I was interested in looking at the most recent 990's of the ACC and got the following average distribution for the 14:

FY 17 - $26.5 Million
FY 18 - $29.4 Million
FY 19 - $28.8 Million
FY 20 - $32.2 Million
FY 21 - to be released in May of 2022
FY 22 - current year to be released in May of 2023

The graph of estimates starts with the ACC in FY 22 with a distribution of $30.9 million in FY 22. Every nationally generated estimate of ACC revenue I have ever read at least a year behind all the other P-5's because the other P-5's release estimates of total income to be distributed before the current fiscal year even closes.

When the SEC talks about today, they are talking about Fiscal Year 22 which does not end until June 30th in North Carolina. Because of the ACC's conservative accounting practices whenever a comparison is made it's the equivalent of comparing the ACC's last full year, with the SEC's future full year.

The above formula is assuming a 77% ratchet over the term so if go by where the ACC is at year end of 2022 and plug in 77% you are at $62-65 million per school, not $55 m.

Modified accrual accounting is frowned upon by the masters of the Universe since the masters think they can always count their chickens before the hatch.

(04-04-2022 10:40 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  Maybe just maybe the ACC should look at redoing distribution and reward schools for what they do as a whole. If you want better league play throughout especially football like the new commissioner wants then reward these teams who are making the conference better with their play on the field.

I don’t see how giving Wake Forest more money is going to help the situation.

(04-08-2022 02:10 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I was interested in looking at the most recent 990's of the ACC and got the following average distribution for the 14:

FY 17 - $26.5 Million
FY 18 - $29.4 Million
FY 19 - $28.8 Million
FY 20 - $32.2 Million
FY 21 - to be released in May of 2022
FY 22 - current year to be released in May of 2023

The graph of estimates starts with the ACC in FY 22 with a distribution of $30.9 million in FY 22. Every nationally generated estimate of ACC revenue I have ever read at least a year behind all the other P-5's because the other P-5's release estimates of total income to be distributed before the current fiscal year even closes.

When the SEC talks about today, they are talking about Fiscal Year 22 which does not end until June 30th in North Carolina. Because of the ACC's conservative accounting practices whenever a comparison is made it's the equivalent of comparing the ACC's last full year, with the SEC's future full year.

The above formula is assuming a 77% ratchet over the term so if go by where the ACC is at year end of 2022 and plug in 77% you are at $62-65 million per school, not $55 m.

Modified accrual accounting is frowned upon by the masters of the Universe since the masters think they can always count their chickens before the hatch.

I just took your numbers, ran a linear regression through 2029, adding the same $9M bump assumed by NAVIGATE. I got $55.55 million per school in 2029 - $250k higher than NAVIGATE projected. Perhaps there is something they factored in to reduce it that much - IDK. But I clearly see how they got their number.

Now, if you want to argue linear regression is wrong (would be wrong for all P5, so most likely wouldn't help), or that there is some other factor in the ACC's favor, fine. I'm not sure where you got your 77% from.

(04-08-2022 03:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 02:10 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I was interested in looking at the most recent 990's of the ACC and got the following average distribution for the 14:

FY 17 - $26.5 Million
FY 18 - $29.4 Million
FY 19 - $28.8 Million
FY 20 - $32.2 Million
FY 21 - to be released in May of 2022
FY 22 - current year to be released in May of 2023

The graph of estimates starts with the ACC in FY 22 with a distribution of $30.9 million in FY 22. Every nationally generated estimate of ACC revenue I have ever read at least a year behind all the other P-5's because the other P-5's release estimates of total income to be distributed before the current fiscal year even closes.

When the SEC talks about today, they are talking about Fiscal Year 22 which does not end until June 30th in North Carolina. Because of the ACC's conservative accounting practices whenever a comparison is made it's the equivalent of comparing the ACC's last full year, with the SEC's future full year.

The above formula is assuming a 77% ratchet over the term so if go by where the ACC is at year end of 2022 and plug in 77% you are at $62-65 million per school, not $55 m.

Modified accrual accounting is frowned upon by the masters of the Universe since the masters think they can always count their chickens before the hatch.

