(12-19-2013 06:15 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 04:03 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 12:01 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Divide the ACC's total by 13 (Maryland doesn't get a share) and the SEC's by 14.

Except the ACC is keeping Maryland's share. They haven't said they are disbursing it amongst the remaining 13 schools. Also, you'll have to divide it by 14 next year anyways, so it doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme.

It's going toward Maryland's buy out. That may either be put towards the development of an ACC network or more likely it be distributed to the schools.

It makes a difference for this year which is what this bellyaching thread is about.

I didn't see it as a complaint about this specific year. Because who cares about ONE year when you are poised to be significantly behind them EVERY year from now until the foreseeable future?

"This year" is in the thread title and the amounts going forward are going to be different.

'Newbie' here. In more ways than one. Thoughts/questions:

-What is the per school payout from the ACC championship game? I'm assuming it's a fraction of what these BCS bowls (or whatever the hell we're calling them now) bring in but when comparing payouts particularly to the Big 12, which obviously doesn't have a title game, that needs to be factored in.

-The bowl situation for the ACC right now isn't ideal, I think any realist sees that when compared to the other power four conferences. That said I'm confident that will change. When we talk about these bowl/media comparisons the SEC and PAC 12 shouldn't really be in the immediate conversation. The latter for pure geographic reasons, the former because they have much of the overall landscape cornered.

-For the time being we really need to look at the Big 12 and Big 10 and where we can overtake them, wouldn't you all agree? I see a number of areas where we have a leg up for future considerations:

A) ACC now unequivocally owns the Eastern Seaboard. I'm sure this is bound to draw some rolled eyes but the Big East's final, ultimate, dissolution was a major boon to this conference. It played a part in securing the conference's financial future and will continue to play a major role moving forward now that the dust has settled realignment-wise. We're the only option if you want to substantially reach a large population. We may read left to right but media moves in the opposite direction in this country. It's my belief this will be the biggest feather in the ACC's cap and will absolutely move the needle in the future.

B) Big 12 currently has the sweetest of sweetheart deals. It won't last. There's a lack of product both in overall numbers (10) and base states (5). Sure, Texas is huge. It needs to be as it accounts for 40% of their membership. I could probably write a short story on how this conference is smoke and mirrors but won't bother as I think most of us know this. There's a reason four schools recently abandoned ship. There are two gorilla programs propping up the rest. A reminder of a few of 'the rest': Lubbock, Waco, Ames, Stillwater, Morgantown, Manhattan (nope, not that one)...

C) We all know there's a reason the Big 10 made a desperate grab for Rutgers and Maryland. They want a piece of that Eastern Seaboard pie the ACC was monopolizing. With the population shift out of the rust belt and into the south they needed to keep up. The Big 10 (similar to SEC) enjoys generations upon generations of built-in fan bases. With the brain-drain of people from those regions that may be changing.

(12-19-2013 08:20 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  "This year" is in the thread title and the amounts going forward are going to be different.

You don't say? It's not at all possible that was being used to represent a larger issue?

The amounts will be different, but the ACC isn't going to be surpassing the SEC. So the premise remains accurate.

(12-20-2013 12:58 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 08:20 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  "This year" is in the thread title and the amounts going forward are going to be different.

You don't say? It's not at all possible that was being used to represent a larger issue?

The amounts will be different, but the ACC isn't going to be surpassing the SEC. So the premise remains accurate.

Anyone who thinks the ACC could ever surpass the SEC in terms of football $$$ needs their heads examined. Again, the surprise isn't SEC being first, it's the ACC being second.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-20-2013 12:58 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 08:20 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  "This year" is in the thread title and the amounts going forward are going to be different.

You don't say? It's not at all possible that was being used to represent a larger issue?

The amounts will be different, but the ACC isn't going to be surpassing the SEC. So the premise remains accurate.

I don't think the thread had any purpose other than to spin something that's a positive (the ACC coming in second in bowl payouts this year) into a negative (the SEC shockingly finished first in bowl pay outs).

Just another thread bashing the ACC from one of our resident crowd that hates that their school is a member.

