(03-31-2014 10:56 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 10:11 PM)nole Wrote:  It is more like FSU and Clemson are the only schools competing with SEC schools in the $$$ dept.

80% of revenue from the ACC comes from football. With the ACC being the poorest Power 5 school, it is another kick in the nuts to have these schools lose money in the title game and then turn and ask them to compete with the likes of Bama, Auburn, etc.

In 5-10 years with the B1G and SEC network, I don't think they can.


You can't have 2-3 schools at the MOST compete for football titles, punish them for success and then demand they compete with with MUCH richer schools in the SEC.

I am still amazed for think it is odd that folks take issue with losing $$$ compared to teams sitting at home. You are punishing success.


But in the ACC, bball schools want to sit home get a 'equal share' of the 80% football revenue (while the title teams lose $$$) and then drive that money into the sport generating 20% of the revenue.

It is a bad business model.

In the SEC, 80% of the schools are driving their money into the sport generating 80% of the profit.

In the ACC, 80% of the schools (really less) are driving their money into the sport that generates 20% of the profit.


To do this and then ask for schools in the title game to lose money....it isn't right.



It is simple....how can a school sitting at home, not investing in the sport that generates profit earn more from the ACC than the schools that are.

Nole,

You are confused about the situation in the ACC. You are confused as to where the money comes from.

The number one source of revenue in the ACC and the SEC is from football ticket sales and all donations related to football.

The TV revenue that you are so worried about is not even half of the football ticket revenue.

The AVERAGE SEC stadium seats 78K people, with a range of 40K to 102 K. The AVERAGE ACC stadium seats 58K people, with a range of 31K to 82K.

You have an average size SEC stadium.

That 20,000 seat differential roughs out to be about $14 million per year. Your average SEC size stadium is 20K smaller than Bama or UT and 10K smaller than Georgia and LSU. If you have less money than Bama, UT, Georgia, and LSU, that deficiency starts with your SEC average sized football stadium.

Why have you not added 10K - 15K seats so that you can compete with Bama, Auburn, Georgia, LSU, etc regarding money. That's YOUR fault, not the ACC's fault.

Why is football ticket demand so low in west Florida?

NC State, UNC, and Duke sit in the same metropolitan area and they sell a combined 145,000 football tickets - why aren't you selling 100K? How is it that pitiful Duke, NC State and UNC sell so many football tickets year in and year out? They also have to compete with the a professional hockey franchise in their metro. You compete with no one.

In fact, no SEC schools have more than two SEC schools in their state, and at most SEC schools - KY, SC, Tenn, Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, MSU, Mizzou, Arkansas, and TAMU, the SEC sports are the ONLY GAME IN TOWN. UF is near the Jacksonville and Orland Metros. UGA is near the Atlanta metro. LSU is near the New Orleans Metro.

You FSU fans want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to dominate the ACC but you want to do it on the cheap. You like brining in the most money, but it's never enough. You want SEC money, but you are unwilling and unable to expand your football stadium to actually compete with the SEC money. You love being able to blame the ACC for your own bad financial decision or lack of SEC level fan support.

You really ought to be damn glad that you have the best deal in college football.

If you want BAMA money, expand to 100K and on top of that charge a BAMA level annual donation fee for tickets. If not shut up.

Profitability equals revenue less costs. Revenue equals tickets sold times price. Price is a factor of supply and demand. It isn't all about size. There needs to be more demand, which is where quality of opponents start mattering. As I understand it, possibly last year aside, FSU isn't selling out most games. Part of that is FSU's OOC scheduling, but the rest is the ACC. Without a committed ACC, what good would adding 10k seats do?

(03-31-2014 10:56 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 10:11 PM)nole Wrote:  It is more like FSU and Clemson are the only schools competing with SEC schools in the $$$ dept.

80% of revenue from the ACC comes from football. With the ACC being the poorest Power 5 school, it is another kick in the nuts to have these schools lose money in the title game and then turn and ask them to compete with the likes of Bama, Auburn, etc.