I just took your numbers, ran a linear regression through 2029, adding the same $9M bump assumed by NAVIGATE. I got $55.55 million per school in 2029 - $250k higher than NAVIGATE projected. Perhaps there is something they factored in to reduce it that much - IDK. But I clearly see how they got their number.

Now, if you want to argue linear regression is wrong (would be wrong for all P5, so most likely wouldn't help), or that there is some other factor in the ACC's favor, fine. I'm not sure where you got your 77% from.

You mean to say you ran a linear regression forward using FY 17, 18, 19, 20 and got the same answer they posted?

Only the ACC and SEC numbers can be relevant as we know what they'll be making for the next 15 or so years. We don't know what the B1G B12 and P12 are going to get in there next contracts which are up for renewal soon.

(04-08-2022 04:44 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 03:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 02:10 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I was interested in looking at the most recent 990's of the ACC and got the following average distribution for the 14:

FY 17 - $26.5 Million
FY 18 - $29.4 Million
FY 19 - $28.8 Million
FY 20 - $32.2 Million
FY 21 - to be released in May of 2022
FY 22 - current year to be released in May of 2023

The graph of estimates starts with the ACC in FY 22 with a distribution of $30.9 million in FY 22. Every nationally generated estimate of ACC revenue I have ever read at least a year behind all the other P-5's because the other P-5's release estimates of total income to be distributed before the current fiscal year even closes.

When the SEC talks about today, they are talking about Fiscal Year 22 which does not end until June 30th in North Carolina. Because of the ACC's conservative accounting practices whenever a comparison is made it's the equivalent of comparing the ACC's last full year, with the SEC's future full year.

The above formula is assuming a 77% ratchet over the term so if go by where the ACC is at year end of 2022 and plug in 77% you are at $62-65 million per school, not $55 m.

Modified accrual accounting is frowned upon by the masters of the Universe since the masters think they can always count their chickens before the hatch.

I just took your numbers, ran a linear regression through 2029, adding the same $9M bump assumed by NAVIGATE. I got $55.55 million per school in 2029 - $250k higher than NAVIGATE projected. Perhaps there is something they factored in to reduce it that much - IDK. But I clearly see how they got their number.

Now, if you want to argue linear regression is wrong (would be wrong for all P5, so most likely wouldn't help), or that there is some other factor in the ACC's favor, fine. I'm not sure where you got your 77% from.

You mean to say you ran a linear regression forward using FY 17, 18, 19, 20 and got the same answer they posted?

After adding the $9M bump in 2026, yes.

(04-08-2022 05:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 04:44 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 03:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 02:10 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I was interested in looking at the most recent 990's of the ACC and got the following average distribution for the 14:

FY 17 - $26.5 Million
FY 18 - $29.4 Million
FY 19 - $28.8 Million
FY 20 - $32.2 Million
FY 21 - to be released in May of 2022
FY 22 - current year to be released in May of 2023

The graph of estimates starts with the ACC in FY 22 with a distribution of $30.9 million in FY 22. Every nationally generated estimate of ACC revenue I have ever read at least a year behind all the other P-5's because the other P-5's release estimates of total income to be distributed before the current fiscal year even closes.

When the SEC talks about today, they are talking about Fiscal Year 22 which does not end until June 30th in North Carolina. Because of the ACC's conservative accounting practices whenever a comparison is made it's the equivalent of comparing the ACC's last full year, with the SEC's future full year.

The above formula is assuming a 77% ratchet over the term so if go by where the ACC is at year end of 2022 and plug in 77% you are at $62-65 million per school, not $55 m.

Modified accrual accounting is frowned upon by the masters of the Universe since the masters think they can always count their chickens before the hatch.

I just took your numbers, ran a linear regression through 2029, adding the same $9M bump assumed by NAVIGATE. I got $55.55 million per school in 2029 - $250k higher than NAVIGATE projected. Perhaps there is something they factored in to reduce it that much - IDK. But I clearly see how they got their number.

