Enjoy!

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/11...ibit-a.pdf

Seems they have submitted some ACC documents in order to support their anti-trust argument. It is interesting to note that in the documents, the ACC contends they are paid far more than what is being widely reported.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...orts&clsrd

This is obviously a Powerpoint presentation intended for some audience. I would be curious to know who that audience would be.

(04-24-2014 02:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  This is obviously a Powerpoint presentation intended for some audience. I would be curious to know who that audience would be.

Internal audiences. Probably a state of the union sort of presentation.

It obviously is dated somewhere from February to March, 2013, based on the inclusion of 2013 recruiting classes and NCAA bid data that only includes numbers through the 2012 tournament. So it is over a year old.

(04-24-2014 02:18 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  This is obviously a Powerpoint presentation intended for some audience. I would be curious to know who that audience would be.

Internal audiences. Probably a state of the union sort of presentation.

It obviously is dated from February and March, 2013, based on the recruiting and NCAA bid data. So it is over a year old.

Excellent analysis on the date!

I guess now we know the value of the TV contract: $19.2M per team/year
Interesting to me that it's the 2nd highest per team... didn't expect that!

(04-24-2014 02:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:18 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  This is obviously a Powerpoint presentation intended for some audience. I would be curious to know who that audience would be.

Internal audiences. Probably a state of the union sort of presentation.

It obviously is dated from February and March, 2013, based on the recruiting and NCAA bid data. So it is over a year old.

Excellent analysis on the date!

I guess now we know the value of the TV contract: $19.2M per team/year
Interesting to me that it's the 2nd highest per team... didn't expect that!

That's obviously including Notre Dame (which they seem to be counting as about a quarter share) and before any additional compensation from not having a network, if such reports of additional compensation were valid.

Other things that can be taken from this, 1) the Feb-March time frame indicates that the meeting with ESPN regarding a network would happen within 60-90 days...thus no later than June. Whatever happened in that meeting certainly didn't kill the prospects of the network, judging by the continued positive statements coming from ACC administrators and conference ADs since that time frame.

(04-24-2014 03:25 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:18 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  This is obviously a Powerpoint presentation intended for some audience. I would be curious to know who that audience would be.

Internal audiences. Probably a state of the union sort of presentation.

It obviously is dated from February and March, 2013, based on the recruiting and NCAA bid data. So it is over a year old.

Excellent analysis on the date!

I guess now we know the value of the TV contract: $19.2M per team/year
Interesting to me that it's the 2nd highest per team... didn't expect that!

That's obviously including Notre Dame (which they seem to be counting as about a quarter share) and before any additional compensation from not having a network, if such reports of additional compensation were valid.

Other things that can be taken from this, 1) the Feb-March time frame indicates that the meeting with ESPN regarding a network would happen within 60-90 days...thus no later than June. Whatever happened in that meeting certainly didn't kill the prospects of the network, judging by the continued positive statements coming from ACC administrators and conference ADs since that time frame.

You think it's 60-90 days from when the market analysis was released? I took it (the Washington Post article) to mean 60-90 days from today.

(04-24-2014 03:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:25 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:18 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  This is obviously a Powerpoint presentation intended for some audience. I would be curious to know who that audience would be.

Internal audiences. Probably a state of the union sort of presentation.

It obviously is dated from February and March, 2013, based on the recruiting and NCAA bid data. So it is over a year old.

Excellent analysis on the date!

I guess now we know the value of the TV contract: $19.2M per team/year
Interesting to me that it's the 2nd highest per team... didn't expect that!

That's obviously including Notre Dame (which they seem to be counting as about a quarter share) and before any additional compensation from not having a network, if such reports of additional compensation were valid.

Other things that can be taken from this, 1) the Feb-March time frame indicates that the meeting with ESPN regarding a network would happen within 60-90 days...thus no later than June. Whatever happened in that meeting certainly didn't kill the prospects of the network, judging by the continued positive statements coming from ACC administrators and conference ADs since that time frame.

You think it's 60-90 days from when the market analysis was released? I took it (the Washington Post article) to mean 60-90 days from today.

