Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
P5 Distributions
Author Message
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #41
RE: P5 Distributions
I'll say this. I don't personally have any stroke because my personal IPTAY membership isn't the largest, but my family has and does and it has afforded me many opportunities outside of Clemson related occasions to interact with people who not only are in the know they are involved with decision making processes. Two of them involve hunt clubs where I inherited memberships. At thee hunt clubs we spend a lot of time discussing Clemson athletics. I've never claimed to be a major player in Clemson athletics but I do share a supper table with people who are, either through IPTAY or Clemson BOT membership. JR has told me stuff that up until he shared it I disregarded as fire pit bravado. Stuff never mentioned on any Clemson message board or in any other source. He's proven to me he has at least a little inside knowledge concerning college athletics. All I've ever seen you prove is that you hate the Big 10's CIC.
05-26-2018 02:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyPaco Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,944
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 275
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #42
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-26-2018 02:07 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'll say this. I don't personally have any stroke because my personal IPTAY membership isn't the largest, but my family has and does and it has afforded me many opportunities outside of Clemson related occasions to interact with people who not only are in the know they are involved with decision making processes. Two of them involve hunt clubs where I inherited memberships. At thee hunt clubs we spend a lot of time discussing Clemson athletics. I've never claimed to be a major player in Clemson athletics but I do share a supper table with people who are, either through IPTAY or Clemson BOT membership. JR has told me stuff that up until he shared it I disregarded as fire pit bravado. Stuff never mentioned on any Clemson message board or in any other source. He's proven to me he has at least a little inside knowledge concerning college athletics. All I've ever seen you prove is that you hate the Big 10's CIC.

I don't hate the CIC, and never stated that, so I see you like inventing narratives for people at the same time you call them out for not backing up statements to your satisfaction.

The Big Ten's consortium is a good tool for what it is, and it is a nice thing for the Big Ten to have, just like the other conference academic consortia are nice hat tips to the academic sides of their universities. The Big Ten should actually be congratulated on doing what they do on that front, although it is separately funded by dues paid by member schools so it really isn't a function of their athletic undertakings. What I do dislike are when ignorant Big Ten fanboys repeatedly boast of it as something that it is absolutely not...for instance, like the absolutely false claim that it is a vehicle for shared research funding, or that its programs are unique, or that it plays undue influence in athletic conference decision making because of their false sense of its importance in academia. This is not unlike B12 fanboys boasting of Tier 3 financial windfalls due to the retention of rights to a handful of mostly unmarketable left over sports events. Or the general misuse of AAU membership in discussions of athletic decisions. These things take on lives of their own when they're repeated enough, and it is hard to let it repeatedly slide. So yeah, when I see the equivalent of urban myths, I sometimes call them out for what they are.

But really, I couldn't give a flip about whether you think I know anything nor do I feel compelled to prove anything to you. This topic has already gone off the rails and I've already wasted too much time on it, and I also have to leave so I'll be gone for a good while I'm sure to your relief. In any case, the ACC will likely be well behind the SEC and B10 in these annual tax releases for the next 4 to 5 years, so I don't get the angst when everyone knows what to expect. It is likely going to get worse before it gets better. Things won't get interesting until we see the tax return in May 2021 or 2022. It will probably be 2025 before we'll really start to have a sense of where things are going.
(This post was last modified: 05-26-2018 03:31 AM by CrazyPaco.)
05-26-2018 03:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nole Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,883
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 210
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #43
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-25-2018 10:06 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 06:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 05:58 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 04:24 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The problem with Tier 3 is it is full of kook $. When people talk about Tier 3, it typically includes everything: radio, promotions, sponsorships, stadium signage, along with the gazillions promised by mostly worthless left over event broadcast rights. Every major school has similar tier 3 financial deals except for UT having the LHN.

Do you want to dispute the LHN payout which now averages over 15 million a year, or the 7 million dollar T3 deal that FOX signed with OU, or the 7 million T3 deal ESPN signed with Kansas? Granted who knows how WVU cooks it but the biggest earners aren't fudging any numbers just to make you feel worse or them better. And as I said the rest of them are under 3 million. I think Iowa State makes a little over 2 with some kind of in state network.

But the point stands. Their conference distributed an average of 34.3 and their T3 private contracts are an addition to that figure.