Now, if you want to argue linear regression is wrong (would be wrong for all P5, so most likely wouldn't help), or that there is some other factor in the ACC's favor, fine. I'm not sure where you got your 77% from.

You mean to say you ran a linear regression forward using FY 17, 18, 19, 20 and got the same answer they posted?

After adding the $9M bump in 2026, yes.

I think you need to run it an extra year since what they are effectively using last year's number for the ACC relative to everyone else.

(04-08-2022 03:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 02:10 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I was interested in looking at the most recent 990's of the ACC and got the following average distribution for the 14:

FY 17 - $26.5 Million
FY 18 - $29.4 Million
FY 19 - $28.8 Million
FY 20 - $32.2 Million
FY 21 - to be released in May of 2022
FY 22 - current year to be released in May of 2023

The graph of estimates starts with the ACC in FY 22 with a distribution of $30.9 million in FY 22. Every nationally generated estimate of ACC revenue I have ever read at least a year behind all the other P-5's because the other P-5's release estimates of total income to be distributed before the current fiscal year even closes.

When the SEC talks about today, they are talking about Fiscal Year 22 which does not end until June 30th in North Carolina. Because of the ACC's conservative accounting practices whenever a comparison is made it's the equivalent of comparing the ACC's last full year, with the SEC's future full year.

The above formula is assuming a 77% ratchet over the term so if go by where the ACC is at year end of 2022 and plug in 77% you are at $62-65 million per school, not $55 m.

Modified accrual accounting is frowned upon by the masters of the Universe since the masters think they can always count their chickens before the hatch.

I just took your numbers, ran a linear regression through 2029, adding the same $9M bump assumed by NAVIGATE. I got $55.55 million per school in 2029 - $250k higher than NAVIGATE projected. Perhaps there is something they factored in to reduce it that much - IDK. But I clearly see how they got their number.

Now, if you want to argue linear regression is wrong (would be wrong for all P5, so most likely wouldn't help), or that there is some other factor in the ACC's favor, fine. I'm not sure where you got your 77% from.

77% is the raw total rise from their 22 to 29 using their numbers.

Personally I would not use a linear regression going forward because regression assumes you have solid numbers for the past, which they don't they have differing base years. I understand their methodology and in the main it makes sense but my problem is that I know they are watermelons to pumpkins to cantaloupes.

(04-08-2022 04:49 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Only the ACC and SEC numbers can be relevant as we know what they'll be making for the next 15 or so years. We don't know what the B1G B12 and P12 are going to get in there next contracts which are up for renewal soon.

That’s true.

But assuming their new contracts are not much different from the analysis, how bad is the ACC’s current contract? It’s getting about the same amount as the Pac12 is projected to get. Is the ACC’s real value much higher than the Pac12? If the ACC is allowed to renew a contract at 2025, how high will be the value?

(04-09-2022 06:40 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 05:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 04:44 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 03:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 02:10 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I was interested in looking at the most recent 990's of the ACC and got the following average distribution for the 14:

FY 17 - $26.5 Million
FY 18 - $29.4 Million
FY 19 - $28.8 Million
FY 20 - $32.2 Million
FY 21 - to be released in May of 2022
FY 22 - current year to be released in May of 2023

The graph of estimates starts with the ACC in FY 22 with a distribution of $30.9 million in FY 22. Every nationally generated estimate of ACC revenue I have ever read at least a year behind all the other P-5's because the other P-5's release estimates of total income to be distributed before the current fiscal year even closes.

When the SEC talks about today, they are talking about Fiscal Year 22 which does not end until June 30th in North Carolina. Because of the ACC's conservative accounting practices whenever a comparison is made it's the equivalent of comparing the ACC's last full year, with the SEC's future full year.

The above formula is assuming a 77% ratchet over the term so if go by where the ACC is at year end of 2022 and plug in 77% you are at $62-65 million per school, not $55 m.

Modified accrual accounting is frowned upon by the masters of the Universe since the masters think they can always count their chickens before the hatch.

I just took your numbers, ran a linear regression through 2029, adding the same $9M bump assumed by NAVIGATE. I got $55.55 million per school in 2029 - $250k higher than NAVIGATE projected. Perhaps there is something they factored in to reduce it that much - IDK. But I clearly see how they got their number.