In 5-10 years with the B1G and SEC network, I don't think they can.


You can't have 2-3 schools at the MOST compete for football titles, punish them for success and then demand they compete with with MUCH richer schools in the SEC.

I am still amazed for think it is odd that folks take issue with losing $$$ compared to teams sitting at home. You are punishing success.


But in the ACC, bball schools want to sit home get a 'equal share' of the 80% football revenue (while the title teams lose $$$) and then drive that money into the sport generating 20% of the revenue.

It is a bad business model.

In the SEC, 80% of the schools are driving their money into the sport generating 80% of the profit.

In the ACC, 80% of the schools (really less) are driving their money into the sport that generates 20% of the profit.


To do this and then ask for schools in the title game to lose money....it isn't right.



It is simple....how can a school sitting at home, not investing in the sport that generates profit earn more from the ACC than the schools that are.

Nole,

You are confused about the situation in the ACC. You are confused as to where the money comes from.

The number one source of revenue in the ACC and the SEC is from football ticket sales and all donations related to football.

The TV revenue that you are so worried about is not even half of the football ticket revenue.

The AVERAGE SEC stadium seats 78K people, with a range of 40K to 102 K. The AVERAGE ACC stadium seats 58K people, with a range of 31K to 82K.

You have an average size SEC stadium.

That 20,000 seat differential roughs out to be about $14 million per year. Your average SEC size stadium is 20K smaller than Bama or UT and 10K smaller than Georgia and LSU. If you have less money than Bama, UT, Georgia, and LSU, that deficiency starts with your SEC average sized football stadium.

Why have you not added 10K - 15K seats so that you can compete with Bama, Auburn, Georgia, LSU, etc regarding money. That's YOUR fault, not the ACC's fault.

Why is football ticket demand so low in west Florida?

NC State, UNC, and Duke sit in the same metropolitan area and they sell a combined 145,000 football tickets - why aren't you selling 100K? How is it that pitiful Duke, NC State and UNC sell so many football tickets year in and year out? They also have to compete with the a professional hockey franchise in their metro. You compete with no one.

In fact, no SEC schools have more than two SEC schools in their state, and at most SEC schools - KY, SC, Tenn, Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, MSU, Mizzou, Arkansas, and TAMU, the SEC sports are the ONLY GAME IN TOWN. UF is near the Jacksonville and Orland Metros. UGA is near the Atlanta metro. LSU is near the New Orleans Metro.

You FSU fans want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to dominate the ACC but you want to do it on the cheap. You like brining in the most money, but it's never enough. You want SEC money, but you are unwilling and unable to expand your football stadium to actually compete with the SEC money. You love being able to blame the ACC for your own bad financial decision or lack of SEC level fan support.

You really ought to be damn glad that you have the best deal in college football.

If you want BAMA money, expand to 100K and on top of that charge a BAMA level annual donation fee for tickets. If not shut up.

They would be wasting money adding 18k seats to go to 100k because nobody could sell enough tickets to make it profitable with an ACC schedule, and unlike the SEC there aren't but 2 or 3 schools that sell the majority of their 4500 visiting ticket allotment to help fill the seats.

(03-31-2014 07:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 07:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 01:32 PM)nole Wrote:  When teams that stay at home for bowl games and conference title game earn more money from the conference than the ones that go.......that is SCREWED UP.


Same for NCAA March Madness.


If you succeed, you should not be punished.



You don't think there punishment for teams farther way from the Charlotte title game who are 'ENCOURAGED' by the ACC conference to bring their band (FSU's has over 400 to Duke's 100....another huge difference).

Hell, last year, UNC and Miami backed out of the game due to NCAA trouble, making the game less interesting to fans and FSU paid a financial penalty because of that. While the schools who got in trouble with the NCAA SAVED $$$$.

That is problematic.