(12-19-2013 04:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 11:59 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The current reason for the difference is the payout for the Cotton and Capital One Bowls.

Next year the per school difference between SEC Sugar and ACC Orange is not $1.7 million.

$40 million divided by 14 equal 2.85 million.
$27.5 million divided by 14 equal 1.96 million.

It's the B12 that makes out like a bandit in the Sugar Bowl since they only have 10 teams so that's $4 million per team for them.

The difference is just $890K per team between the ACC and the SEC or B10 for that matter.


At the root of the differential is the risk associated with having a small alumni school with a small fan base in the bowl. The chance of NW is just one in 14. The chance of Vandy is just one in 14. The chance of TCU is one in 10. The chance of Duke, WF, or BC is three in 14. Even Miami and GT don't have large alumni bases but they have good name recognition.

ACC $1.96 million per team - Orange
SEC $2.85 million per team - Sugar
B10 $2.85 million per team - Rose
P12 $3.33 million per team - Rose
B12 $4.00 million per team - Sugar

SEC and B10 get an extra $1.96 million per team 4 years out of 10 with the Orange Bowl. The ACC gets an extra 980K per school when they play ND which can be 2 years out of 10. I don't remember the details on our agreement to replace the SEC team in the Capital One Bowl - but I think that's 4 out of 10 years.

Yes the ACC gets less, but we present more risk to the bowls and TV. I would attribute about a third of the difference to the period of time when FSU and Miami were in the tank. WF and BC has to scare the hell out a big bowl.

Absolutely, I missed the math, attributing all of the difference between the SEC and Orange to the SEC, when they actually split it with the Big 12.

Still, either the B1G or SEC will be splitting an extra $27M for the Orange most years, and the ACC (nor PAC or B12) doesn't have something that equals that. That's a bit of a kick in the pants, and one more way everyone financially is looking up to those two conferences. Frankly, I'm surprised we had to go halvesies with those two conferences on the Orange deal. Would seem like $10M or $12M would still be a hell of a lot better than any other option for those conferences' 2nd or 3rd best team in terms of other bowl options.

Considering the events of the past several decades, the ACC has been fairly well manager to overcome some structural problems:

1. De-emphasizing football in 1962 was the big killer. This was a Duke idea and its effects lasted 15 years.
2. The small size of the ACC football stadiums corresponds to the arrival of the Atlanta Falcons in Atlanta and the de-emphasis of football at Duke and it's effect on Wallace Wade Stadium. UNC, and NC State have been slow to keep pace in football due to the pull of basketball. And the plethora of small school alumni base schools and schools in the middle of pro markets is a detriment. BC, Pitt, Miami, GT and Maryland all have big time pro competition for entertainment dollars.
3. If a big bowl knows they will get FSU, Clemson, NC State, UVa, UNC, VT, UNC, or ND, they know they will get a big crowd. However UNC, NC State, and UVa have not been able to put it all together in decades and for every big win is a flop against an inferior team. UNC, UVa, or NC State would take 30K to a major bowl, but to do that they have to not fall asleep against WF, Duke, ECU, etc. This puts an extreme amount of pressure on FSU, Clemson, Miami and VT and for much of the last decade FSU and Miami were mediocre. forcing VT to play up on several occasions and play until bowl travel fatigue set in.
4. Let's call a spade a spade, the ACC has been let down over the past 15 years not so much by FSU or even Clemson, but by UNC, NC State, UVa, and Miami. When small schools like WF, Duke, BC, and GT are carrying the league banner, the big schools are not living up their end of the barging.
5. Coaching is the big key to the issue, FSU kept Bobby three years too long. NC State hired an old man into a young man's game, UNC resorted to lowering its standards trying to be like Alabama and got caught, and UVa fell right off the edge of the earth after Welsh retired.
6, Too many ACC schools are too STEM oriented to hide kids who come into college not prepared for a STEM school. It's tough to hide these kids at VT, State, GT, WF, BC.
7. Given all this I think the ACC Presidents and Chancellors have done a great job keeping the ACC together and thriving. But nothing addresses to core problem which is that there are too many NC schools competing for a limited talent pool and a limited donation pool.

