(01-28-2014 06:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 06:31 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 06:15 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 05:58 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 04:51 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It says the $22.2M for 2015 is the ACC payout, not the ESPN contract. So that includes NCAA basketball money, bowl money and the playoff money which will be pumping in by 2015.

Still don't like 9 games. It means FSU and Clemson will never schedule 2 good OOC games in a season again except in years ND is mandated to be on the schedule. Games like FSU vs OU/Bama and Clemson vs UGA/Auburn. I'm not at all in favor of that since it means losing a quality matchup in favor of more games against UVA, Duke, UNC and Pitt.

And if there's a lost home game for schools like FSU and Clemson, there must be a guaranteed revenue increase from ESPN that's in excess of the typical value of an additional home game. If it's the same, or less, then there's absolutely no incentive for FSU and Clemson.

Speaking of ND, because of that arrangement, the ACC will already playing 8.4 conference games in a year anyways.

I don't get how it creates "more content."

Also, the ACC was just talking about eliminating divisions as a way to make a 9th game useless. Three weeks later this. The ACC has no leadership.

So GT didn't previously have these in their 2015 projections?

You can't really make heads or tells out of the article and without looking at GT's book's you don't know what they really estimated. Total distributions last year were about 18 million per school.

This year's 2014 were projected to go up to $20 million due to Pitt/Syracuse. (An increase of $2 million based on 2011 action)

In 2015 the ND money and GOR money would kick in and that's about another $2 or so million, (based on 2012 action) bringing the ACC to the $22 million or so referenced by GT.

The Orange Bowl or Playoff Money which is 27.5 million divided by 15 and $55 million divided by 15 (the office gets a share, ND does not) and that's another 5.5 million. GT's number does not include the OB or Playoff.

The total ACC distribution at the end of FY 14/15 should be about $28 million per school. That's TV, NCAA revenues, small Bowls, Orange Bowl, and Playoff. That does not include Maryland money, or Network, or lack of Network money.

In comparison, in documents obtained from Purdue, the Big Ten is projecting to distribute $26.4 million in FY14 and $30.1 million in FY15. But its new teams are not receiving full shares.

What were Maryland's PR firms putting out there? How they'd make $100 million more by 2020 (the date when articles in the NJ Ledger said Rutgers would first get a full share)? Anyone still believe that tripe?

At the time, the Big 10 was already distributing over $17 million in media money. The Big 10 will continue to grow the BTN and will get a new TV deal in 2017. While undoubtedly the projections for that new deal were optimistic, the ACC was only paying around $12 million in media money in 2013. So at that time assuming the Big 10 would be making $10 million more a year wasn't unreasonable. The ACC had a $17 million contract average over 2011-2027. Notre Dame has increased that as well as the GOR since Maryland left.

No, it was absolutely unreasonable for anyone with common sense and actual numbers. The whole think is bs PR firm spin.

The Maryland Board only had a few hours to review the numbers that were presented. You had old ACC numbers that did not included Pitt/Syracuse and the future football playoff/Orange Bowl, compared to the Big 10's projection of revenue after their rebid contract in 2017, plus the future football/Rose Bowl money. Since the Maryland Board was not allowed the time to check anything they swallowed the hook.

The larger deception was not the difference between ACC money and B10 money, it was the distance between Maryland would be between FSU/UNC in the ACC and Ohio State/Michigan in the B10. In the ACC Maryland's total revenue is running at about 80% of the UNC/FSU average, but in the B10 Maryland will be running at about 60-65% of the Ohio State/Michigan average.

(01-28-2014 06:31 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 06:15 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 05:58 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 04:51 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It says the $22.2M for 2015 is the ACC payout, not the ESPN contract. So that includes NCAA basketball money, bowl money and the playoff money which will be pumping in by 2015.

Still don't like 9 games. It means FSU and Clemson will never schedule 2 good OOC games in a season again except in years ND is mandated to be on the schedule. Games like FSU vs OU/Bama and Clemson vs UGA/Auburn. I'm not at all in favor of that since it means losing a quality matchup in favor of more games against UVA, Duke, UNC and Pitt.