The incentives and disincentives in this conference just suck.


The fact this is even a debate is nuts too me......this whole thread has fans that think it is wrong for SOME FSU fans to wonder if it is right FSU has to lose $700K to go to the title game the last 2 years.

Could we at least set it up so AFTER expenses the revenue is split? Don't give me FSU is given money for expenses...BS. They are required to bring a 600 person band along with other expenses.


Just another example of how this conference is run (Swofford is ROLLING in money FYI....despite the worst TV contract out there) and how it views football (despite bringing in 80% of revenue).


Sometimes I want the ACC to work, but then I see how differently this conference thinks compared to SEC/B1G fans, etc and I wsih FSU wasn't in the ACC.


Stop punishing the schools who bring in the money.


Rip away.

First, welcome aboard.

Second, as a Hokie fan, I agree with you - it's wrong for best teams to lose money while worst teams reap the financial reward.

FWIW, I think the half-measures the ACC took last year were insufficient and they need to address it yet again this Summer. I suspect they will.

This is why the ACC is pushing for the ability to send two teams from he same division.

I don't see what changing the opponent is going to do to alleviate this situation. This isn't an ACC problem, it's an FSU spending like a sailor on shore leave after 6 months at sea problem, and that is something that isn't limited to the ACCCG as witnessed by the conference having to "find" money to get them out of the red a few years back. Maybe instead of fussing at the ACC the FSU folks need to fuss at their athletic department and tell them to live within their means.

This has been a FSU problem for years.
FSU did a grand re-do of their baseball stadium, it is the class of the league. What they didn't do is formulate a plan on how to pay for the renovations. For the last several years they have had to have fundraisers
on the eve of the payment due dates just to pay the mortgage.
That bunch has been a problem since we let them into the league and I understand their stature, but we would be better off to trade them to the SEC for Vanderbilt or South Carolina.

(03-31-2014 10:24 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 10:11 PM)nole Wrote:  It is more like FSU and Clemson are the only schools competing with SEC schools in the $$$ dept.

80% of revenue from the ACC comes from football. With the ACC being the poorest Power 5 school, it is another kick in the nuts to have these schools lose money in the title game and then turn and ask them to compete with the likes of Bama, Auburn, etc.

In 5-10 years with the B1G and SEC network, I don't think they can.


You can't have 2-3 schools at the MOST compete for football titles, punish them for success and then demand they compete with with MUCH richer schools in the SEC.

I am still amazed for think it is odd that folks take issue with losing $$$ compared to teams sitting at home. You are punishing success.


But in the ACC, bball schools want to sit home get a 'equal share' of the 80% football revenue (while the title teams lose $$$) and then drive that money into the sport generating 20% of the revenue.

It is a bad business model.

In the SEC, 80% of the schools are driving their money into the sport generating 80% of the profit.

In the ACC, 80% of the schools (really less) are driving their money into the sport that generates 20% of the profit.


To do this and then ask for schools in the title game to lose money....it isn't right.



It is simple....how can a school sitting at home, not investing in the sport that generates profit earn more from the ACC than the schools that are.

Which schools do you have in mind?

Also, I do not believe its correct that 80% of the Acc money comes from fb.

http://allthingsfsu.blogspot.com/2014/02...-data.html

See middle graph. 58% of revenue is FB TV rights alone. Bowl games is 20%.


http://allthingsfsu.blogspot.com/2014/02...links.html

Clemson Athletic Director: 80% Of ACC's Revenue From New Contract w/ ESPN Is Football


"Wow! I knew it was high, but, not that high. Swofford also said something similar last week: "Swofford estimated that football drives 70-80 percent of rights fees""


New 15-year ESPN contract increases ACC media revenue by 30 percent


"Swofford estimated that football drives 70-80 percent of rights fees and acknowledged that more national success in that sport would have meant additional revenue."

Revenue comes from multiple areas.

There is a part FSU owns the responsibility for.