I'm not disputing the LHN. OU's "$7m a year" deal (which is closer to $5.8m over the 10 year term) includes non-live event shows and doesn't account for the part of that that goes back into production costs, which includes over 90 employees that OU hired to produce these shows. That extra millions is getting eaten up in big chunks. I guarantee you that for OU, it is mostly about getting these events on air for publicity/recruiting purposes, and for Learfield who gets to sell chunks of commercial time on them, its about maximizing their investment in OU's multimedia rights deal. It isn't some financial windfall. WVU's was with IMG which includes absolutely everything...corporate, sponsorships, radio, web, etc. When you see people talk about tiers, particularly "tier 3", it is absolute kook talk because it is comparing apples to ice cube trays, and you are no exception.

Well then just go to Gross Total Revenue. Your're 31 million behind the SEC there and 17 million behind the Big 10. Is that just kook talk? Everybody has concessions, radio, licensing fees, trademarked merchandise sales etc. If you want to bury your excuses in that then just go to Gross Total Revenue and get a heavy dose of reality.

The ACC lags in every metric, and significantly. The only place you may not be in 5th place is in viewership and you are nip and tuck with the PAC for last place there.

But to settle the above issue Paco the Big 12 got 7.7 million more on average for just their T1 & T2 than the ACC got for their whole contract. End of story. Anything they got above that was just gravy no matter how you count it. And the T1 & T2 was purely TV revenue. The ACC with the poorest attendance and the smallest venues sure as heck didn't make it up on concessions, merchandising, and radio.

BTW: Your estimate on Sooner TV is out of date. They are in the last few years of that contract so they are getting 7 not an averaged 5. And last word on it from Boren was couple of years ago when he said they netted 3.

Im almost sure this is wrong. Every stat that I have seen the last 12 to 15 years showed the ACC solidly in 3rd place in tv ratings for football, sometimes even giving the BIG a run on tv ratings. For basketball, the ACC is solidly in second place behind the BIG

Interesting. Multiple times on this board I have stated the ACC is regularly around #3 in TV ratings and thus Swofford sucks with his regular #5 in per team payout.

I think the regular response on this board was disagreement.

I think ACC fans sometimes just don't want to admit their leadership has failed them. Don't want to admit the defeat. I wish they would because IF your facts (ones I have stated many times) are right, the ACC should be able to turn it around with someone running the show not just worried about his salary and friends/family getting rich.
05-26-2018 07:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,719
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #44
RE: P5 Distributions
Swofford has done a C+ job, IMO, but his competitors have consistently turned in A- work. So "Yay, he didn't fail", I guess? This conference is capable of so much more...
05-26-2018 08:01 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nole Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,883
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 210
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #45
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-26-2018 08:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Swofford has done a C+ job, IMO, but his competitors have consistently turned in A- work. So "Yay, he didn't fail", I guess? This conference is capable of so much more...

Yup, yet...

"The tax document reported Swofford’s total compensation as $3.3 million. That’s second only to the Pac-12’s Larry Scott ($4.8 million) among Power Five commissioners."
05-26-2018 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #46
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-26-2018 02:00 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 01:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 01:09 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 12:19 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 11:59 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Good for you. Maybe you should actually look into things and then come back and examine some of the irreconcilable garbage he is posting about "tier 3" assuming start up and production costs don't exist.

The words come from athletic directors expressing recognition of the gap.

As a fan, I don't derive my joy from athletic department books.

Nah dude...you are the one who said he was a kook. Present something other than your own opinion to back it up.

I'll say this....JR has confided with me unsolicited information that I have personally heard directly from prominent IPTAY boosters and wasn't public information even among general Clemson fans and only available to people directly connected to various programs. He's a hell of a lot more legitimate of a source than you where I stand. You want to call him a kook then provide something to back it up other than your own opinion.

I already have. And I have more than opinion.

Like I figured. You are full of ****.

Well yeah, I'm full of **** because I deal in facts and not press releases and kook sound bites that try to puff out some conferences' financial chest. Let's take one part of his original post I commented on where he was wrong that the OU deal was $7m a year. It was $5.8m a year over 10 years according to Sports Business Journal article (which I'm sure you can find on Google). Then he realizes that and says that it is $7m a year now because because it is backloaded. Well guess what, every single media deal in sports is backloaded, but that doesn't change what the average per year amount, nor total amount, that the deal was for. Then he adds that Boren said it nets $3 million. So in a few posts we went from $7m a year to $3m, but for how many years and what was that net actually a net on? Clearly it ignores the stated $5 million in start up costs and the 95 people they hired, full and part time, to get it up and going, not to mention those needed to continue production for 10 years. That's all on OU. And who is footing that at the university? Are all or part of their salaries coming out of the athletic budget or the university budget, because the latter would effectively be a university subsidy. Are they counting the money coming in from Learfield that controls selling the commercial slots and corporate sponsorships for this TV deal? Who do you think facilitated the deal with Fox for OU? As I said, OU certainly was doing this primarily for marketing and branding, and the end financial benefit for the rights to these left over athletic events, which are often conflated with the entirety of "Tier 3 rights" that every school has to sell, is minor to negligible.