8. For the future, Louisville has a tremendous upside both academically and on the ball field. They don't face professional competition and they are the darling of the metropolitan area. There is enough talent in the NY area that Syracuse can always bring football up with the right coach. To me, Pitt's real problem is the Steelers, but their problem is not as bad as Maryland's became after the Nationals came to town.

9. When it come to football the ACC has just one ace - FSU, one King - Clemson, and two Queens - VT, Miami, and three jacks - GT, UNC, Pitt. NC State, UVA, Syracuse, and Louisville can be tens. Miami, Clemson and GT can move up. But when that hand is compares with the SEC - they have 5 Aces - Bama, Auburn, LSU, Florida and Georiga and three kings - TAMU, SC, and Mizzou. The B12 has two Aces - Texas and OU, and two kings right now Baylor, and OSU. Even the B10 has but one Ace Ohio State, but four kings Nebraska, Wisky, Michigan, MSU, and Penn State when they come off probation.

Now the ACC has the only Joker in the deck - ND. But making up the dollar difference between the Sugar and the Rose Bowl mean making up 50 years worth of difference and that will not be easy to do. What the ACC really needs is a replacement bowl for the Peach, that puts the ACC's 2nd or 3rd team in a high - payout bowl where the ACC controls the bowl and makes that bowl the destination for the pick of the AAC/MW/G-5. I think Tallahassee is a good location and that the bowl should shoot for the hottest AAC/MW/G-5 team and the bowl should have a 2-1 split on money ACC/other. This would put teams like Miami, Clemson, VT, UNC, NC State, Pitt, etc., versus Cincinnati, UCF, Boise State, BYU, ND, etc. Essentially the ACC's third or fourth team against whoever is hottest outside the normal power structure,

But I'm not running anything.

(12-20-2013 01:45 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 04:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 11:59 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The current reason for the difference is the payout for the Cotton and Capital One Bowls.

Next year the per school difference between SEC Sugar and ACC Orange is not $1.7 million.

$40 million divided by 14 equal 2.85 million.
$27.5 million divided by 14 equal 1.96 million.

It's the B12 that makes out like a bandit in the Sugar Bowl since they only have 10 teams so that's $4 million per team for them.

The difference is just $890K per team between the ACC and the SEC or B10 for that matter.


At the root of the differential is the risk associated with having a small alumni school with a small fan base in the bowl. The chance of NW is just one in 14. The chance of Vandy is just one in 14. The chance of TCU is one in 10. The chance of Duke, WF, or BC is three in 14. Even Miami and GT don't have large alumni bases but they have good name recognition.

ACC $1.96 million per team - Orange
SEC $2.85 million per team - Sugar
B10 $2.85 million per team - Rose
P12 $3.33 million per team - Rose
B12 $4.00 million per team - Sugar

SEC and B10 get an extra $1.96 million per team 4 years out of 10 with the Orange Bowl. The ACC gets an extra 980K per school when they play ND which can be 2 years out of 10. I don't remember the details on our agreement to replace the SEC team in the Capital One Bowl - but I think that's 4 out of 10 years.

Yes the ACC gets less, but we present more risk to the bowls and TV. I would attribute about a third of the difference to the period of time when FSU and Miami were in the tank. WF and BC has to scare the hell out a big bowl.

Absolutely, I missed the math, attributing all of the difference between the SEC and Orange to the SEC, when they actually split it with the Big 12.

Still, either the B1G or SEC will be splitting an extra $27M for the Orange most years, and the ACC (nor PAC or B12) doesn't have something that equals that. That's a bit of a kick in the pants, and one more way everyone financially is looking up to those two conferences. Frankly, I'm surprised we had to go halvesies with those two conferences on the Orange deal. Would seem like $10M or $12M would still be a hell of a lot better than any other option for those conferences' 2nd or 3rd best team in terms of other bowl options.