This thread is about the part that comes from the ACC. That side of the equation has the issue where teams that produce incur a penalty. That is just a bad model.


It is incredibly reasonable for the ACC to make this minor adjustment to address this.

No team in any money sport should incur a penalty for producing in that sport while other teams sit at home.

Nole welcome to the board. You'll fit right in this dysfunctional group of misfits.

Sorry we are apparently are not a good enough draw for you. We hope to elevate our FB program to make it a better game...give us a couple years.

(04-01-2014 07:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 07:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 07:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 01:32 PM)nole Wrote:  When teams that stay at home for bowl games and conference title game earn more money from the conference than the ones that go.......that is SCREWED UP.


Same for NCAA March Madness.


If you succeed, you should not be punished.



You don't think there punishment for teams farther way from the Charlotte title game who are 'ENCOURAGED' by the ACC conference to bring their band (FSU's has over 400 to Duke's 100....another huge difference).

Hell, last year, UNC and Miami backed out of the game due to NCAA trouble, making the game less interesting to fans and FSU paid a financial penalty because of that. While the schools who got in trouble with the NCAA SAVED $$$$.

That is problematic.

The incentives and disincentives in this conference just suck.


The fact this is even a debate is nuts too me......this whole thread has fans that think it is wrong for SOME FSU fans to wonder if it is right FSU has to lose $700K to go to the title game the last 2 years.

Could we at least set it up so AFTER expenses the revenue is split? Don't give me FSU is given money for expenses...BS. They are required to bring a 600 person band along with other expenses.


Just another example of how this conference is run (Swofford is ROLLING in money FYI....despite the worst TV contract out there) and how it views football (despite bringing in 80% of revenue).


Sometimes I want the ACC to work, but then I see how differently this conference thinks compared to SEC/B1G fans, etc and I wsih FSU wasn't in the ACC.


Stop punishing the schools who bring in the money.


Rip away.

First, welcome aboard.

Second, as a Hokie fan, I agree with you - it's wrong for best teams to lose money while worst teams reap the financial reward.

FWIW, I think the half-measures the ACC took last year were insufficient and they need to address it yet again this Summer. I suspect they will.

This is why the ACC is pushing for the ability to send two teams from he same division.

I don't see what changing the opponent is going to do to alleviate this situation. This isn't an ACC problem, it's an FSU spending like a sailor on shore leave after 6 months at sea problem, and that is something that isn't limited to the ACCCG as witnessed by the conference having to "find" money to get them out of the red a few years back. Maybe instead of fussing at the ACC the FSU folks need to fuss at their athletic department and tell them to live within their means.

This has been a FSU problem for years.
FSU did a grand re-do of their baseball stadium, it is the class of the league. What they didn't do is formulate a plan on how to pay for the renovations. For the last several years they have had to have fundraisers
on the eve of the payment due dates just to pay the mortgage.
That bunch has been a problem since we let them into the league and I understand their stature, but we would be better off to trade them to the SEC for Vanderbilt or South Carolina.

It's old listening to FSU/Warchant whines.

This was Bama's home slate in 2012 and 2013:

2012
Western Kentucky
Florida Atlantic
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
TAMU
Western Carolina
Auburn

Bama has one marquee home game in 2012 - TAMU, Auburn stunk in 2012.

2013
Colorado State
Ole Miss
Georgia State
Arkansas
Tennessee
LSU
UT-Chattanooga

Again one marquee home game in 2013 - LSU. Arkansas was a dumpster fire and so was Tennessee.

Now, Bama sells 100-102K tickets to these games and charges a premium for access to the good seats.

A small FSU faction wants to whine and complain about how the ACC does not pay enough money for them to take 300-500 hangers-on to the game in Charlotte, yet FSU sells about 25K less football tickets per game than Bama and wonders why they make less money.

In fact the dollar spread in revenue between Bama and FSU is almost directly attributable to the smaller crowds that FSU commands in Tallahassee, no matter who FSU is playing.