And don't lose sight of his entire original point: that the left over broadcast rights to these events that only the B12 retains, that are typically incorrectly suggested as the bulk of the value of "Tier 3 rights" (absolutely makes me cringe because it is so inaccurate), and for which include a handful of garbage non-conference basketball games in December and an FCS football game and various Olympic sports are included, are some sort of significant financial benefit for B12 schools. That's not true, at all, and if it were true no other conferences would have started their own networks to bundle these leftover rights together in the first place, as all other four have done. And the conference networks, including the Long Horn Network, are not even technically "Tier 3", at least as far as it is popularly misdefined. They're all partly "Tier 2" because their media partners selectively place content there purposefully to maintain the value of those networks, and how much so depends on how they are structured. So the LHN is not a "Tier 3" network, although it broadcasts "Tier 3" events and lots of filler garbage. Actual conference networks wouldn't work if all they had were just those leftover portions. Yet he was suggesting OU was clearing $7m a year off of these rights which is in the range or more than some reports the Big Ten Network and SEC Network in recent years, and that is with national cable and satellite distribution. And what OU does make from that deal isn't just left over rights to these bottom rung sports events, it is also all sorts of shoulder programing (slot fillers) like coaches and highlight shows, things every school still can produce and "monetize" but are typically rolled in with their rights deals with Learfield, IMG, or the like. And mostly, as mentioned already, when you see "Tier 3" numbers thrown around, they are almost always conflated with rights to everything else: corporate sponsorships, web, signage, radio. Those are things every single school, whether part of a conference network or not, has to sell. At this point, no one is clearing $7m a year on regional distribution of one FCS football game, 8 non-conference hoops cupcakes, and Olympic sports. And yes, when you see someone use the term "Tier 3" in the context of some sort of financial advantage for the B12, it is straight kook speak. All the B12 schools would drop these rights in a nano-second for a linear conference network if they could get UT out of the LHN.

But watch him weave in completely unrelated issues about other media contracts that no one is debating. Straw man.

And I've watched your shtick for years.

1. I initially stated OU's Tier 3 was for 7 but that they had overhead deducted from it.

2. To make this real simple the Big 12 averaged 34.3 million for a portion of their TV revenue. The ACC averaged 26.6. That's a 7.7 million dollar difference no matter how you try to pettifog the issue and it doesn't even include all of their rights.

3. If you want to throw an umbrella over all of the minutia that might be included in the different interpretations of T3 rights (the signage, the merchandise sales, concessions, radio, etc.) then as I suggested the Gross Total Revenue is the next way to compare. But you don't want to go there because the difference is even larger.

4. I have nothing against the ACC. But I've been here for six years and you have an established pattern. Every year when attendance numbers, total revenue numbers and TV revenue numbers come out you immediately attack the source, or attack the methodology, or point to any of the myriad of nuanced statistics to avoid the big picture.

What difference does it make to nitpick OU's T3 deal with FOX? Whether it netted them 3 million or 5 million or all 7 million OU's Gross Total Revenue was around 6th or 7th in the nation in the last reported year and was in the neighborhood of $155 million and no matter what is nitpicked they earned more in TV rights by nearly 10 million than did most of the ACC. The Big 12 averaged 107 million per school in Gross Total Revenue. The ACC averaged 92.8 Million. So you can goo with the TV revenue and look at a 7 million dollar difference or you can argue all of the minutia and look at an average of 14 million dollars in difference. And those figures came from the Equity in Athletics site.

Your whole approach to any argument on this board is to hit your opposition with a label (kook in this case) to attempt to diminish their stature and to constantly shift the focus of the argument away from the bold facts and into an area where you can quibble. Either all press releases are false and flawed or biased, or all conveyance of information is inaccurate, or the procedures or parameters of the information are not to your liking. You set yourself up as the god of judging any information that is rendered and yet you never engage the essence of what is posted. That's a great avoidance technique for conducting even rudimentary comparisons.

The whole process you enact is right out of the political playbook and is merely polemical. That's great for a college debate team. But it reminds me of an old Biblical adage which paraphrased essentially says, "He would rather strain at a gnat and swallow a camel than admit the truth."

No matter how you shake this out Paco it comes down to the fact that Iowa State and Kansas State earned 34.3 million for TV revenue (and that's not even all of it) from the Big 12's distribution and Florida State and Clemson received between 27 and 30 million while the ACC as a whole averaged 26.6. And the fans and alumni at Clemson and Florida State have legitimate reasons to ask the question, "Why?"