Considering the events of the past several decades, the ACC has been fairly well manager to overcome some structural problems:

1. De-emphasizing football in 1962 was the big killer. This was a Duke idea and its effects lasted 15 years.
2. The small size of the ACC football stadiums corresponds to the arrival of the Atlanta Falcons in Atlanta and the de-emphasis of football at Duke and it's effect on Wallace Wade Stadium. UNC, and NC State have been slow to keep pace in football due to the pull of basketball. And the plethora of small school alumni base schools and schools in the middle of pro markets is a detriment. BC, Pitt, Miami, GT and Maryland all have big time pro competition for entertainment dollars.
3. If a big bowl knows they will get FSU, Clemson, NC State, UVa, UNC, VT, UNC, or ND, they know they will get a big crowd. However UNC, NC State, and UVa have not been able to put it all together in decades and for every big win is a flop against an inferior team. UNC, UVa, or NC State would take 30K to a major bowl, but to do that they have to not fall asleep against WF, Duke, ECU, etc. This puts an extreme amount of pressure on FSU, Clemson, Miami and VT and for much of the last decade FSU and Miami were mediocre. forcing VT to play up on several occasions and play until bowl travel fatigue set in.
4. Let's call a spade a spade, the ACC has been let down over the past 15 years not so much by FSU or even Clemson, but by UNC, NC State, UVa, and Miami. When small schools like WF, Duke, BC, and GT are carrying the league banner, the big schools are not living up their end of the barging.
5. Coaching is the big key to the issue, FSU kept Bobby three years too long. NC State hired an old man into a young man's game, UNC resorted to lowering its standards trying to be like Alabama and got caught, and UVa fell right off the edge of the earth after Welsh retired.
6, Too many ACC schools are too STEM oriented to hide kids who come into college not prepared for a STEM school. It's tough to hide these kids at VT, State, GT, WF, BC.
7. Given all this I think the ACC Presidents and Chancellors have done a great job keeping the ACC together and thriving. But nothing addresses to core problem which is that there are too many NC schools competing for a limited talent pool and a limited donation pool.

8. For the future, Louisville has a tremendous upside both academically and on the ball field. They don't face professional competition and they are the darling of the metropolitan area. There is enough talent in the NY area that Syracuse can always bring football up with the right coach. To me, Pitt's real problem is the Steelers, but their problem is not as bad as Maryland's became after the Nationals came to town.

9. When it come to football the ACC has just one ace - FSU, one King - Clemson, and two Queens - VT, Miami, and three jacks - GT, UNC, Pitt. NC State, UVA, Syracuse, and Louisville can be tens. Miami, Clemson and GT can move up. But when that hand is compares with the SEC - they have 5 Aces - Bama, Auburn, LSU, Florida and Georiga and three kings - TAMU, SC, and Mizzou. The B12 has two Aces - Texas and OU, and two kings right now Baylor, and OSU. Even the B10 has but one Ace Ohio State, but four kings Nebraska, Wisky, Michigan, MSU, and Penn State when they come off probation.

Now the ACC has the only Joker in the deck - ND. But making up the dollar difference between the Sugar and the Rose Bowl mean making up 50 years worth of difference and that will not be easy to do. What the ACC really needs is a replacement bowl for the Peach, that puts the ACC's 2nd or 3rd team in a high - payout bowl where the ACC controls the bowl and makes that bowl the destination for the pick of the AAC/MW/G-5. I think Tallahassee is a good location and that the bowl should shoot for the hottest AAC/MW/G-5 team and the bowl should have a 2-1 split on money ACC/other. This would put teams like Miami, Clemson, VT, UNC, NC State, Pitt, etc., versus Cincinnati, UCF, Boise State, BYU, ND, etc. Essentially the ACC's third or fourth team against whoever is hottest outside the normal power structure,

But I'm not running anything.

Lot of good stuff in this post.

As pointed out, the problems weren't caused overnight, some go back decades. Here's the real kicker where the ACC missed the boat...they waited to long to see the football writing on the wall and act effectively. It's one thing to look at the landscape in 1962 or 1982 and de-emphasize football for basketball...the ACC was getting paid and you can defend that mindset.