And if there's a lost home game for schools like FSU and Clemson, there must be a guaranteed revenue increase from ESPN that's in excess of the typical value of an additional home game. If it's the same, or less, then there's absolutely no incentive for FSU and Clemson.

Speaking of ND, because of that arrangement, the ACC will already playing 8.4 conference games in a year anyways.

I don't get how it creates "more content."

Also, the ACC was just talking about eliminating divisions as a way to make a 9th game useless. Three weeks later this. The ACC has no leadership.

So GT didn't previously have these in their 2015 projections?

You can't really make heads or tells out of the article and without looking at GT's book's you don't know what they really estimated. Total distributions last year were about 18 million per school.

This year's 2014 were projected to go up to $20 million due to Pitt/Syracuse. (An increase of $2 million based on 2011 action)

In 2015 the ND money and GOR money would kick in and that's about another $2 or so million, (based on 2012 action) bringing the ACC to the $22 million or so referenced by GT.

The Orange Bowl or Playoff Money which is 27.5 million divided by 15 and $55 million divided by 15 (the office gets a share, ND does not) and that's another 5.5 million. GT's number does not include the OB or Playoff.

The total ACC distribution at the end of FY 14/15 should be about $28 million per school. That's TV, NCAA revenues, small Bowls, Orange Bowl, and Playoff. That does not include Maryland money, or Network, or lack of Network money.

In comparison, in documents obtained from Purdue, the Big Ten is projecting to distribute $26.4 million in FY14 and $30.1 million in FY15. But its new teams are not receiving full shares.

What were Maryland's PR firms putting out there? How they'd make $100 million more by 2020 (the date when articles in the NJ Ledger said Rutgers would first get a full share)? Anyone still believe that tripe?

Yes. I do.

An eventual move to 10 P5 games is what I expect to see. I don't think that any particular number above 8 for conference games would be required if we just agreed to play two P5 schools out of conference. Also I don't see an increase in the number of regular season games, especially since there will likely be a push at some point to expand the post season is some way.

(01-28-2014 08:37 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 06:31 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 06:15 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 05:58 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 04:51 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It says the $22.2M for 2015 is the ACC payout, not the ESPN contract. So that includes NCAA basketball money, bowl money and the playoff money which will be pumping in by 2015.

Still don't like 9 games. It means FSU and Clemson will never schedule 2 good OOC games in a season again except in years ND is mandated to be on the schedule. Games like FSU vs OU/Bama and Clemson vs UGA/Auburn. I'm not at all in favor of that since it means losing a quality matchup in favor of more games against UVA, Duke, UNC and Pitt.

And if there's a lost home game for schools like FSU and Clemson, there must be a guaranteed revenue increase from ESPN that's in excess of the typical value of an additional home game. If it's the same, or less, then there's absolutely no incentive for FSU and Clemson.

Speaking of ND, because of that arrangement, the ACC will already playing 8.4 conference games in a year anyways.

I don't get how it creates "more content."

Also, the ACC was just talking about eliminating divisions as a way to make a 9th game useless. Three weeks later this. The ACC has no leadership.

So GT didn't previously have these in their 2015 projections?

You can't really make heads or tells out of the article and without looking at GT's book's you don't know what they really estimated. Total distributions last year were about 18 million per school.

This year's 2014 were projected to go up to $20 million due to Pitt/Syracuse. (An increase of $2 million based on 2011 action)

In 2015 the ND money and GOR money would kick in and that's about another $2 or so million, (based on 2012 action) bringing the ACC to the $22 million or so referenced by GT.

The Orange Bowl or Playoff Money which is 27.5 million divided by 15 and $55 million divided by 15 (the office gets a share, ND does not) and that's another 5.5 million. GT's number does not include the OB or Playoff.