On an ancillary note from another post in this thread, it is ironic that Scott and Swoffod earn the most among the P5's commissioners. Sankey right now is the commissioner of the conference which earns the most, and yet he is paid the least. Now part of that is because he is new, but even Slive didn't earn more than Scott and Swofford.
(This post was last modified: 05-26-2018 12:41 PM by JRsec.)
05-26-2018 12:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nole Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,883
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 210
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #47
RE: P5 Distributions
"The whole process is right out of the political playbook and is merely polemical. That's great for a college debate team. But it reminds me of an old Biblical adage which paraphrased essentially says, "He would rather strain at a gnat and swallow a camel than admit the truth."

No matter how you shake this out Paco it comes down to the fact that Iowa State and Kansas State earned 34.3 million for TV revenue (and not all of it) from the Big 12's distribution and the Florida State and Clemson received between 27 and 30 million while the ACC as a whole averaged 26.6. And the fans and alumni at Clemson and Florida State have legitimate reasons to question, "Why?"

On an ancillary note from another post in this thread, it is ironic that Scott and Swoffod earn the most among the P5's commissioners. Sankey right now is the commissioner of the conference which earns the most, and yet he is paid the least. Now part of that is because he is new, but even Slive didn't earn more than Scott and Swofford. "


Ouch. Whole lot of truth here.
05-26-2018 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,261
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 546
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #48
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-26-2018 07:45 AM)nole Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 10:06 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 06:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 05:58 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Do you want to dispute the LHN payout which now averages over 15 million a year, or the 7 million dollar T3 deal that FOX signed with OU, or the 7 million T3 deal ESPN signed with Kansas? Granted who knows how WVU cooks it but the biggest earners aren't fudging any numbers just to make you feel worse or them better. And as I said the rest of them are under 3 million. I think Iowa State makes a little over 2 with some kind of in state network.

But the point stands. Their conference distributed an average of 34.3 and their T3 private contracts are an addition to that figure.



I'm not disputing the LHN. OU's "$7m a year" deal (which is closer to $5.8m over the 10 year term) includes non-live event shows and doesn't account for the part of that that goes back into production costs, which includes over 90 employees that OU hired to produce these shows. That extra millions is getting eaten up in big chunks. I guarantee you that for OU, it is mostly about getting these events on air for publicity/recruiting purposes, and for Learfield who gets to sell chunks of commercial time on them, its about maximizing their investment in OU's multimedia rights deal. It isn't some financial windfall. WVU's was with IMG which includes absolutely everything...corporate, sponsorships, radio, web, etc. When you see people talk about tiers, particularly "tier 3", it is absolute kook talk because it is comparing apples to ice cube trays, and you are no exception.

Well then just go to Gross Total Revenue. Your're 31 million behind the SEC there and 17 million behind the Big 10. Is that just kook talk? Everybody has concessions, radio, licensing fees, trademarked merchandise sales etc. If you want to bury your excuses in that then just go to Gross Total Revenue and get a heavy dose of reality.

The ACC lags in every metric, and significantly. The only place you may not be in 5th place is in viewership and you are nip and tuck with the PAC for last place there.

But to settle the above issue Paco the Big 12 got 7.7 million more on average for just their T1 & T2 than the ACC got for their whole contract. End of story. Anything they got above that was just gravy no matter how you count it. And the T1 & T2 was purely TV revenue. The ACC with the poorest attendance and the smallest venues sure as heck didn't make it up on concessions, merchandising, and radio.

BTW: Your estimate on Sooner TV is out of date. They are in the last few years of that contract so they are getting 7 not an averaged 5. And last word on it from Boren was couple of years ago when he said they netted 3.

Im almost sure this is wrong. Every stat that I have seen the last 12 to 15 years showed the ACC solidly in 3rd place in tv ratings for football, sometimes even giving the BIG a run on tv ratings. For basketball, the ACC is solidly in second place behind the BIG

Interesting. Multiple times on this board I have stated the ACC is regularly around #3 in TV ratings and thus Swofford sucks with his regular #5 in per team payout.

I think the regular response on this board was disagreement.

I think ACC fans sometimes just don't want to admit their leadership has failed them. Don't want to admit the defeat. I wish they would because IF your facts (ones I have stated many times) are right, the ACC should be able to turn it around with someone running the show not just worried about his salary and friends/family getting rich.