That is straight from the report in the Television section (page 26)...so that meeting already happened.

(04-24-2014 03:39 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:25 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:18 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Internal audiences. Probably a state of the union sort of presentation.

It obviously is dated from February and March, 2013, based on the recruiting and NCAA bid data. So it is over a year old.

Excellent analysis on the date!

I guess now we know the value of the TV contract: $19.2M per team/year
Interesting to me that it's the 2nd highest per team... didn't expect that!

That's obviously including Notre Dame (which they seem to be counting as about a quarter share) and before any additional compensation from not having a network, if such reports of additional compensation were valid.

Other things that can be taken from this, 1) the Feb-March time frame indicates that the meeting with ESPN regarding a network would happen within 60-90 days...thus no later than June. Whatever happened in that meeting certainly didn't kill the prospects of the network, judging by the continued positive statements coming from ACC administrators and conference ADs since that time frame.

You think it's 60-90 days from when the market analysis was released? I took it (the Washington Post article) to mean 60-90 days from today.

That is straight from the report in the Television section (page 26)...so that meeting already happened.

Ah, I missed that the first time. Good catch!

Weak sauce. The document is unsigned, undated, has no footnotes, or citations.

Moreover the entire Maryland non-damage premise is based on conferences remaining static in number - the ACC staying at 15.

This shows just how stupid they are at MD. MD's argument holds a little water if conferences were fixed in size, but they are not so the loss of Maryland can not be "replaced" with Louisville no matter what Louisville does or does not add. Indeed the ACC can claim that by MD leaving, the ACC lost a shot at adding Penn State or brining ND in for 8 league football games.

MD is like a fool that takes a switchblade to a gun fight.

a

(04-24-2014 03:48 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Weak sauce. The document is unsigned, undated, has no footnotes, or citations.

Moreover the entire Maryland non-damage premise is based on conferences remaining static in number - the ACC staying at 15.

This shows just how stupid they are at MD. MD's argument holds a little water if conferences were fixed in size, but they are not so the loss of Maryland can not be "replaced" with Louisville no matter what Louisville does or does not add. Indeed the ACC can claim that by MD leaving, the ACC lost a shot at adding Penn State or brining ND in for 8 league football games.

MD is like a fool that takes a switchblade to a gun fight.

Well, of course it is legally weak sauce, but it is nice of them to indirectly leak an ACC promotional report all over the internet. The ACC would never be able to come out and publicly say how it compares favorably to other conferences by their actual names.

Now it goes without saying that I'm sure all the kooks in WV and the like will begin trying to spin it. Look for the infamous "Tier 3" cry of the galactically ignorant.

Critically, the report says nothing about how having Louisville compares to having Maryland. If anything, its emphasis on population and TV HH in the conference footprint as being the revelant metrics should suggest that the loss of UMD is extremely damaging since the state population of MD > KY and the DC TV Market > Louisville.

(04-24-2014 04:42 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Critically, the report says nothing about how having Louisville compares to having Maryland. If anything, its emphasis on population and TV HH in the conference footprint as being the revelant metrics should suggest that the loss of UMD is extremely damaging since the state population of MD > KY and the DC TV Market > Louisville.

We can only speculate why they would include it. It may not be why we think.

(04-24-2014 04:42 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Critically, the report says nothing about how having Louisville compares to having Maryland. If anything, its emphasis on population and TV HH in the conference footprint as being the revelant metrics should suggest that the loss of UMD is extremely damaging since the state population of MD > KY and the DC TV Market > Louisville.

The report is just talking points for the ACC folks to take back and combat the Dude's of the world.

But let me restate - there is no exchange with Louisville and MD - MD is a loss because the ACC is not finite in size - that's what MD can't dance around. The B10 started talking about conferences at 16 and 18. The ACC can always assert that Louisivlle was planned as the 17th or 18th school with PSU as the 16th. As such Louisville does not "replace" MD.

(04-24-2014 05:12 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 04:42 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Critically, the report says nothing about how having Louisville compares to having Maryland. If anything, its emphasis on population and TV HH in the conference footprint as being the revelant metrics should suggest that the loss of UMD is extremely damaging since the state population of MD > KY and the DC TV Market > Louisville.