The total ACC distribution at the end of FY 14/15 should be about $28 million per school. That's TV, NCAA revenues, small Bowls, Orange Bowl, and Playoff. That does not include Maryland money, or Network, or lack of Network money.

In comparison, in documents obtained from Purdue, the Big Ten is projecting to distribute $26.4 million in FY14 and $30.1 million in FY15. But its new teams are not receiving full shares.

What were Maryland's PR firms putting out there? How they'd make $100 million more by 2020 (the date when articles in the NJ Ledger said Rutgers would first get a full share)? Anyone still believe that tripe?

Yes. I do.

$100 million is easy to get to when you omit $6 million a year they ACC will get from the OB and Playoff, and the $4 million a year from adding Syracuse/Pitt/ND - that's $60 million right there. If you take the $40 and divide that by 6 you get $6.7 million a year net for Maryland by 2020. However even that omits the ACC Network from which the ACC gets $2 million starting in 15/16 if that is not up and running.

It's like claiming you are taller than a friend while standing on a ladder. Technically you may be accurate. Once you amortize the money lost to the exit over 10 years, Maryland will be making a net profit of $5-6 million by the move in or around 2025. However instead of being in the middle of the ACC revenue-wise, they will be at the bottom of the B10.

(01-29-2014 10:36 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:37 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 06:31 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 06:15 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 05:58 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So GT didn't previously have these in their 2015 projections?

You can't really make heads or tells out of the article and without looking at GT's book's you don't know what they really estimated. Total distributions last year were about 18 million per school.

This year's 2014 were projected to go up to $20 million due to Pitt/Syracuse. (An increase of $2 million based on 2011 action)

In 2015 the ND money and GOR money would kick in and that's about another $2 or so million, (based on 2012 action) bringing the ACC to the $22 million or so referenced by GT.

The Orange Bowl or Playoff Money which is 27.5 million divided by 15 and $55 million divided by 15 (the office gets a share, ND does not) and that's another 5.5 million. GT's number does not include the OB or Playoff.

The total ACC distribution at the end of FY 14/15 should be about $28 million per school. That's TV, NCAA revenues, small Bowls, Orange Bowl, and Playoff. That does not include Maryland money, or Network, or lack of Network money.

In comparison, in documents obtained from Purdue, the Big Ten is projecting to distribute $26.4 million in FY14 and $30.1 million in FY15. But its new teams are not receiving full shares.

What were Maryland's PR firms putting out there? How they'd make $100 million more by 2020 (the date when articles in the NJ Ledger said Rutgers would first get a full share)? Anyone still believe that tripe?

Yes. I do.

To be clear, I believe the general argument was $100 million more over the next 10 years, which could have been reached even with reduced shares initially. Of course, the ACC has increased its revenue some since that pronouncement, and such increases likely would not have happened if Maryland had not left.

The bigger issue is whether the ACC will indeed get ESPN to create a conference network similar to the SEC Network, and thereby survive, or not get one and perish. If the ACC gets such a network then there will not be a large gap between its media revenue and that of the SEC and B1G. If so, there would not be a reason for schools to leave, the ACC survives and all arguments to the contrary should cease.* If ESPN declines, then the gap will continue to grow and the ACC is likely doomed. Just like the Big 12. I understand the ACC and ESPN are meeting this week. Maybe we hear something soon.

*I guess it still could be possible for some changes to occur that does not threaten the conference such as Wake Forrest electing to not separate from the NCAA if there was a P5 breakaway or ESPN pushing FSU and Clemson to the SEC for better TV ratings and bringing WV and UConn into the ACC. Both of these scenarios are unlikely, but possible, and neither threaten the conference.

We can talk about and analyze revenue streams and projections until the cows come home. They will always be confusing and arcane. Not to mention of questionable reliability, because all the entities involved want to spin them to make themselves and their decisions look better.