We have several astute posters on this board who have put up stats on tv ratings from respected sources on multiple occasions. You did not enlighten anyone with your observations and no one disagree with you about the tv ratings. Some Folks have disagreed with you regarding whether or not Swofford has been as bad as you say, for various reasons. I personally think you lay too much blame on Swofford for a lot of issues and not nearly enough blame on the presidents, whom Swofford represents. He cannot make moves for the conference without their approvals. My personal belief is that some folks want to always try to place the blame on Swofford because to them its easier and more acceptable than admitting that the president of their university shares some responsibility in these "terrible" tv deals and other "terrible decisions" that the ACC has made. So of course Swofford becomes the scapegoat.

Im no lover of the things that Swofford has done on behalf of the ACC. But its silly to try to place the blame on him.
05-26-2018 02:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #49
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-26-2018 02:20 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 07:45 AM)nole Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 10:06 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 06:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 05:58 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  I'm not disputing the LHN. OU's "$7m a year" deal (which is closer to $5.8m over the 10 year term) includes non-live event shows and doesn't account for the part of that that goes back into production costs, which includes over 90 employees that OU hired to produce these shows. That extra millions is getting eaten up in big chunks. I guarantee you that for OU, it is mostly about getting these events on air for publicity/recruiting purposes, and for Learfield who gets to sell chunks of commercial time on them, its about maximizing their investment in OU's multimedia rights deal. It isn't some financial windfall. WVU's was with IMG which includes absolutely everything...corporate, sponsorships, radio, web, etc. When you see people talk about tiers, particularly "tier 3", it is absolute kook talk because it is comparing apples to ice cube trays, and you are no exception.

Well then just go to Gross Total Revenue. Your're 31 million behind the SEC there and 17 million behind the Big 10. Is that just kook talk? Everybody has concessions, radio, licensing fees, trademarked merchandise sales etc. If you want to bury your excuses in that then just go to Gross Total Revenue and get a heavy dose of reality.

The ACC lags in every metric, and significantly. The only place you may not be in 5th place is in viewership and you are nip and tuck with the PAC for last place there.

But to settle the above issue Paco the Big 12 got 7.7 million more on average for just their T1 & T2 than the ACC got for their whole contract. End of story. Anything they got above that was just gravy no matter how you count it. And the T1 & T2 was purely TV revenue. The ACC with the poorest attendance and the smallest venues sure as heck didn't make it up on concessions, merchandising, and radio.

BTW: Your estimate on Sooner TV is out of date. They are in the last few years of that contract so they are getting 7 not an averaged 5. And last word on it from Boren was couple of years ago when he said they netted 3.

Im almost sure this is wrong. Every stat that I have seen the last 12 to 15 years showed the ACC solidly in 3rd place in tv ratings for football, sometimes even giving the BIG a run on tv ratings. For basketball, the ACC is solidly in second place behind the BIG

Interesting. Multiple times on this board I have stated the ACC is regularly around #3 in TV ratings and thus Swofford sucks with his regular #5 in per team payout.

I think the regular response on this board was disagreement.

I think ACC fans sometimes just don't want to admit their leadership has failed them. Don't want to admit the defeat. I wish they would because IF your facts (ones I have stated many times) are right, the ACC should be able to turn it around with someone running the show not just worried about his salary and friends/family getting rich.

We have several astute posters on this board who have put up stats on tv ratings from respected sources on multiple occasions. You did not enlighten anyone with your observations and no one disagree with you about the tv ratings. Some Folks have disagreed with you regarding whether or not Swofford has been as bad as you say, for various reasons. I personally think you lay too much blame on Swofford for a lot of issues and not nearly enough blame on the presidents, whom Swofford represents. He cannot make moves for the conference without their approvals. My personal belief is that some folks want to always try to place the blame on Swofford because to them its easier and more acceptable than admitting that the president of their university shares some responsibility in these "terrible" tv deals and other "terrible decisions" that the ACC has made. So of course Swofford becomes the scapegoat.

Im no lover of the things that Swofford has done on behalf of the ACC. But its silly to try to place the blame on him.

Except his son's deal which was sublet to Yes proved to be quite the impediment to the pursuance of the ACCN at an earlier date.
05-26-2018 02:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,261
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 546
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #50
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-26-2018 02:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 02:20 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 07:45 AM)nole Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 10:06 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 06:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well then just go to Gross Total Revenue. Your're 31 million behind the SEC there and 17 million behind the Big 10. Is that just kook talk? Everybody has concessions, radio, licensing fees, trademarked merchandise sales etc. If you want to bury your excuses in that then just go to Gross Total Revenue and get a heavy dose of reality.

The ACC lags in every metric, and significantly. The only place you may not be in 5th place is in viewership and you are nip and tuck with the PAC for last place there.

