SUTomcat linked this interview on the Syracusefan Website. Notheing earth shattering but he did say the ACCN distribution is performing at or better than levels expected.

Article


From the Article Regarding the ACCN:

AB: What is the latest on the ACC Network, which will launch in August of 2019? Is it full systems go at this point?

WB: It has been. And the ACC has been optimistic, but just good to get updated with that. We’re meeting more with ESPN and it’s moving along in a way that we’re all really pleased with, but it’s still at a point that we don’t know of exact numbers and all that. That will depend on distribution. But the thing that we talked about a few years ago is now in a year and a couple months. So it’s coming on. It can’t get here fast enough.

AB: How are your preparations going for that? Has construction on the studios started?

WB: I don’t believe it’s started down there, but it will be in the south end zone down there, down in the media room. A lot of the structure is in place. And out of that $9-10 million for the studio, I think a million or a million and a half is construction and all the rest is equipment. But we’re starting to get all of our people in place. We’ll have about 10 new employees to operate that. And we were very fortunate to have the team that we have now in Hokie Vision, but we hired back a couple of Hokies who had gone and worked at the SEC Network in Arkansas. They were two guys that had worked in our Hokie Vision that went off. So we’re pleased with it. But it’s a major undertaking and we have really good people working on that right now.

AB: That $10 million figure is higher than you originally anticipated.

WB: It was. Yes. And actually, I don’t know that we will spend that much. The Board of Visitors just gave us the ability to that. So hopefully we don’t have to go that high. But yes, it was a little higher, once we really drilled down on it with what it truly cost our SEC counterparts and all that. We kind of had an idea of that. But hopefully the network goes so well that the money we spent to get it off the ground, it will take us a year or two or three to pay it off.

AB: What kind of expectations do you go into that with initially? I assume you’d try to be somewhat conservative with expectations. And you’ve seen the Big Ten pulling back a little bit in terms of its distribution in out-of-state markets. Do you go in with a number in mind of what you expect to get out of this thing?

WB: Yes and no. Of course we see what the Big Ten numbers and the SEC, and to close that gap on that line item is huge. So anything is better. But yeah, I think I probably have a couple figures bouncing around in my head. But the ACC has always cautioned us on that. The performers will start to get built more as these satellite renegotiations come up.

AB: Do you plan a figure into the 2019 budget or is that kind of a bonus whatever revenue it produces?

WB: The ACC gave us some preliminary performer numbers on distribution. And so far, from what I understand, we’re at or better than that. But no, they’ve been very careful not to give us a number. But they also know we pay attention to what the Big Ten and SEC do. So I just want it to be as successful as possible to help recruiting. The revenue will certainly help. But that one line item, as you probably know, I think it’s public info, but the ACC distributed about $28 million per school with their revenue sharing, and the Big Ten and SEC, I think, were between $40 and $50 million. So we don’t need to be the best funded, but we sure would like to close the gap on that.



The answers he gave were cautiously guarded, but it seemed to be overall optimistic.
Im sure the regular "Negative Nancy's" will find some smidgen to point out as being negative and go on as if they are smarter than the rest of us blind, naive idiots.

"The ACC gave us some preliminary performer numbers on distribution. And so far, from what I understand, we’re at or better than that." That's not a lot to go on. "Yay!", I guess?

So the ACC is getting $0 for an ACC Network (unless you count a tiny penalty), but it's better than expected.

Sometimes I think the ACC's issue is really, REALLY low expectations.

$12-$22 million revenue gap.

Damn! I remember so many insisted the ACC would never have more than a $10 Million revenue gap. Yikes!

I'm not part of team "Negative Nancy" ... but everything I hear out of somebody's mouth who is in a position to actually know is being quiet, guarded, and soft selling. I suspect the first year or two of the ACCN, at minimum, will be laughably below the revenue of the BTN/SECN. By the time "satellite renegotiation" or "channel switcheroos with ESPN Classic" or whatever the hell else goes on we're already talking about $150-200m under the bridge... and with the gap quite realistically still there and still 8 figures a year a team.