We can only speculate why they would include it. It may not be why we think.

I think the folks at UM are dumb enough to think that it bolsters their "no damage" argument. This assumes stupidity on the part of others and that's a UM trait these last several years - the assumption that no one else thinks. This has traction for those that don't comprehend that conferences can grow to any size - they aren't very bright, but thank God, most judges are brighter than newspaper reporters.

MD wants to bamboozle folks by saying MD was worth say $30 million a year to the ACC, while Louisville is worth $40 million so the ACC is $10 million better off - hoping that no one will figure out that MD AND LOUISVILLE were worth $70 million to the ACC and $30 million took off and left the building. Everything MD says and argues is based on a finite, 14/15 member ACC.

(04-24-2014 07:03 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 05:12 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 04:42 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Critically, the report says nothing about how having Louisville compares to having Maryland. If anything, its emphasis on population and TV HH in the conference footprint as being the revelant metrics should suggest that the loss of UMD is extremely damaging since the state population of MD > KY and the DC TV Market > Louisville.

We can only speculate why they would include it. It may not be why we think.

I think the folks at UM are dumb enough to think that it bolsters their "no damage" argument. This assumes stupidity on the part of others and that's a UM trait these last several years - the assumption that no one else thinks. This has traction for those that don't comprehend that conferences can grow to any size - they aren't very bright, but thank God, most judges are brighter than newspaper reporters.

MD wants to bamboozle folks by saying MD was worth say $30 million a year to the ACC, while Louisville is worth $40 million so the ACC is $10 million better off - hoping that no one will figure out that MD AND LOUISVILLE were worth $70 million to the ACC and $30 million took off and left the building. Everything MD says and argues is based on a finite, 14/15 member ACC.

It would be useful to see the pleading to which this was attached. If someone could post a link, it would be appreciated. If you are correct, and I suspect you might be, a good lawyer or consultant should be able to show that it doesn't support this point at all.

Am I the only one who looked at this report and thought, "Gee, they might want to consider cleaning this up to be a more professional piece and then show this to the University of Texas administrators"?

(04-24-2014 08:07 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Am I the only one who looked at this report and thought, "Gee, they might want to consider cleaning this up to be a more professional piece and then show this to the University of Texas administrators"?

Dodds don't need to read boy.

Actually the quality is one of the reasons I think it's talking points rather than a legitimate report.

(04-24-2014 03:25 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:18 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  This is obviously a Powerpoint presentation intended for some audience. I would be curious to know who that audience would be.

Internal audiences. Probably a state of the union sort of presentation.

It obviously is dated from February and March, 2013, based on the recruiting and NCAA bid data. So it is over a year old.

Excellent analysis on the date!

I guess now we know the value of the TV contract: $19.2M per team/year
Interesting to me that it's the 2nd highest per team... didn't expect that!

That's obviously including Notre Dame (which they seem to be counting as about a quarter share) and before any additional compensation from not having a network, if such reports of additional compensation were valid.

Other things that can be taken from this, 1) the Feb-March time frame indicates that the meeting with ESPN regarding a network would happen within 60-90 days...thus no later than June. Whatever happened in that meeting certainly didn't kill the prospects of the network, judging by the continued positive statements coming from ACC administrators and conference ADs since that time frame.

I'd agree it didn't kill it. But the fact that a year later there's still no consensus on whether a network is viable or not isn't all that promising, either.

(04-24-2014 02:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:18 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  This is obviously a Powerpoint presentation intended for some audience. I would be curious to know who that audience would be.

Internal audiences. Probably a state of the union sort of presentation.

It obviously is dated from February and March, 2013, based on the recruiting and NCAA bid data. So it is over a year old.

Excellent analysis on the date!

I guess now we know the value of the TV contract: $19.2M per team/year
Interesting to me that it's the 2nd highest per team... didn't expect that!

Considering the SEC didn't re-up and instead started a network, and the Big Ten hasn't negotiated their new contract yet, it's not that surprising. It's just that 5 years from now, "total tv revenue" may look a bit different and much less favorable for the ACC.