At the end of the day, sometimes you just have to go with your gut. And mine tells me that Maryland will always regret their decision. They just fit better in the ACC than they ever will in the B1G. And if they can't keep their head above water with the revenue from the ACC, what they may get from the B1G isn't going to make much of a difference anyway.

If a girl marries Mr. A because he makes a little more money than Mr. B, chances are that marriage isn't going to be a happy one.

(01-29-2014 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  We can talk about and analyze revenue streams and projections until the cows come home. They will always be confusing and arcane. Not to mention of questionable reliability, because all the entities involved want to spin them to make themselves and their decisions look better.

At the end of the day, sometimes you just have to go with your gut. And mine tells me that Maryland will always regret their decision. They just fit better in the ACC than they ever will in the B1G. And if they can't keep their head above water with the revenue from the ACC, what they may get from the B1G isn't going to make much of a difference anyway.

If a girl marries Mr. A because he makes a little more money than Mr. B, chances are that marriage isn't going to be a happy one.

First Ken D let me say that I have enjoyed your posts so far and welcome aboard. Second, I think the Big 10 claimed an attraction here more closely akin to a same sex marriage so I'm not sure your analogy quite applies. What we have here is not mutual compatibility based upon two different but mutual attractions like it would have been if the Big 10 were seeking a new market and Maryland was seeking participation in the CIC, but rather two entities attracted by each other's sameness which in this case was simply the desire for more money. And in that case they may indeed enjoy each other's company.

Wake Forest will do whatever the ACC does, so no need to bother with the hypothetical that it will elect to commit suicide.

(01-29-2014 11:44 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Wake Forest will do whatever the ACC does, so no need to bother with the hypothetical that it will elect to commit suicide.

WF runs the ACC behind the curtain. Ignore that man in the top hat behind the curtain.

(01-29-2014 11:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  We can talk about and analyze revenue streams and projections until the cows come home. They will always be confusing and arcane. Not to mention of questionable reliability, because all the entities involved want to spin them to make themselves and their decisions look better.

At the end of the day, sometimes you just have to go with your gut. And mine tells me that Maryland will always regret their decision. They just fit better in the ACC than they ever will in the B1G. And if they can't keep their head above water with the revenue from the ACC, what they may get from the B1G isn't going to make much of a difference anyway.

If a girl marries Mr. A because he makes a little more money than Mr. B, chances are that marriage isn't going to be a happy one.

First Ken D let me say that I have enjoyed your posts so far and welcome aboard. Second, I think the Big 10 claimed an attraction here more closely akin to a same sex marriage so I'm not sure your analogy quite applies. What we have here is not mutual compatibility based upon two different but mutual attractions like it would have been if the Big 10 were seeking a new market and Maryland was seeking participation in the CIC, but rather two entities attracted by each other's sameness which in this case was simply the desire for more money. And in that case they may indeed enjoy each other's company.

I think we've all had our suspicions about the Terps. I mean, who has a turtle for a mascot anyway?

(01-29-2014 11:11 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 10:36 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:37 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 06:31 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 06:15 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You can't really make heads or tells out of the article and without looking at GT's book's you don't know what they really estimated. Total distributions last year were about 18 million per school.

This year's 2014 were projected to go up to $20 million due to Pitt/Syracuse. (An increase of $2 million based on 2011 action)

In 2015 the ND money and GOR money would kick in and that's about another $2 or so million, (based on 2012 action) bringing the ACC to the $22 million or so referenced by GT.

The Orange Bowl or Playoff Money which is 27.5 million divided by 15 and $55 million divided by 15 (the office gets a share, ND does not) and that's another 5.5 million. GT's number does not include the OB or Playoff.

The total ACC distribution at the end of FY 14/15 should be about $28 million per school. That's TV, NCAA revenues, small Bowls, Orange Bowl, and Playoff. That does not include Maryland money, or Network, or lack of Network money.

In comparison, in documents obtained from Purdue, the Big Ten is projecting to distribute $26.4 million in FY14 and $30.1 million in FY15. But its new teams are not receiving full shares.