But to settle the above issue Paco the Big 12 got 7.7 million more on average for just their T1 & T2 than the ACC got for their whole contract. End of story. Anything they got above that was just gravy no matter how you count it. And the T1 & T2 was purely TV revenue. The ACC with the poorest attendance and the smallest venues sure as heck didn't make it up on concessions, merchandising, and radio.

BTW: Your estimate on Sooner TV is out of date. They are in the last few years of that contract so they are getting 7 not an averaged 5. And last word on it from Boren was couple of years ago when he said they netted 3.

Im almost sure this is wrong. Every stat that I have seen the last 12 to 15 years showed the ACC solidly in 3rd place in tv ratings for football, sometimes even giving the BIG a run on tv ratings. For basketball, the ACC is solidly in second place behind the BIG

Interesting. Multiple times on this board I have stated the ACC is regularly around #3 in TV ratings and thus Swofford sucks with his regular #5 in per team payout.

I think the regular response on this board was disagreement.

I think ACC fans sometimes just don't want to admit their leadership has failed them. Don't want to admit the defeat. I wish they would because IF your facts (ones I have stated many times) are right, the ACC should be able to turn it around with someone running the show not just worried about his salary and friends/family getting rich.

We have several astute posters on this board who have put up stats on tv ratings from respected sources on multiple occasions. You did not enlighten anyone with your observations and no one disagree with you about the tv ratings. Some Folks have disagreed with you regarding whether or not Swofford has been as bad as you say, for various reasons. I personally think you lay too much blame on Swofford for a lot of issues and not nearly enough blame on the presidents, whom Swofford represents. He cannot make moves for the conference without their approvals. My personal belief is that some folks want to always try to place the blame on Swofford because to them its easier and more acceptable than admitting that the president of their university shares some responsibility in these "terrible" tv deals and other "terrible decisions" that the ACC has made. So of course Swofford becomes the scapegoat.

Im no lover of the things that Swofford has done on behalf of the ACC. But its silly to try to place the blame on him.

Except his son's deal which was sublet to Yes proved to be quite the impediment to the pursuance of the ACCN at an earlier date.

I dont know if that was the case or not. It doesnt matter because it takes nothing away from my original point. It seems that the ACC did not do an ACCN years ago because they did not feel they had sufficient markets with 4 schools being concentrated in one small state. I believe this came up after the BIGN was up and running and before the SEC embarked on their channel. Once SU, Pitt and ND were in, along with Loiusville to replace Maryland, the ACC now had 4 different additional states and more of a national market with ND. There was no question that the league had plenty enough markets to launch their own channel.

Whatever happened before with Swoffords son, whether it impeded an ACCN or not, it was the presidents who decided yay or nay. Not Swofford. And if he worked out a deal for his son that impeded the progress of the ACC, its up to the presidents (FSU, Clemson etc... included) to do something about that. My point still stands. Folks are placing way too much blame on Swofford. The blame should be placed equally among the 15 ACC presidents. Really, 12 presidents (including Maryland) because all these "terrible" things were decided before SU, Pitt ND and Louisville came in.
(This post was last modified: 05-26-2018 03:48 PM by cuseroc.)
05-26-2018 03:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Offline
Cards Prognosticater
Jersey Retired

Posts: 26,753
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1072
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #51
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-25-2018 05:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't think everyone yet understands just how bad the 2010 ACC TV contract was relative to the other power conference contracts... I feel like the ACC is on track to fix it, but still years away from truly being paid what they deserve... and make no mistake, this IS due to poor negotiating in the past.

+3 Spot on!04-rock
05-26-2018 03:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,719
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #52
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-26-2018 02:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 02:20 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  ...I'm no lover of the things that Swofford has done on behalf of the ACC. But its silly to try to place the blame on him.

Except his son's deal which was sublet to Yes proved to be quite the impediment to the pursuance of the ACCN at an earlier date.

I'm not aware of the details of the YES Network contract to show ACC sports. The only information I found stated that Raycom subleased the rights to Fox, which in turn subleased them again to YES. Highly inefficient: not one, or two, but THREE middle-men skimmed profits off what should've been ACC tv revenue.

I agree with CuseRoc that Swofford simply isn't as powerful as some people make him out to be. For this reason, I limit my criticism of the man to the fact that he's been merely adequate while his toughest competitors have been outstanding.

Let's face it: for the majority of the history of the ACC, it has been ruled by a subgroup of UNC, Duke, NC State and UVa (and usually Wake Forest), none of which were traditionally "football-first" schools.

This won't be a popular statement, but the biggest mistake the ACC ever made was also its very first decision: including 4 schools from North Carolina. Every "bad" decision since then has had its roots in that one. JMO though.