FSU's problem is not with the ACC, it's with FSU fans.

I think it's remarkable that the team with the Heisman Trophy Candidate, and the National Championship Run, only runs at 91% of capacity in their own stadium. FSU averaged 75,285 fans in a stadium that holds 82,300. Clemson, who got popped in the mouth in mid-season and had their National Championship hopes dashed managed 80,500 fans in a stadium that seats 81,500 - 99% of capacity.

FSU's home slate:

Nevada 73,800
Bethune-Cookman 74,800
Maryland 75,000
NC State 80,000
Miami 84,400
Syracuse 74,000
Idaho 65,000

Clemson put 81,000 and 81,500 in the stands for South Carolina State and the Citadel. Clemson has one third the student population of FSU.

It would appear that the baseline attraction of FSU football is only 75K for the event and that it takes outside and travelling fans to push demand beyond that level. Yet Warchant indoctrinated fans think FSU should make Bama money, even Auburn money, yet they can't fill their own stadium unless they are playing Miami.

Perhaps FSU needs the band to draw fans, maybe it takes the mothers and fathers of the band members to help fill up their stands?

Yet every FSU problem is the ACC's fault.

My gut reaction is that part of FSU's problem is the NFL. Its home market, Tallahassee, has only 280,000 TV HH, compared to 720,000 for Birmingham AL and 850,000 in Greenville SC, respectively. Syracuse has 380,000. FSU, therefore, depends on fans traveling from the Tampa, Orlando and Jacksonville markets. However, those fans are well served by the NFL Bucs and Jags, not to mention that FSU is competing in those markets with UF, USF and UCF. That's some heavy duty competition that Bama and Clemson don't face because they have large home markets. When competing with pro teams, to increase revenues, it becomes more important to up sell your devoted fans by offering more amenities.

(04-01-2014 01:45 PM)orangefan Wrote:  My gut reaction is that part of FSU's problem is the NFL. Its home market, Tallahassee, has only 280,000 TV HH, compared to 720,000 for Birmingham AL and 850,000 in Greenville SC, respectively. Syracuse has 380,000. FSU, therefore, depends on fans traveling from the Tampa, Orlando and Jacksonville markets. However, those fans are well served by the NFL Bucs and Jags, not to mention that FSU is competing in those markets with UF, USF and UCF. That's some heavy duty competition that Bama and Clemson don't face because they have large home markets. When competing with pro teams, to increase revenues, it becomes more important to up sell your devoted fans by offering more amenities.

Yes, they suffer from market encroachment, and a degree of spatial constraint due to their geographic proximity to the Alabama and Georgia boarder.

I just get tired of hearing how it's the conference's fault for this and that.

I've heard two AD's in the ACC (not NC State's) say that they only made money off a bowl game when they stayed home. I don't think NC State has actually made money off a bowl game in the last 20 years.

On another subject with FSU, I don't understand why Tallahassee has never organized a bowl game. I know Tally is a relatively boring city, but it's no worse than Birmingham and Tally has better winter weather and the legislature and students would not be in Town for a bowl game so there should be hotel rooms even though flying into Tally is akin to flying in to the Yukon.

That could be a revenue source for FSU boosters and on top of that when FSU stinks once every 10 years, they can stay home for the bowl game and actually make some money.

Perhaps the NFL will send the Jaguars to London and help FSU.

(04-01-2014 01:45 PM)orangefan Wrote:  My gut reaction is that part of FSU's problem is the NFL. Its home market, Tallahassee, has only 280,000 TV HH, compared to 720,000 for Birmingham AL and 850,000 in Greenville SC, respectively. Syracuse has 380,000. FSU, therefore, depends on fans traveling from the Tampa, Orlando and Jacksonville markets. However, those fans are well served by the NFL Bucs and Jags, not to mention that FSU is competing in those markets with UF, USF and UCF. That's some heavy duty competition that Bama and Clemson don't face because they have large home markets. When competing with pro teams, to increase revenues, it becomes more important to up sell your devoted fans by offering more amenities.