(05-22-2018 02:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm not part of team "Negative Nancy" ... but everything I hear out of somebody's mouth who is in a position to actually know is being quiet, guarded, and soft selling. I suspect the first year or two of the ACCN, at minimum, will be laughably below the revenue of the BTN/SECN. By the time "satellite renegotiation" or "channel switcheroos with ESPN Classic" or whatever the hell else goes on we're already talking about $150-200m under the bridge... and with the gap quite realistically still there and still 8 figures a year a team.

It seems that babcock was throwing a hint at what he expects the ACCN do do revenue wise when he said:

But hopefully the network goes so well that the money we spent to get it off the ground, it will take us a year or two or three to pay it off.

If the money paid to get the studio at VT up and running equals $10 million, if it takes a year for their share of the ACCN to pay it off, then the first year share would be $10 million per team (maybe a dream). If it takes 2 years then the share could be $5 million average. If it takes 3 years to pay off then we are looking at an average of $3.3 million per year. I knoow it wouldnt be that cut and dry but it gives us some clues. I think it would be some where north of $5 million, like the SEC did their first year.

(05-22-2018 02:38 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 02:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm not part of team "Negative Nancy" ... but everything I hear out of somebody's mouth who is in a position to actually know is being quiet, guarded, and soft selling. I suspect the first year or two of the ACCN, at minimum, will be laughably below the revenue of the BTN/SECN. By the time "satellite renegotiation" or "channel switcheroos with ESPN Classic" or whatever the hell else goes on we're already talking about $150-200m under the bridge... and with the gap quite realistically still there and still 8 figures a year a team.

It seems that babcock was throwing a hint at what he expects the ACCN do do revenue wise when he said:

But hopefully the network goes so well that the money we spent to get it off the ground, it will take us a year or two or three to pay it off.

If the money paid to get the studio at VT up and running equals $10 million, if it takes a year for their share of the ACCN to pay it off, then the first year share would be $10 million per team (maybe a dream). If it takes 2 years then the share could be $5 million average. If it takes 3 years to pay off then we are looking at an average of $3.3 million per year. I knoow it wouldnt be that cut and dry but it gives us some clues. I think it would be some where north of $5 million, like the SEC did their first year.

Good analysis, Cuseroc. So Babcock seems to expect something in the $3M - $10M range (maybe $5M year one?)

(05-22-2018 02:55 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 02:38 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 02:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm not part of team "Negative Nancy" ... but everything I hear out of somebody's mouth who is in a position to actually know is being quiet, guarded, and soft selling. I suspect the first year or two of the ACCN, at minimum, will be laughably below the revenue of the BTN/SECN. By the time "satellite renegotiation" or "channel switcheroos with ESPN Classic" or whatever the hell else goes on we're already talking about $150-200m under the bridge... and with the gap quite realistically still there and still 8 figures a year a team.

It seems that babcock was throwing a hint at what he expects the ACCN do do revenue wise when he said:

But hopefully the network goes so well that the money we spent to get it off the ground, it will take us a year or two or three to pay it off.

If the money paid to get the studio at VT up and running equals $10 million, if it takes a year for their share of the ACCN to pay it off, then the first year share would be $10 million per team (maybe a dream). If it takes 2 years then the share could be $5 million average. If it takes 3 years to pay off then we are looking at an average of $3.3 million per year. I knoow it wouldnt be that cut and dry but it gives us some clues. I think it would be some where north of $5 million, like the SEC did their first year.

Good analysis, Cuseroc. So Babcock seems to expect something in the $3M - $10M range (maybe $5M year one?)

Yep! Im hoping its between $5-7 million first year and would be ecstatic with anything more than that.

(05-22-2018 01:35 PM)nole Wrote:  So the ACC is getting $0 for an ACC Network (unless you count a tiny penalty), but it's better than expected.

Sometimes I think the ACC's issue is really, REALLY low expectations.

Yeah, I think that's true. The question is how much is legit low expectations, and how much is trying to set up the PR game. If you say you expect $5-6M first year, and make fine, you get a reserved "meh". If you try to imply you might not see much return for a few years, and deliver $5M, then you take a victory lap.