The problem in my mind is that by the mid-late 1990's it was starting to become apparent that a conference wasn't going to be able to keep up without a real football presence. The addition of FSU to the ACC indicates that there was an inkling of the issue, but it was never followed up. They basically added FSU, washed their hands, and went back to business as usual.

And that's not just Swofford or the ACC office, that's the leadership of all the schools, including FSU, who basically fell right in line.

In reality, the ACC lost at least 10-12 years of addressing the football issue. Or, maybe I should say addressing it with any effectiveness. I think there has been a real lack of big boy football IQ out of the ACC schools. They should have been all over this by the late 1990s, and in reality, I don't think they really "got it" until about 18-24 months ago.

You guys know darn well that if the same mindset that existed in the ACC in 2004 (and favored Syracuse and BC over VT) existed in 2012, UCONN would be in the ACC and Louisville wouldn't.

And it's not just Swofford and co., it's the schools themselves, holding onto bad or mediocre coaches too long, scheduling absurd OOC games that set them up for failure, etc. It's really been a group effort to get this far behind.

There is a very big hill to climb for the ACC, but it's not impossible for one reason...we can get the athletes. Yes, we have some schools that are in a bad spot geographically for stud athletes, but the ACC has been the second best recruiting conference for years, and that has been with poor on-field results, bad coaching/old coaching, and a questionable commitment to football.

This thing can be turned around because we have certain resources that other conferences don't have...namely massive footprint, huge media markets, and most importantly, great athletes. We just have to aggressively keep at it collectively.

(12-20-2013 01:45 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  3. If a big bowl knows they will get FSU, Clemson, NC State, UVa, UNC, VT, UNC, or ND, they know they will get a big crowd. However UNC, NC State, and UVa have not been able to put it all together in decades and for every big win is a flop against an inferior team. UNC, UVa, or NC State would take 30K to a major bowl, but to do that they have to not fall asleep against WF, Duke, ECU, etc.

Just stop. There is zero evidence this is the case.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread the idea that NC State is one of the better traveling fanbases was shattered by the Chick-fil-a Kickoff last year. Despite a winnable game against a name opponent and six plus months the ticket sales were lackluster at best.

Lou, another thing a lot of folks don't know or don't remember is that while UNC/Duke/UVa get the full blame for not expanding, Maryland was a rabid anti-expansion school for most of the history of the ACC. Maryland was one of the votes to keep VT out of the SEC and leave them in the SoCon - UNC/NCSU/Wake/Duke yes - MD/SC/Clemson and newly admitted UVa - no. Maryland nixed communication with Florida back in the 70's when Florida football stunk and the SEC's academic reputation was bad and Florida spoke to UNC and Bob James -then commissioner. Maryland was always against Penn State in the 1980's. MD go outflanked by WF though when you, GT and Gene Corrigan pushed through FSU.

I'm no Swofford fan, but the league presidents and chancellors do have this funny way of thinking they run things. That's part of what caused VT to enter back in 2003. Swofford had a deal based on Gene Corrigan's negotiations but UNC, Duke and NC State all had a different idea. UNC and Duke knew that if they telegraphed a no vote, they could get VT due to political pressure that would fall on UVa and thereby get a school that filled their football stadium and offered no basketball competition and keep Syracuse out. They knew that NC State's chancellor had a tie to Notre Dame and when she moved to stop the expansion process at 11 in order to formally approach ND, the die was cast against Syracuse.

We all continue to suffer from Duke's power play in 1962 to de-emphasize football, from Maryland's refusal to consider Penn State, and from the too long political hold on the league by the blues - Duke/UNC/UVa.

However if you look at logically, had we added Penn State in the 80's, would we have added FSU, or would FSU have ended up in the SEC. We got all the major east coast football powers except Penn State - we added Miami, FSU, and VT. Pitt and Syracuse are no longer powers but they have a great history and can be powers again.

A lot of the ACC current distance behind the SEC and B10 is due to crappy football in the State of North Carolina - NC State and UNC not delivering and then Miami and FSU spending half of the last decade in the tank.