Insightful.

(04-01-2014 10:45 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:45 PM)orangefan Wrote:  My gut reaction is that part of FSU's problem is the NFL. Its home market, Tallahassee, has only 280,000 TV HH, compared to 720,000 for Birmingham AL and 850,000 in Greenville SC, respectively. Syracuse has 380,000. FSU, therefore, depends on fans traveling from the Tampa, Orlando and Jacksonville markets. However, those fans are well served by the NFL Bucs and Jags, not to mention that FSU is competing in those markets with UF, USF and UCF. That's some heavy duty competition that Bama and Clemson don't face because they have large home markets. When competing with pro teams, to increase revenues, it becomes more important to up sell your devoted fans by offering more amenities.

Insightful.

Nobody is well served by the Jags.

(03-29-2014 08:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Why is this even an issue? Schools are budgeted a certain amount for travel and ticket sales. If they go above and beyond that then that's on them. It doesn't make sense for the ACC to cover "everything". What would stop a school from flying up everybody and their mother on the ACC's dime. FSU chose to go above and beyond and like they said, "that's the cost of doing business".

Teams lose money each year for bowl games, champ games, etc. This is especially the case where teams have to travel significant distances to participate. So FSU pays a couple of hundred grand to play in the ACC championship game, then makes millions off that game. I'd be willing to bet every ACC team would pay to play in that game just for the exposure and increased interest in the program. Look what is has done for Duke. I've never seen so many articles on Duke as I've seen over the past few months.

If teams are losing money on the bowl system then why continue it? Its time for a shift to a true 16 team playoff system! Also, quit paying the travel and board expense on so many staff members, professors, and those that want to suck on FSU's tit for free, during bowl week! Let them pay like everybody else or stay home and watch the game on TV!

(04-03-2014 04:44 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 08:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Why is this even an issue? Schools are budgeted a certain amount for travel and ticket sales. If they go above and beyond that then that's on them. It doesn't make sense for the ACC to cover "everything". What would stop a school from flying up everybody and their mother on the ACC's dime. FSU chose to go above and beyond and like they said, "that's the cost of doing business".

Teams lose money each year for bowl games, champ games, etc. This is especially the case where teams have to travel significant distances to participate. So FSU pays a couple of hundred grand to play in the ACC championship game, then makes millions off that game. I'd be willing to bet every ACC team would pay to play in that game just for the exposure and increased interest in the program. Look what is has done for Duke. I've never seen so many articles on Duke as I've seen over the past few months.

If teams are losing money on the bowl system then why continue it? Its time for a shift to a true 16 team playoff system! Also, quit paying the travel and board expense on so many staff members, professors, and those that want to suck on FSU's tit for free, during bowl week! Let them pay like everybody else or stay home and watch the game on TV!

Why continue it? Exposure, recruiting, rewarding the players.......and fans still watch..I'm sure the networks enjoy that too.

Going to a bowl game is like an investment. You have to pay a little to get a return.

(04-03-2014 04:44 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 08:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Why is this even an issue? Schools are budgeted a certain amount for travel and ticket sales. If they go above and beyond that then that's on them. It doesn't make sense for the ACC to cover "everything". What would stop a school from flying up everybody and their mother on the ACC's dime. FSU chose to go above and beyond and like they said, "that's the cost of doing business".

Teams lose money each year for bowl games, champ games, etc. This is especially the case where teams have to travel significant distances to participate. So FSU pays a couple of hundred grand to play in the ACC championship game, then makes millions off that game. I'd be willing to bet every ACC team would pay to play in that game just for the exposure and increased interest in the program. Look what is has done for Duke. I've never seen so many articles on Duke as I've seen over the past few months.