There's some positive things you can take from this, as in every single one of these interviews. If I was an optimist, I'd latch onto that "one or two or three years" and tell myself that it was a slip that he said one year first and hedged with two or three years, realizing he had to stick to the party line of not giving any expectations.

However, if I was a pessimist, this line is terrifying:
So I just want it to be as successful as possible to help recruiting. The revenue will certainly help.

What? Come on.

If the ACC gets +$10M from the network plus other sources, $38M is 76% of $50M if that's where you peg the B1G and SEC going. That's pretty much the very bottom line above abject failure and nothing to particularly celebrate other than avoiding total disaster. That puts the ACC right back to the days of distributing $13M to the SEC's $17M. Not to mention all the lost ground in intervening years that's just water under the bridge.

Obviously, I'd rather be at 76% than 56%, but that's pretty ho hum, and even that requires a big increase to get there. I tend to fear that's the BEST case scenario.

80% is getting there.

85%+ is the number that I think you can talk about actual success, given the different nature and potential of the ACC vs SEC and B1G. It's hard to see a way to that number right now though.

We'll see.

(05-22-2018 05:34 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 01:35 PM)nole Wrote:  So the ACC is getting $0 for an ACC Network (unless you count a tiny penalty), but it's better than expected.

Sometimes I think the ACC's issue is really, REALLY low expectations.

Yeah, I think that's true. The question is how much is legit low expectations, and how much is trying to set up the PR game. If you say you expect $5-6M first year, and make fine, you get a reserved "meh". If you try to imply you might not see much return for a few years, and deliver $5M, then you take a victory lap.

There's some positive things you can take from this, as in every single one of these interviews. If I was an optimist, I'd latch onto that "one or two or three years" and tell myself that it was a slip that he said one year first and hedged with two or three years, realizing he had to stick to the party line of not giving any expectations.

However, if I was a pessimist, this line is terrifying:
So I just want it to be as successful as possible to help recruiting. The revenue will certainly help.

What? Come on.

If the ACC gets +$10M from the network plus other sources, $38M is 76% of $50M if that's where you peg the B1G and SEC going. That's pretty much the very bottom line above abject failure and nothing to particularly celebrate other than avoiding total disaster. That puts the ACC right back to the days of distributing $13M to the SEC's $17M. Not to mention all the lost ground in intervening years that's just water under the bridge.

Obviously, I'd rather be at 76% than 56%, but that's pretty ho hum, and even that requires a big increase to get there. I tend to fear that's the BEST case scenario.

80% is getting there.

85%+ is the number that I think you can talk about actual success, given the different nature and potential of the ACC vs SEC and B1G. It's hard to see a way to that number right now though.

We'll see.

What in the name of God does the ACC network have to do with recruiting? Do you really think that high school kids care about conference network distributions? The SEC envy seems overwhelming in some FSU fans. Get over it! We'll find out what the ACC network distributions will be when we find out and we'll deal with it, no matter what it is. Expressions of either optimism or pessimism now say more about you than about what's really going to happen because none of us know.

It's natural to speculate because a lot is on the line. Every bit of expansion the ACC did since '03 has been about football and TV markets (with the exception of VT, which is a political move pure and simple). If the ACCN can't deliver on the reason why 5 of the league members are here (TV markets for football) that's a condemnation of the highest imaginable magnitude of Swofford at the helm of expansion.

(05-22-2018 02:38 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 02:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm not part of team "Negative Nancy" ... but everything I hear out of somebody's mouth who is in a position to actually know is being quiet, guarded, and soft selling. I suspect the first year or two of the ACCN, at minimum, will be laughably below the revenue of the BTN/SECN. By the time "satellite renegotiation" or "channel switcheroos with ESPN Classic" or whatever the hell else goes on we're already talking about $150-200m under the bridge... and with the gap quite realistically still there and still 8 figures a year a team.

It seems that babcock was throwing a hint at what he expects the ACCN do do revenue wise when he said:

But hopefully the network goes so well that the money we spent to get it off the ground, it will take us a year or two or three to pay it off.