What were Maryland's PR firms putting out there? How they'd make $100 million more by 2020 (the date when articles in the NJ Ledger said Rutgers would first get a full share)? Anyone still believe that tripe?

Yes. I do.

To be clear, I believe the general argument was $100 million more over the next 10 years, which could have been reached even with reduced shares initially. Of course, the ACC has increased its revenue some since that pronouncement, and such increases likely would not have happened if Maryland had not left.

The bigger issue is whether the ACC will indeed get ESPN to create a conference network similar to the SEC Network, and thereby survive, or not get one and perish. If the ACC gets such a network then there will not be a large gap between its media revenue and that of the SEC and B1G. If so, there would not be a reason for schools to leave, the ACC survives and all arguments to the contrary should cease.* If ESPN declines, then the gap will continue to grow and the ACC is likely doomed. Just like the Big 12. I understand the ACC and ESPN are meeting this week. Maybe we hear something soon.

*I guess it still could be possible for some changes to occur that does not threaten the conference such as Wake Forrest electing to not separate from the NCAA if there was a P5 breakaway or ESPN pushing FSU and Clemson to the SEC for better TV ratings and bringing WV and UConn into the ACC. Both of these scenarios are unlikely, but possible, and neither threaten the conference.

Lurker, the ACC's TV revenues are going to stay within a certain peg of the B10 and SEC as long as there is an ESPN. The talk of a growing gap, is just that talk. The "gap" is a pre-existing value differential that shows up when contracts are renegotiated. The total value of the ACC is not on a par with the B10 and the outsized value of football makes the SEC more valuable than the ACC, but the difference is about 15% or less. The claims of bazillions has been false from the get go - an internet creation of folks like the Dude.

The REAL money continues to reside in the football stadiums with the tickets. That's why those with the 100K football stadiums are making $100 million to $140 million a year.

(01-29-2014 11:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 11:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  We can talk about and analyze revenue streams and projections until the cows come home. They will always be confusing and arcane. Not to mention of questionable reliability, because all the entities involved want to spin them to make themselves and their decisions look better.

At the end of the day, sometimes you just have to go with your gut. And mine tells me that Maryland will always regret their decision. They just fit better in the ACC than they ever will in the B1G. And if they can't keep their head above water with the revenue from the ACC, what they may get from the B1G isn't going to make much of a difference anyway.

If a girl marries Mr. A because he makes a little more money than Mr. B, chances are that marriage isn't going to be a happy one.

First Ken D let me say that I have enjoyed your posts so far and welcome aboard. Second, I think the Big 10 claimed an attraction here more closely akin to a same sex marriage so I'm not sure your analogy quite applies. What we have here is not mutual compatibility based upon two different but mutual attractions like it would have been if the Big 10 were seeking a new market and Maryland was seeking participation in the CIC, but rather two entities attracted by each other's sameness which in this case was simply the desire for more money. And in that case they may indeed enjoy each other's company.

I think we've all had our suspicions about the Terps. I mean, who has a turtle for a mascot anyway?

The Maryland move was due to two B10 insiders - Kirwan and Loh, money was the cover used for the move to placate Maryland alums and supporters. The Maryland system, of which Kirwan is president and Loh works for him, has a history of mismanagement and stupid decisions. This was a fait acompli from the time Loh arrived on the scene in MD.

(01-28-2014 12:02 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/01/...-schedule/

Quote:At the conference’s meetings this week, the conference and ESPN are expected to have an update on where things stand in regards to a possible ACC channel. Should it go forward, Bobinski said, ESPN will likely want more “inventory” to put on the channel, meaning an additional conference game.

Quote:But, TV money may trump. The GTAA projects it will receive $22.2 million from the ACC in the 2015 fiscal year. (That’s $5.5 million more than was previously projected. The increase is due in part to the league signing its grant of rights, which was worth about $1.1 million per school from ESPN.) That is largely ESPN cash. That number would increase if plans for an ACC network are realized.