If teams are losing money on the bowl system then why continue it? Its time for a shift to a true 16 team playoff system! Also, quit paying the travel and board expense on so many staff members, professors, and those that want to suck on FSU's tit for free, during bowl week! Let them pay like everybody else or stay home and watch the game on TV!

They're losing money because the money is being split 14-15 ways, depending on the game. The game brings in more than it costs. And, if they stopped going, everyone else would, too. The end result of that is that *every* ACC team would be worse off financially.

Also, a 16 team playoff might not even be feasible. It would add 4 games on to a season that is already 12-13-14* games long. That's a lot to ask.

*13 with a CCG or a Hawai'i game and 14 with a Hawai'i game and a CCG

Do you guys really think that FSU isn't pressured behind the scenes to bring their full band to the ACCCG? They don't bring their full band to away games, and having 500 (FSU and Duke) band members on the field at halftime looks a lot better than a halftime looking like high school with 200 band members.

Tallahassee is not Raleigh Durham. The Raleigh Durham DMA is 24th in the nation with 1.1 million tv homes vs the Tallahassee Thomasville DMA ranked 106 with 269K tv homes. Thats more than what UF has with Gainesville(ranked 163 and 125K homes) and Jacksonville (48th and 675K homes) combined.

FSU has to pull from a much larger area.

It's time for the teams that don't try to get better and are content sitting around collecting Football money to earn less.

The ACC needs to have a set budget for both ACCCG teams that they will cover from any TV money. If an ACC team makes it to the playoffs they should get a bonus for doing so before the money is split. FSU, UNC and Clemson and even Louisville have massive football budgets that benefit the entire ACC. If FSU didnt spend like they did, they would not have the players or coaches to make to it the BCS title game and earn the conference an additional 24 million to split.

FSU went to 4 BCS title games and 4 other BCS games. VaTech went to 5 of them in the ACC. Miami has 4 appearances, Clemson 2, and GaTech and Maryland 1. Who is shouldering the load of earning money?

And yes, I support the same with basketball, if a school just wants to sit in the cellar every year and rake in the same as Virginia, UNC, Duke, Cuse, etc, they should be penalized.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(04-03-2014 12:21 PM)jaxnolefan Wrote:  Do you guys really think that FSU isn't pressured behind the scenes to bring their full band to the ACCCG? They don't bring their full band to away games, and having 500 (FSU and Duke) band members on the field at halftime looks a lot better than a halftime looking like high school with 200 band members.

Tallahassee is not Raleigh Durham. The Raleigh Durham DMA is 24th in the nation with 1.1 million tv homes vs the Tallahassee Thomasville DMA ranked 106 with 269K tv homes. Thats more than what UF has with Gainesville(ranked 163 and 125K homes) and Jacksonville (48th and 675K homes) combined.

FSU has to pull from a much larger area.

It's time for the teams that don't try to get better and are content sitting around collecting Football money to earn less.

The ACC needs to have a set budget for both ACCCG teams that they will cover from any TV money. If an ACC team makes it to the playoffs they should get a bonus for doing so before the money is split. FSU, UNC and Clemson and even Louisville have massive football budgets that benefit the entire ACC. If FSU didnt spend like they did, they would not have the players or coaches to make to it the BCS title game and earn the conference an additional 24 million to split.

FSU went to 4 BCS title games and 4 other BCS games. VaTech went to 5 of them in the ACC. Miami has 4 appearances, Clemson 2, and GaTech and Maryland 1. Who is shouldering the load of earning money?

And yes, I support the same with basketball, if a school just wants to sit in the cellar every year and rake in the same as Virginia, UNC, Duke, Cuse, etc, they should be penalized.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

FSU fans need to stop whining every time Warchant posts a ridiculous piece of bs. Most of the innuendo in the articles are misleading, and most of the assumptions are wrong. It's doing the opposite of engendering sympathy. Take the cues from the quotes of your actual administrators that are in the business, not the hyperbole of the pot stirrers.