Can it be fixed? I think so, but it will take time.
05-26-2018 04:01 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hallcity Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,682
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Duke
Location:
Post: #53
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-26-2018 04:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 02:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 02:20 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  ...I'm no lover of the things that Swofford has done on behalf of the ACC. But its silly to try to place the blame on him.

Except his son's deal which was sublet to Yes proved to be quite the impediment to the pursuance of the ACCN at an earlier date.

I'm not aware of the details of the YES Network contract to show ACC sports. The only information I found stated that Raycom subleased the rights to Fox, which in turn subleased them again to YES. Highly inefficient: not one, or two, but THREE middle-men skimmed profits off what should've been ACC tv revenue.

I agree with CuseRoc that Swofford simply isn't as powerful as some people make him out to be. For this reason, I limit my criticism of the man to the fact that he's been merely adequate while his toughest competitors have been outstanding.

Let's face it: for the majority of the history of the ACC, it has been ruled by a subgroup of UNC, Duke, NC State and UVa (and usually Wake Forest), none of which were traditionally "football-first" schools.

This won't be a popular statement, but the biggest mistake the ACC ever made was also its very first decision: including 4 schools from North Carolina. Every "bad" decision since then has had its roots in that one. JMO though.

Can it be fixed? I think so, but it will take time.

Great. A Va Tech fan criticizing the ACC being founded with four schools from NC. Be honest. Your only real problem with that founding meeting at Sedgefield was that your school wasn't invited.
05-26-2018 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,719
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #54
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-26-2018 05:11 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 04:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 02:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 02:20 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  ...I'm no lover of the things that Swofford has done on behalf of the ACC. But its silly to try to place the blame on him.

Except his son's deal which was sublet to Yes proved to be quite the impediment to the pursuance of the ACCN at an earlier date.

I'm not aware of the details of the YES Network contract to show ACC sports. The only information I found stated that Raycom subleased the rights to Fox, which in turn subleased them again to YES. Highly inefficient: not one, or two, but THREE middle-men skimmed profits off what should've been ACC tv revenue.

I agree with CuseRoc that Swofford simply isn't as powerful as some people make him out to be. For this reason, I limit my criticism of the man to the fact that he's been merely adequate while his toughest competitors have been outstanding.

Let's face it: for the majority of the history of the ACC, it has been ruled by a subgroup of UNC, Duke, NC State and UVa (and usually Wake Forest), none of which were traditionally "football-first" schools.

This won't be a popular statement, but the biggest mistake the ACC ever made was also its very first decision: including 4 schools from North Carolina. Every "bad" decision since then has had its roots in that one. JMO though.

Can it be fixed? I think so, but it will take time.

Great. A Va Tech fan criticizing the ACC being founded with four schools from NC. Be honest. Your only real problem with that founding meeting at Sedgefield was that your school wasn't invited.

Having VT from the start would've probably helped, but it wouldn't have solved the current problem of having too many teams in one state. Oh, and having most of the smallest P5 schools all in one conference doesn't help much, either.

That said, I genuinely like all of the schools in the ACC and would like to see VT play all of them in all sports. But this is a business, and sometimes business decisions must be made. I'm just saying that the original decision - to create a new league with half of the teams being from a single state - was, in hindsight, not a good BUSINESS decision.

Really, there shouldn't be any controversy in that statement - I'm not putting down any school, just saying it was TOO MANY.
05-26-2018 06:06 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,319
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 444
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #55
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-26-2018 04:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 02:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 02:20 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  ...I'm no lover of the things that Swofford has done on behalf of the ACC. But its silly to try to place the blame on him.

Except his son's deal which was sublet to Yes proved to be quite the impediment to the pursuance of the ACCN at an earlier date.

I'm not aware of the details of the YES Network contract to show ACC sports. The only information I found stated that Raycom subleased the rights to Fox, which in turn subleased them again to YES. Highly inefficient: not one, or two, but THREE middle-men skimmed profits off what should've been ACC tv revenue.

I agree with CuseRoc that Swofford simply isn't as powerful as some people make him out to be. For this reason, I limit my criticism of the man to the fact that he's been merely adequate while his toughest competitors have been outstanding.

Let's face it: for the majority of the history of the ACC, it has been ruled by a subgroup of UNC, Duke, NC State and UVa (and usually Wake Forest), none of which were traditionally "football-first" schools.

This won't be a popular statement, but the biggest mistake the ACC ever made was also its very first decision: including 4 schools from North Carolina. Every "bad" decision since then has had its roots in that one. JMO though.

Can it be fixed? I think so, but it will take time.