That would be interesting. The SEC would be the only P5 that wouldn't play a 9-game conference schedule.

Looks like the G5 schools should be working SEC programs hard to schedule games then as they will have dates to fill more than the other conference and let's face it, a win over most SEC programs is going to matter more regarding who gets the Access Bowl bid and may figure into who get's a better conference tie in bowl bid

(01-28-2014 01:29 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 01:18 PM)Dasville Wrote:  We join the ACC as a FULL revenue sharing member.

Yup...Louisville gets a full share and is completely free from the AAC...

Your time in purgatory has ended...

(01-28-2014 08:29 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The Maryland Board only had a few hours to review the numbers that were presented. You had old ACC numbers that did not included Pitt/Syracuse and the future football playoff/Orange Bowl, compared to the Big 10's projection of revenue after their rebid contract in 2017, plus the future football/Rose Bowl money. Since the Maryland Board was not allowed the time to check anything they swallowed the hook.

The larger deception was not the difference between ACC money and B10 money, it was the distance between Maryland would be between FSU/UNC in the ACC and Ohio State/Michigan in the B10. In the ACC Maryland's total revenue is running at about 80% of the UNC/FSU average, but in the B10 Maryland will be running at about 60-65% of the Ohio State/Michigan average.

The greatest deception though was the popular belief that UVA, UNC and GT would be following Maryland into the Big Ten, making the move more acceptable for some naïve Maryland fans and many Internet posters. I know individuals associated with Maryland played a role in spreading such rumors. For example:

Quote:https://twitter.com/insidemdsports/statu...8326641664


Jeff Ermann‏@insidemdsports
Big 10 talk buzzing again. #UVA being mentioned often as likely to join. Georgia Tech still in the mix. #UNC, the big domino, has an offer.

10:04 AM - 19 Feb 2013

(01-29-2014 06:35 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:29 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The Maryland Board only had a few hours to review the numbers that were presented. You had old ACC numbers that did not included Pitt/Syracuse and the future football playoff/Orange Bowl, compared to the Big 10's projection of revenue after their rebid contract in 2017, plus the future football/Rose Bowl money. Since the Maryland Board was not allowed the time to check anything they swallowed the hook.

The larger deception was not the difference between ACC money and B10 money, it was the distance between Maryland would be between FSU/UNC in the ACC and Ohio State/Michigan in the B10. In the ACC Maryland's total revenue is running at about 80% of the UNC/FSU average, but in the B10 Maryland will be running at about 60-65% of the Ohio State/Michigan average.

The greatest deception though was the popular belief that UVA, UNC and GT would be following Maryland into the Big Ten, making the move more acceptable for some naïve Maryland fans and many Internet posters. I know individuals associated with Maryland played a role in spreading such rumors. For example:

Quote:https://twitter.com/insidemdsports/statu...8326641664


Jeff Ermann‏@insidemdsports
Big 10 talk buzzing again. #UVA being mentioned often as likely to join. Georgia Tech still in the mix. #UNC, the big domino, has an offer.

10:04 AM - 19 Feb 2013

Wow! That was after Maryland told the world they were leaving the ACC. Is that Maryland trying to retaliate against the ACC regarding the lawsuit? Jeff Ermann is either a tool or legit. Which is it?

(01-29-2014 12:01 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 11:11 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 10:36 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:37 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 06:31 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  In comparison, in documents obtained from Purdue, the Big Ten is projecting to distribute $26.4 million in FY14 and $30.1 million in FY15. But its new teams are not receiving full shares.

What were Maryland's PR firms putting out there? How they'd make $100 million more by 2020 (the date when articles in the NJ Ledger said Rutgers would first get a full share)? Anyone still believe that tripe?

Yes. I do.

To be clear, I believe the general argument was $100 million more over the next 10 years, which could have been reached even with reduced shares initially. Of course, the ACC has increased its revenue some since that pronouncement, and such increases likely would not have happened if Maryland had not left.