Now, if you want to argue linear regression is wrong (would be wrong for all P5, so most likely wouldn't help), or that there is some other factor in the ACC's favor, fine. I'm not sure where you got your 77% from.

You mean to say you ran a linear regression forward using FY 17, 18, 19, 20 and got the same answer they posted?

After adding the $9M bump in 2026, yes.

I think you need to run it an extra year since what they are effectively using last year's number for the ACC relative to everyone else.

In that case, make the final ACC number $57.2M instead of $55.55M.

(04-09-2022 07:31 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 04:49 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Only the ACC and SEC numbers can be relevant as we know what they'll be making for the next 15 or so years. We don't know what the B1G B12 and P12 are going to get in there next contracts which are up for renewal soon.

That’s true.

But assuming their new contracts are not much different from the analysis, how bad is the ACC’s current contract? It’s getting about the same amount as the Pac12 is projected to get. Is the ACC’s real value much higher than the Pac12? If the ACC is allowed to renew a contract at 2025, how high will be the value?

They take the total contract and divide by the number of schools. The P12 is worth less than the ACC, but the ACC has 2.2 more schools. Take the ACC raw number and divide only by 12 and you get about $67 million using their numbers in 2029.

ACC values take a double hit because of Duke Football, because 4 schools are located in NC, and 4 schools are deep within Professional Markets - Boston, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and Miami. When you send Duke a check for football, you are literally robbing the others in the league.

Here's a way to look at it - let's rank football value to the league and basketball value to the league on a 1-10 basis, knowing the revenue on the contract is 80/20.

Duke football is a 1, Duke basketball is a 10. One tenth of 80 is 8. A full shot of 20, is 20 so Duke could be said to be worth 28 out of a possible 100.

Clemson football is a 10, Clemson basketball is a 2. Clemson is worth 84.

UNC basketball is a 10, UNC football is a 5 - UNC is worth 50

NC State football is a 5, NC State basketball is a 3 - NC State is worth a 46, etc.

Do this on the 80/20 split based on the place of the program in the league and who watches them and you get the following:

Clemson - 84 - the football work horse
FSU - 80 - still a football work horse and good basketball work horse
Miami - 72 - see FSU above
VT - 66 - a football mule in the State of Va
Pitt - 62 - a football mule in the State of Pa
UNC - 60 - a football donkey and a basketball king
Louisville - 58 - a football donkey and a basketball king
Syracuse - 50 - a football donkey and a basketball king
NC State 46 - a football mule in the State of NC - basketball no longer exists
GT 46 - a football donkey and another missing basketball program but being in Georgia helps
UVa 40 - a football donkey and a basketball queen
Now we have a three way tie at 28:

Duke, Wake Forest, and BC. Duke has no football to speak of and despite the basketball at just 20% it's not that valuable. BC and WF are niche programs all the way around due to their size.

Essentially would could toss these three out of the conference and it would be an effective raise to the remaining 11 of about 25%.

Clemson - 84 - the football work horse
FSU - 80 - still a football work horse and good basketball work horse
Miami - 72 - see FSU above
VT - 66 - a football mule in the State of Va
Pitt - 62 - a football mule in the State of Pa
UNC - 60 - a football donkey and a basketball king
Louisville - 58 - a football donkey and a basketball king
Syracuse - 50 - a football donkey and a basketball king
NC State 46 - a football mule in the State of NC - basketball no longer exists
GT 46 - a football donkey and another missing basketball program but being in Georgia helps
UVa 40 - a football donkey and a basketball queen
Now we have a three way tie at 28:

Duke, Wake Forest, and BC. Duke has no football to speak of and despite the basketball at just 20% it's not that valuable. BC and WF are niche programs all the way around due to their size.

Essentially would could toss these three out of the conference and it would be an effective raise to the remaining 11 of about 25%.