I'm glad to be rid of Maryland and I too am damn glad another basketball school will not be added.

The real problem know is that only a few teams make a decent partner with ND to even be considered as a 16th.

(12-20-2013 12:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 01:45 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  3. If a big bowl knows they will get FSU, Clemson, NC State, UVa, UNC, VT, UNC, or ND, they know they will get a big crowd. However UNC, NC State, and UVa have not been able to put it all together in decades and for every big win is a flop against an inferior team. UNC, UVa, or NC State would take 30K to a major bowl, but to do that they have to not fall asleep against WF, Duke, ECU, etc.

Just stop. There is zero evidence this is the case.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread the idea that NC State is one of the better traveling fanbases was shattered by the Chick-fil-a Kickoff last year. Despite a winnable game against a name opponent and six plus months the ticket sales were lackluster at best.

No you are dead wrong. Not a lot of people wanted to go to Atlanta on a Friday night to support an unpopular coach who had just run off Russell Wilson in favor of Mike Glennon.

Moreover you are attempting to compare a bowl game to an early season game in hot as hell Atlanta on a Friday where there are no available hotel rooms the next day due to a second game on Saturday. We took 35K to Jacksonville to the Gator Bowl in 2002.

You are wrong, give up.

(12-20-2013 01:02 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Anyone who thinks the ACC could ever surpass the SEC in terms of football $$$ needs their heads examined. Again, the surprise isn't SEC being first, it's the ACC being second.

Cheers,
Neil

This is true. But what is lost is that by 2016, the ACC will collect about $25 million MORE from the NCAA tournament than the SEC, or the same $1.76 million per team. Here are the projections for payouts in 2015:

(12-20-2013 12:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 01:02 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Anyone who thinks the ACC could ever surpass the SEC in terms of football $$$ needs their heads examined. Again, the surprise isn't SEC being first, it's the ACC being second.

Cheers,
Neil

This is true. But what is lost is that by 2016, the ACC will collect about $25 million MORE from the NCAA tournament than the SEC, or the same $1.76 million per team. Here are the projections for payouts in 2015:

Code:

Conf    Academic    Bball Fund    Conf grt    Grant in Aid    Spcl Ass    Sportsspns    StdtAthlOpp    Supplemnt    Total
Date    6/1/2015    4/15/2015    6/17/2015    8/12/2015    8/26/2015    7/29/2015    8/26/2015    1/24/2015    Total
AAC    $1,241,359    18,907,797    $348,159    $6,965,182    $791,426    $1,923,220    $2,797,465    $1,728,569    $34,703,176
ACC    $1,329,648    $49,855,539    $348,159    $16,813,527    $793,219    $4,786,690    $4,362,021    $3,274,102    $81,562,904
B12    $886,077    $31,816,822    $348,159    $9,257,059    $734,175    $2,948,944    $3,040,026    $2,924,831    $51,956,093
BE    $886,432    $25,606,076    $348,159    $8,460,266    $970,639    $4,701,212    $3,825,444    $3,629,231    $48,427,460
B10    $1,137,912    $34,275,683    $348,159    $13,666,003    $937,223    $5,427,769    $5,719,382    $3,248,678    $64,760,809
MWC    $797,789    $8,902,775    $348,159    $7,971,287    $499,670    $2,735,251    $2,011,501    $1,157,248    $24,423,680
P12    $1,063,718    $29,739,509    $348,159    $13,071,260    $862,707    $3,590,020    $4,039,279    $2,694,597    $55,409,250
SEC    $1,241,359    $30,311,830    $348,159    $13,758,492    $928,606    $3,376,330    $3,788,454    $2,765,285    $56,518,516
Total    $8,584,293    $229,416,031    $2,785,272    $89,963,076    $6,517,665    $29,489,436    $29,583,573    $21,422,541    $417,761,888

Folks aren't supposed to know that the ACC actually makes money off basketball. You aren't supposed to tell that.

And that is all "profit." I.e. expenses are already paid when that money is distributed, unlike bowl money which you have to deduct a considerable amount to cover expenses before you distribute.

