or in other words just about enough to get them within 2 million of the SECN.

Like the PACN being 50% self owned started looking like a real liability in a period of transition from subscription fees to whatever it is that's coming. It will probably be a hybrid model for awhile.

But like it or not the next phase will be to simply pay more to best draws thereby destroying conference unity and leading to smaller total rights payouts in the future. It is an old old ploy of pitting the individual self interests of units within a whole against one another.

Schools now more than ever are going to need the collective bargaining of conference membership and they are going to have to be strong enough to resist the temptation to go it alone. Otherwise the game loses as the haves get richer in the short term while everyone else diminishes ultimately leading to even more disinterest in the sport.

It is the collective number of scholarships that all of our schools offer that give kids a place to compete and try to make their case for a pro sports career. Take away the collective number of opportunities and the risk / reward for the athlete isn't tempting enough to keep them invested.

But corporate America only thinks in terms of quarterly profit statements and stock share values.

When we move to a world where Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Alabama, Auburn, L.S.U., Florida, Texas A&M, Tennessee, Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Texas, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Stanford, Washington, Oregon, and Notre Dame are the richest and have left behind their conference mates what will have been gained? Certainly not enough to hold the interest of even their fans except for in those occasional special seasons. Then too their revenues will fall.

Now having said that there are legitimate complaints within conferences with regard to athletic investment levels. Each conference has those schools who intentionally lag in investment in remaining competitive and cruise off of the success of others, or of some particular sport they they are interested in.

So if the sacrifice of the athletic leaders in each conference are to continue to share revenue then those who benefit by it need to do their part to compete at acceptable levels of performance competitive enough to contribute to the overall revenue.

Nobody likes exclusion but each conference should have minimum investment standards and minimum performance standards and a required number and type of sports. I would even argue a required minimum ticket sales as well.

As times get more trying for all of us having those standards will keep us all together longer. It's our best hope against the collective bargaining busting that will soon mark collegiate sports.

All good insight. The BIG may be coming back down to earth with the reduction in distribution, which will bring down their payouts.