UNC and Duke used to be football-first schools long ago, but then Jim Valvano showed up and changed everything. I can see where UNC really does want to be more in the football group and less in the basketball/Olympic sports group, but the absolute best comparison I can make about UNC football is that it's similar to Oregon football, minus the constantly changing unis & helmets (these even get tiresome to me as an Oregon fan). Believe it or not, the state of North Carolina, like the state of Oregon, has a lot to offer in terms of natural beauty of the state, and unlike Oregon, UNC football doesn't have a Phil Knight. UNC should take a page from Oregon's book and just let FSU & Clemson lead in football though, much like how Oregon lets USC, UCLA, & Stanford lead. NC State, though, definitely is one odd duck. You can't really compare them to Oregon State, because the Wolfpack have a much bigger stadium and a bigger fanbase than the Beavers. However, when you do start comparing the two teams, NC State hasn't really done that much to push itself that much ahead of Oregon State. Adding Jim Valvano to the mix, and you see the possibility of an early "Kentucky" (very strong basketball) type dynasty beginning to form.
05-27-2018 01:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hallcity Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,682
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Duke
Location:
Post: #56
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-27-2018 01:21 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 04:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 02:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 02:20 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  ...I'm no lover of the things that Swofford has done on behalf of the ACC. But its silly to try to place the blame on him.

Except his son's deal which was sublet to Yes proved to be quite the impediment to the pursuance of the ACCN at an earlier date.

I'm not aware of the details of the YES Network contract to show ACC sports. The only information I found stated that Raycom subleased the rights to Fox, which in turn subleased them again to YES. Highly inefficient: not one, or two, but THREE middle-men skimmed profits off what should've been ACC tv revenue.

I agree with CuseRoc that Swofford simply isn't as powerful as some people make him out to be. For this reason, I limit my criticism of the man to the fact that he's been merely adequate while his toughest competitors have been outstanding.

Let's face it: for the majority of the history of the ACC, it has been ruled by a subgroup of UNC, Duke, NC State and UVa (and usually Wake Forest), none of which were traditionally "football-first" schools.

This won't be a popular statement, but the biggest mistake the ACC ever made was also its very first decision: including 4 schools from North Carolina. Every "bad" decision since then has had its roots in that one. JMO though.

Can it be fixed? I think so, but it will take time.

UNC and Duke used to be football-first schools long ago, but then Jim Valvano showed up and changed everything. I can see where UNC really does want to be more in the football group and less in the basketball/Olympic sports group, but the absolute best comparison I can make about UNC football is that it's similar to Oregon football, minus the constantly changing unis & helmets (these even get tiresome to me as an Oregon fan). Believe it or not, the state of North Carolina, like the state of Oregon, has a lot to offer in terms of natural beauty of the state, and unlike Oregon, UNC football doesn't have a Phil Knight. UNC should take a page from Oregon's book and just let FSU & Clemson lead in football though, much like how Oregon lets USC, UCLA, & Stanford lead. NC State, though, definitely is one odd duck. You can't really compare them to Oregon State, because the Wolfpack have a much bigger stadium and a bigger fanbase than the Beavers. However, when you do start comparing the two teams, NC State hasn't really done that much to push itself that much ahead of Oregon State. Adding Jim Valvano to the mix, and you see the possibility of an early "Kentucky" (very strong basketball) type dynasty beginning to form.

Jim Valvano showed up and changed everything? If you want to give credit or blame to anyone, give it to Everett Case but CD Chesley may be even more important and most reading this board have never heard of him.
05-27-2018 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalPanther Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,864
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Pitt RPI
Location: Eurotrash
Post: #57
RE: P5 Distributions
The 2010 TV contract is an albatross around the ACCs neck as stated earlier in this thread and many times on this board. /thread
05-27-2018 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,719
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #58
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-27-2018 12:30 PM)SoCalPanther Wrote:  The 2010 TV contract is an albatross around the ACCs neck as stated earlier in this thread and many times on this board. /thread

[Image: FEP129.jpg?height=400&width=332]
05-27-2018 03:59 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalPanther Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,864
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Pitt RPI
Location: Eurotrash
Post: #59
RE: P5 Distributions
It is an ancient Mariner,
And he stoppeth one of three.
'By thy long grey beard and glittering eye,
Now wherefore stopp'st thou me?

.....
05-27-2018 08:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nole Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,883
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 210
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #60
RE: P5 Distributions
(05-27-2018 12:30 PM)SoCalPanther Wrote:  The 2010 TV contract is an albatross around the ACCs neck as stated earlier in this thread and many times on this board. /thread

Yup. But we got Raycom and Swoff got his kid a job.
05-28-2018 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.