Marge Schott
Banned
Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
|
RE: "ACC will pull in $90 to 95 million in bowl revenue"
(12-22-2014 10:03 AM)Lou_C Wrote: In addition, it would give the ACC's two closest competitors in terms of prestige and money, a significant boost by giving them two access bowls to the ACC's one.
Isn't that the case now anyways?
|
|
12-22-2014 01:00 PM |
|
omniorange
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
|
RE: "ACC will pull in $90 to 95 million in bowl revenue"
(12-22-2014 10:03 AM)Lou_C Wrote: "But a $45 million bowl deal with the ACC getting $35 million is better than a $55 million deal where the ACC only gets $27.5 million."
Have you looked at the ratings for Big 12 and PAC teams?
I'm a money guy, but this is just stupid thinking. You really think $500k per school is worth a game against Kansas State or Baylor or Arizona that nobody is going to watch? I suppose you still would rather have the extra $500k the Big 12 is making on their TV over the ACC, and be playing on FS1 in front of nobody.
I think the ACC could have gotten a better deal with the B1G and SEC on the Orange...but the SEC and B1G are where it's at. The ACC needs to keep company with them. A deal such as you propose would have driven substantially less interest and viewers to the Orange, and leave the ACC as the only school without an access bowl against the SEC or B1G.
In addition, it would give the ACC's two closest competitors in terms of prestige and money, a significant boost by giving them two access bowls to the ACC's one.
Money is important. The ACC, I believe, has had a bad history of leaving money on the table. But come on...this would have been an idiotic scenario.
Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. By using the Big 12 and Pac-12 as a threat, the WORSE case scenario was the above. Obviously, the ACC would want an SEC team in the Orange - although I think you overestimate the appeal of a BiG team over a Big 12 team since the likelihood of getting Ohio State, Michigan, or PSU in the Orange isn't much different than getting Texas, Oklahoma, or WVU.
My belief is the ACC could have had both by using the threat of another network and the threat of using the Big 12 and Pac-12/ND combo as well. I stand by that.
Cheers,
Neil
|
|
12-22-2014 02:13 PM |
|
omniorange
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
|
RE: "ACC will pull in $90 to 95 million in bowl revenue"
(12-22-2014 01:00 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: (12-22-2014 10:03 AM)Lou_C Wrote: In addition, it would give the ACC's two closest competitors in terms of prestige and money, a significant boost by giving them two access bowls to the ACC's one.
Isn't that the case now anyways?
Pretty much. I think he meant to say Contract Bowl, rather than Access Bowl.
Cheers,
Neil
|
|
12-22-2014 02:17 PM |
|
Marge Schott
Banned
Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
|
RE: "ACC will pull in $90 to 95 million in bowl revenue"
(12-22-2014 02:17 PM)omniorange Wrote: (12-22-2014 01:00 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: (12-22-2014 10:03 AM)Lou_C Wrote: In addition, it would give the ACC's two closest competitors in terms of prestige and money, a significant boost by giving them two access bowls to the ACC's one.
Isn't that the case now anyways?
Pretty much. I think he meant to say Contract Bowl, rather than Access Bowl.
Cheers,
Neil
I'm still not seeing the difference. "It would have given them two bowls to the ACC's one"? The ACC currently only has 1, to the Big Ten/SEC's 2 ties.
|
|
12-22-2014 02:28 PM |
|
omniorange
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
|
RE: "ACC will pull in $90 to 95 million in bowl revenue"
(12-22-2014 02:28 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: (12-22-2014 02:17 PM)omniorange Wrote: (12-22-2014 01:00 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: (12-22-2014 10:03 AM)Lou_C Wrote: In addition, it would give the ACC's two closest competitors in terms of prestige and money, a significant boost by giving them two access bowls to the ACC's one.
Isn't that the case now anyways?
Pretty much. I think he meant to say Contract Bowl, rather than Access Bowl.
Cheers,
Neil
I'm still not seeing the difference. "It would have given them two bowls to the ACC's one"? The ACC currently only has 1, to the Big Ten/SEC's 2 ties.
I think by "closest competitors in terms of prestige and money" he meant the Big 12 and the PAC-12 since many see the SEC and BiG as having a much wider gap in the areas of prestige and money over the other P5 conferences. At least that is how I read it.
Cheers,
Neil
|
|
12-22-2014 02:32 PM |
|
Marge Schott
Banned
Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
|
RE: "ACC will pull in $90 to 95 million in bowl revenue"
Ok.
|
|
12-22-2014 03:33 PM |
|
Lou_C
1st String
Posts: 1,505
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 201
I Root For: Florida State
Location:
|
RE: "ACC will pull in $90 to 95 million in bowl revenue"
Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. I meant contract bowl.
The SEC and Big 10 are on another financial level, TV payout and otherwise. Fan support also. The ACC is not, and will not, compete with those two conferences for money or fans, even if you gave the ACC the B1G's or SEC's TV contract. Just a fact...the B1G and SEC are a different animal.
But it's a much closer thing with the Big 12 and PAC. The ACC shouldn't concede anything to those two. No reason to give them each a second contract bowl, and send your best team up against their second-best team. That's dumb and humiliating, and below the ACC. Plus those schools don't draw eyeballs. That should never have been on the table under any circumstances, especially over half a million dollars.
That penny wise/pound foolish attitude is what got the Big 12 where they are...marginalized with no championship game, piss poor viewership on FOX and a tiny footprint. Money is important, but not at all costs.
The SEC/B1G/ND arrangement was the right move here. I'm actually impressed that they cobbled together what should be a very solid bowl game year in and year out if the ACC does it's job of sending a credible highly ranked team.
I'm just disappointed that we had to, or felt like we had to, split the game evenly with the B1G and SEC. I'd like to know why that happened, whether there was good reason or negligence, but I'll suspect we never will know. I'd like someone to at least ask the question of Swofford.
|
|
12-22-2014 05:02 PM |
|