If the money paid to get the studio at VT up and running equals $10 million, if it takes a year for their share of the ACCN to pay it off, then the first year share would be $10 million per team (maybe a dream). If it takes 2 years then the share could be $5 million average. If it takes 3 years to pay off then we are looking at an average of $3.3 million per year. I knoow it wouldnt be that cut and dry but it gives us some clues. I think it would be some where north of $5 million, like the SEC did their first year.

To do that you will need a rate in footprint of $1.30 per subscription and .25 cents per subscription out of footprint. I don't think you are going to get the same rates. The best way to push for them would be by some major subscription drives among your alums. The SEC did this prior to our network and we pressured the carriers. It worked.

This year needs to be an all out push by each school to energize their alumni bases to subscribe.

Now what will help you is that apparently the SEC / ACC will share their combined footprints. That you will have over our opening, but it will be assisting us at you opening.

The relevant issue that has not been discussed is your rates. The Big 10 averages a rate of .47 cents per subscription. They get something like a dollar for in footprint and less than .25 cents outside of their footprint. The PAC averaged last year .11 cents for both in market subscriptions and out of footprint subscriptions. That was abysmally low.

I really think that the low end of the ACC averaged rates would be around .35 cents per but with a push in footprint among alums you could boost that a dime and be right there with the BTN rates. What you are not likely to do is average the .74 cents per subscription that the SEC brings in.

So any discussion without the rates is just a guess. The second part of the equation is the subscription numbers. When you have those to numbers you will know what to expect.

But again your spitballing on the negative side is inaccurate. You were being subsidized for not having a network to the tune of about 3 million a year by ESPN. When the 2019 figures come in and you subtract your overhead and subtract the 3 million that ESPN will no longer be subsidizing then if your administrations say it could take two or three years to recoup the overhead understand that they have already factored in the 3 million they are losing in subsidy. That means if it does take three years to recoup your expenses you are actually making 9 million for the first three years, recouping 3 million for your overhead, subtracting the 3 million that had been subsidy, and NETTING an addition 3 million.

And that means that by your 4th year you may well be drawing 7 million more per school in profit once your overhead is gone.

Bust the hell out of your subscriptions and 10 million is not out of the question within 5 years.

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.

(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).

(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.

* Syracuse Orange Boosters

No doubt it would've been nice to add West Virginia last go around. I also understand the ACC politics behind why it didn't happen then (but it could happen if the ACC is ever in a position to add WVU in the future).

Blah, blah, blah

Results will speak for themselves. Let it play out. The ACC will never get as much as the SEC and B1G if Football is the main driver however, things change and Football might not always garner 80% of the media rights. Millennials and their viewing habits will create a huge shift and that is more important than a conference network. They have the attention spans of 5 year olds and a sport that takes 2 hours might have an advantage over one that takes 3.5+hrs

(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."

(05-23-2018 09:05 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Blah, blah, blah

Results will speak for themselves. Let it play out. The ACC will never get as much as the SEC and B1G if Football is the main driver however, things change and Football might not always garner 80% of the media rights. Millennials and their viewing habits will create a huge shift and that is more important than a conference network. They have the attention spans of 5 year olds and a sport that takes 2 hours might have an advantage over one that takes 3.5+hrs

No sport will have an advantage. All of them are sagging with this generation. It's just that basketball hasn't as far to fall.

If schools want to capture Millennials then we are going to have to get into video games with virtual athletes competing in cyber space with virtual athletes from another school. It's the only way that those spoiled by helicopter parents and socially maladapted will ever get involved. You have to make their dorky butts into social media heroes. They aren't interested in real ones.

I totally get why the military is going toward drone warfare. It will be the only way to get that generation to participate in self defense without calling a personal space time out!

(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.

I am still waiting to see the correlation between TV revenue and success on the field, court, whatever. If there is indeed a correlation, shouldn't the dregs of the Big Ten and SEC dominate the have nots? Shouldn't there be a broader pool of football teams in the playoff discussion? If I am not mistaken, cash poor ACC teams have not been replaced by IU, Northwestern, Purdue, Vandy, etc. Aside from facilities and coaching staff, where is the impact and how is it translated to on the field success?