The bigger issue is whether the ACC will indeed get ESPN to create a conference network similar to the SEC Network, and thereby survive, or not get one and perish. If the ACC gets such a network then there will not be a large gap between its media revenue and that of the SEC and B1G. If so, there would not be a reason for schools to leave, the ACC survives and all arguments to the contrary should cease.* If ESPN declines, then the gap will continue to grow and the ACC is likely doomed. Just like the Big 12. I understand the ACC and ESPN are meeting this week. Maybe we hear something soon.

*I guess it still could be possible for some changes to occur that does not threaten the conference such as Wake Forrest electing to not separate from the NCAA if there was a P5 breakaway or ESPN pushing FSU and Clemson to the SEC for better TV ratings and bringing WV and UConn into the ACC. Both of these scenarios are unlikely, but possible, and neither threaten the conference.

Lurker, the ACC's TV revenues are going to stay within a certain peg of the B10 and SEC as long as there is an ESPN. The talk of a growing gap, is just that talk. The "gap" is a pre-existing value differential that shows up when contracts are renegotiated. The total value of the ACC is not on a par with the B10 and the outsized value of football makes the SEC more valuable than the ACC, but the difference is about 15% or less. The claims of bazillions has been false from the get go - an internet creation of folks like the Dude.

The REAL money continues to reside in the football stadiums with the tickets. That's why those with the 100K football stadiums are making $100 million to $140 million a year.

That is simply not true. While having a large stadium certainly helps the bottom line media money is where the real money lies.

With the advent of cable and the destruction of the CFL monopoly the value of southern teams were set to soar due to the passion of their large fan bases. In the past all broadcast rights were negotiated based on the FMV of those rights at the time of the negotiations as paid by a middleman who often sold some rights to another middleman. A conference network changes this. Now conferences are selling product directly at a FMV enhanced by bundling, the value of which more than covers the split given to their broadcast partner (ESPN, FOX, etc.). As these values rise the conferences profits also rises. The conferences also get 1/2 of the profits from advertising, which is huge.

Many people still just cannot fathom how much money that will be. Many scoffed at annual billion dollar projections when they first appeared. Clay Travis's column was the one most often ridiculed as containing such crazy numbers. Well let's look at what he predicted; the SEC Network would have an initial carriage rate of $1.00 in footprint and a much lower amount out of network, with the in footprint carriage rates climbing to over $2.00, possibly $3.00 over the next TEN years. We now know the initial in footprint carriage rate is going to be $1.30 and .25 cents, respectively. So Clay underestimated the in footprint figure by 30%. Does anyone really believe that in the next ten years the SEC Network would not command $2.00 carriage fees? Does $3.00 now seem so absurd? Please remember, all of the above does not even include advertising revenue on the network. I wrote a long post on this over a year ago. You might want to check it out. http://csnbbs.com/thread-600070.html

Based on the above, the SEC likely will be making as much or more from the SEC Network than from its present tier 1 and tier 2 rights combined. Hopefully you now see how the idea that revenue discrepancies are based on stadium ticket sales is so antiquated.

Because of these enormous discrepancies the ACC cannot survive without a successful ACC Network. The same with the Big 12. No grant of rights will keep a conference together when the majority wants out, especially when a supermajority within a conference will want out, and with that kind of money they will. To believe otherwise is to be in denial.

To repeat, the ACC survival depends on the establishment of a successful ACC Network.

Just my opinion.

Lurker Above

For those that argue that the ACC tried to "poach" teams from the Big Ten:


http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/10/3...-when.html

Quote:The ACC, though, already was finalizing its plan. Less than two weeks after Maryland announced that it would be leaving for the Big Ten, the ACC on Nov. 29, 2012 announced that it was replacing Maryland with Louisville. About five months after that, the conference had secured a grant of rights agreement, which effectively put an end – at least for the foreseeable future – to speculation and rumors that were never more prevalent than in the days that followed news of Maryland’s impending departure for the Big Ten.