One thing this list does is show who can make the league more valuable by improving their football program. NC State, GT, UNC, Louisville, and Syracuse are the only ones who can appreciably raise their value by better performance. VT is already running on past laurels. Notice something about this list - four of them have to play Clemson every year. That's a loss waiting to happen and a loss that will happen the week before or after. GT plays an annual suicide game against UGa, Louisville at least has a shot against UK. NC State and UNC have to play every year. My point is that the middle of the ACC is scheduled and structured in such a way as to make getting to the 10 win hump damn near impossible.

The ACC NEEDS either NC State or UNC to win 10 football games at least every third year. The ACC NEEDS either Miami, Pitt, or VT to win 11 football games at least every third year. (And I am not including Bowl Games). Anything positive done by WF, Duke, BC, or UVa in football is just a bonus.

(04-09-2022 08:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  NC State 46 - a football mule in the State of NC - basketball no longer exists

There's nothing wrong with NCST women's basketball.

But I am curious of whether our current contract is fair or not. The conventional wisdom here is that the ACC made a big mistake by entering into such a long term contract. But this analysis shows that the ACC will make roughly same amount as the Pac 12 would make through 2029.

So I am wondering whehter the ACC is actually being fairly compensated for its value or the ACC would get much more than the Pac 12 if it has a chance to reopen the contract soon.

(04-09-2022 09:59 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  But I am curious of whether our current contract is fair or not. The conventional wisdom here is that the ACC made a big mistake by entering into such a long term contract. But this analysis shows that the ACC will make roughly same amount as the Pac 12 would make through 2029.

So I am wondering whehter the ACC is actually being fairly compensated for its value or the ACC would get much more than the Pac 12 if it has a chance to reopen the contract soon.

The more often you renegotiate the more money you make.

What is fair? Any bidder has to factor in that half the ACC schools have very small alumni bases and three schools sit in the same DMA. 4 schools face professional competition in football in their home/main DMA.

(04-09-2022 08:59 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Clemson - 84 - the football work horse
FSU - 80 - still a football work horse and good basketball work horse
Miami - 72 - see FSU above
VT - 66 - a football mule in the State of Va
Pitt - 62 - a football mule in the State of Pa
UNC - 60 - a football donkey and a basketball king
Louisville - 58 - a football donkey and a basketball king
Syracuse - 50 - a football donkey and a basketball king
NC State 46 - a football mule in the State of NC - basketball no longer exists
GT 46 - a football donkey and another missing basketball program but being in Georgia helps
UVa 40 - a football donkey and a basketball queen
Now we have a three way tie at 28:

Duke, Wake Forest, and BC. Duke has no football to speak of and despite the basketball at just 20% it's not that valuable. BC and WF are niche programs all the way around due to their size.

Essentially would could toss these three out of the conference and it would be an effective raise to the remaining 11 of about 25%.

One thing this list does is show who can make the league more valuable by improving their football program. NC State, GT, UNC, Louisville, and Syracuse are the only ones who can appreciably raise their value by better performance. VT is already running on past laurels. Notice something about this list - four of them have to play Clemson every year. That's a loss waiting to happen and a loss that will happen the week before or after. GT plays an annual suicide game against UGa, Louisville at least has a shot against UK. NC State and UNC have to play every year. My point is that the middle of the ACC is scheduled and structured in such a way as to make getting to the 10 win hump damn near impossible.

The ACC NEEDS either NC State or UNC to win 10 football games at least every third year. The ACC NEEDS either Miami, Pitt, or VT to win 11 football games at least every third year. (And I am not including Bowl Games). Anything positive done by WF, Duke, BC, or UVa in football is just a bonus.

I agree on Duke and Wake - the ACC TV contract would pay the same without them that it pays with them, hence, you could say those two add nothing to its value. BC at least brings in a new market for the ACC: New England. Losing BC would definitely reduce ACCN revenue, and probably ESPN value as well.