Where are you getting those figures?

(12-20-2013 12:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 01:02 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Anyone who thinks the ACC could ever surpass the SEC in terms of football $$$ needs their heads examined. Again, the surprise isn't SEC being first, it's the ACC being second.

Cheers,
Neil

This is true. But what is lost is that by 2016, the ACC will collect about $25 million MORE from the NCAA tournament than the SEC, or the same $1.76 million per team. Here are the projections for payouts in 2015:

Code:

Conf    Academic    Bball Fund    Conf grt    Grant in Aid    Spcl Ass    Sportsspns    StdtAthlOpp    Supplemnt    Total
Date    6/1/2015    4/15/2015    6/17/2015    8/12/2015    8/26/2015    7/29/2015    8/26/2015    1/24/2015    Total
AAC    $1,241,359    18,907,797    $348,159    $6,965,182    $791,426    $1,923,220    $2,797,465    $1,728,569    $34,703,176
ACC    $1,329,648    $49,855,539    $348,159    $16,813,527    $793,219    $4,786,690    $4,362,021    $3,274,102    $81,562,904
B12    $886,077    $31,816,822    $348,159    $9,257,059    $734,175    $2,948,944    $3,040,026    $2,924,831    $51,956,093
BE    $886,432    $25,606,076    $348,159    $8,460,266    $970,639    $4,701,212    $3,825,444    $3,629,231    $48,427,460
B10    $1,137,912    $34,275,683    $348,159    $13,666,003    $937,223    $5,427,769    $5,719,382    $3,248,678    $64,760,809
MWC    $797,789    $8,902,775    $348,159    $7,971,287    $499,670    $2,735,251    $2,011,501    $1,157,248    $24,423,680
P12    $1,063,718    $29,739,509    $348,159    $13,071,260    $862,707    $3,590,020    $4,039,279    $2,694,597    $55,409,250
SEC    $1,241,359    $30,311,830    $348,159    $13,758,492    $928,606    $3,376,330    $3,788,454    $2,765,285    $56,518,516
Total    $8,584,293    $229,416,031    $2,785,272    $89,963,076    $6,517,665    $29,489,436    $29,583,573    $21,422,541    $417,761,888

Good stuff.

(12-20-2013 12:51 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Where are you getting those figures?

I have them on my computer. They are the numbers from the NCAA from 2011 (the last year the full breakdown was relased) adjusted percentage wise to match how the NCAA contract increases, with the "basketball fund, " "Sports Sponsorship", and "Grant in Aid" numbers adjusted to match team movement. Obviously the basketball fund numbers can adjust depending on team success, actual number of teams in the tourney, etc, but it was based on the actual results to date the year that was done.

Are you counting UL, Cuse, ND and Pitt's credits as ACC credits? Were they allowed to retain them or did the Big East/American keep them?

(12-20-2013 12:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  No you are dead wrong. Not a lot of people wanted to go to Atlanta on a Friday night to support an unpopular coach who had just run off Russell Wilson in favor of Mike Glennon.

Why are you changing your story on this? In an earlier thread you said that it was because of a "very late date change to Friday from Saturday".

Of course you ran away from the thread when facts came out, so you probably forgot.

Quote:Moreover you are attempting to compare a bowl game to an early season game in hot as hell Atlanta on a Friday where there are no available hotel rooms the next day due to a second game on Saturday. We took 35K to Jacksonville to the Gator Bowl in 2002.

You expect me to believe that NC State had almost half of the 72k crowd that game? Against Notre Dame?



Next thing you know you'll try to tell me NC State brings 15k to Clemson when they play.

Notre Dame wanted to join the ACC 10 years ago as a non-football member. But I guess Swofford and the then school presidents weren't ready to accept the current ND-ACC arrangement in 2003.

IIRC, Miami wanted to join the ACC with FSU but was snubbed. I know for a fact the Maryland didn't want either school. To this day, many Maryland fans don't recognize FSU as a legitimate ACC school.

Btw, here as interesting book I found on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Atlantic-Coast...1243395540