(04-10-2022 07:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 08:59 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Clemson - 84 - the football work horse
FSU - 80 - still a football work horse and good basketball work horse
Miami - 72 - see FSU above
VT - 66 - a football mule in the State of Va
Pitt - 62 - a football mule in the State of Pa
UNC - 60 - a football donkey and a basketball king
Louisville - 58 - a football donkey and a basketball king
Syracuse - 50 - a football donkey and a basketball king
NC State 46 - a football mule in the State of NC - basketball no longer exists
GT 46 - a football donkey and another missing basketball program but being in Georgia helps
UVa 40 - a football donkey and a basketball queen
Now we have a three way tie at 28:

Duke, Wake Forest, and BC. Duke has no football to speak of and despite the basketball at just 20% it's not that valuable. BC and WF are niche programs all the way around due to their size.

Essentially would could toss these three out of the conference and it would be an effective raise to the remaining 11 of about 25%.

One thing this list does is show who can make the league more valuable by improving their football program. NC State, GT, UNC, Louisville, and Syracuse are the only ones who can appreciably raise their value by better performance. VT is already running on past laurels. Notice something about this list - four of them have to play Clemson every year. That's a loss waiting to happen and a loss that will happen the week before or after. GT plays an annual suicide game against UGa, Louisville at least has a shot against UK. NC State and UNC have to play every year. My point is that the middle of the ACC is scheduled and structured in such a way as to make getting to the 10 win hump damn near impossible.

The ACC NEEDS either NC State or UNC to win 10 football games at least every third year. The ACC NEEDS either Miami, Pitt, or VT to win 11 football games at least every third year. (And I am not including Bowl Games). Anything positive done by WF, Duke, BC, or UVa in football is just a bonus.

I agree on Duke and Wake - the ACC TV contract would pay the same without them that it pays with them, hence, you could say those two add nothing to its value. BC at least brings in a new market for the ACC: New England. Losing BC would definitely reduce ACCN revenue, and probably ESPN value as well.

UVa, Clemson, Duke, NC State, VT, and UNC all like WF even though they do not add much value relative to television contracts. What everyone likes is that they are located close by and everyone's fans, (well except for Duke since they have no football fans) can easily travel to Winston, can easily park in the area, and can enjoy an away game in crowd that is not going to be larger than about 35-38K. Everyone takes their smaller children to WF as their first away game. Also, WF provides the necessary mediation when elements of the "core" fall out with each other.

Duke football is the main ACC parasite and has been for decades. Mothballing that program should be a prime ACC goal. Let them stay for everything else, but no football and no football money.

USF is about to build a new on-campus stadium. The proximity of the airport in Tampa to the University is great. I say add USF football in place of Duke Football. Move NC State to the Coastal and slide USF into the Atlantic. Perhaps the addition opens the contract. Academically the ACC gets a top 75 university on a par with NC State, VT, and Miami. Trust me, Tampa beats Derm.

(04-10-2022 05:49 PM)Statefan Wrote:  USF is about to build a new on-campus stadium. The proximity of the airport in Tampa to the University is great. I say add USF football in place of Duke Football. Move NC State to the Coastal and slide USF into the Atlantic. Perhaps the addition opens the contract. Academically the ACC gets a top 75 university on a par with NC State, VT, and Miami. Trust me, Tampa beats Derm.

But do we really need another school in Florida? Unless Miami or FSU leaves, i think USF’s chance is quite slim. If you are concerned about the acadmics, what about Tulane or SMU?

(04-11-2022 05:12 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-10-2022 05:49 PM)Statefan Wrote:  USF is about to build a new on-campus stadium. The proximity of the airport in Tampa to the University is great. I say add USF football in place of Duke Football. Move NC State to the Coastal and slide USF into the Atlantic. Perhaps the addition opens the contract. Academically the ACC gets a top 75 university on a par with NC State, VT, and Miami. Trust me, Tampa beats Derm.

But do we really need another school in Florida? Unless Miami or FSU leaves, i think USF’s chance is quite slim. If you are concerned about the acadmics, what about Tulane or SMU?

Also just because UCF moved to the B12 doesn't mean they're off limits. They're GoR runs out in 2025 and I doubt they sign a new one. UCF has been infinitely more successful than USF and USF is not committed to winning. They hired GT's old Basketball coach who was only concerned with grades and keeping his athletes out of the news for bad press. He wasn't interested in winning at all and USF new that when they hired him.