(02-25-2015 10:08 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 09:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 08:35 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Would FSU or Clemson have higher ticket sales if they were in the SEC?

Yes. Not only would just the in-division games be more desirable our conference opponents would actually travel to away games.

That doesn't even account for the fact that being more desirable games means you can charge a higher ticket price.

Quote:The conference distributes TV, bowl and NCAA revenues. That's about the same in the ACC and the SEC, or at least it was last year. Each school is on its own for the rest.

And as shown previously in this thread the SEC is going to distribute even more money from the media contract this year because of the SECN, and even in what was going to be a down year regarding bowl revenue they distributed more bowl money than we did.

And if you look at most predictions they are going to get just as many as the vaunted ACC in the NCAA Tournament so that baseline is the same at this point. Of course the way you basketball powers have bombed out of the tournament early the past few years they stand a pretty good chance of making more tourney units this year.

Ok, you're now conceding revenues for the most recent year were about the same but you're sure the SEC revenues will be higher from now on. The SEC revenues may be higher this year because they've gotten a conference network before the ACC but that's not an advantage that's likely to last long.

And by the way the SEC isn't interested in any ACC school that has any interest in the SEC so your alma mater isn't going to the SEC.

Don't let Kaps "facts" get under your skin:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...6-million/

The SEC and BiG will make more $ than the ACC, but not enough for a team with a GOR (or common sense) to move. I always like to look at Nebraska moving to the BiG. They thought they were getting away from Texas but found out that Texas is also spelled O-H-I-O.
They truly have never recovered their national brand with the move to the BiG.

The SEC and B1G both have an advantage over the ACC in terms of New Year's Day bowl revenue thanks to the unfavorable Orange Bowl contract. The ACC will never get a dime of the SEC's $40 million Sugar Bowl contract, yet the SEC got just as much from the Orange Bowl this year as the ACC. Unless there is something we don't know about - and it better be good - the ACC was ripped off big time, and there is no way to spin it.

This year the SEC will get $40M for the Sugar Bowl and the ACC will get $0 for the Orange Bowl, which is a $2.8M per team difference for 2015-16.

Then in 2016-17 it will be $27.5M for the ACC and either $40M or $67.5M to the SEC. The only way it can be better for the ACC would be if Notre Dame is selected for the Orange Bowl.

Huge factor? Maybe not, but bowl revenue definitely is not equal. If there is a positive, it's the fact that the ACC is probably closer to the SEC in revenue - percentage wise - than it has EVER been.

Swofford's comments to the Louisville newspaper:

Quote:What are the prospects of an all-ACC network?
My answer to that really won't change for a while. We are taking a look at that with ESPN, who would be our partner in it. ESPN will be our partner through 2026-2027 regardless of how it's structured. We have the ability to do some things because of the quality of partner we have in ESPN. If we feel like that's the best route to go in the long term, we'll do that. And it's a join decision we'll make with ESPN.

What would make that the best route?
I think the keys are where you put your inventory, what the distribution would be, which ties directly to what the revenue would entail. How does that compare to the potential increase in rights fees we currently have? Our television package right now has great exposure and outstanding dollars. The question for us is, where's the growth potential? Is it better with an ACC channel that's 24/7 or with the model we have? It's a very important decision going forward with our league, and the good thing is, I don't think there's a wrong decision to be made. It's a question of, what's the better route to go?

So, forget about a Raycom-owned ACC Network - when it comes, the ACC Network WILL be owned by ESPN, just like the SEC Network.

[for more of my analysis of these remarks, click here - but this is the main gist of it here].

(02-25-2015 10:08 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  And by the way the SEC isn't interested in any ACC school that has any interest in the SEC so your alma mater isn't going to the SEC.

Newberry College?

Swofford, pondering aloud if the current model is the better option? Oy vey.

(02-26-2015 01:52 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Swofford, pondering aloud if the current model is the better option? Oy vey.

Translation (IMO): "$2 million in the hand might be better than a network in the works." (or something like that).

Remember, this is just Swofford talking - it's the Presidents who actually decide whether to invest in a cable channel.

(02-26-2015 02:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 01:52 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Swofford, pondering aloud if the current model is the better option? Oy vey.

Translation (IMO): "$2 million in the hand might be better than a network in the works." (or something like that).

Remember, this is just Swofford talking - it's the Presidents who actually decide whether to invest in a cable channel.

Remember the $2 million is a bottom figure.

If you think about it - ESPN has to pay the ACC enough to keep 4-6 of UNC, UVa, VT, NC State, Duke, Syracuse, BC, GT, and ND from ever moving in with the B10 and Fox. A move of a team to the SEC doesn't hurt ESPN.

(02-26-2015 01:52 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Swofford, pondering aloud if the current model is the better option? Oy vey.

I was wondering how the ACC fanboys were going to spin that statement and had figured even they couldn't spin that.

Two posts below yours show I was wrong.

Kap, you negativity is sad. You have nothing to be negative about.

Clemson gets to compete in a conference where they can win the ACC title most any year - just beat FSU. Instead you crow like a game **** for more and better competition as if you have a chicken complex. Tell us how well your brother down the interstate in Columbia has fared in the SEC? Where are their titles? Where are their big bowl wins.

You seem have Lucifer's mindset in Paradise Lost. You have made a hell of heaven and pine for a heaven that in actuality would be hell for you as you compete against much larger land grants and programs with more resources. You would be a middle of the pack team in the SEC - all for a little bit of money - sad.

Haha. Nobody on here had ever said $2m is the minimum. Now our resident insider pulls it out of their butt in support of the commissioner when he makes stupid remarks.

(02-26-2015 03:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 01:52 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Swofford, pondering aloud if the current model is the better option? Oy vey.

I was wondering how the ACC fanboys were going to spin that statement and had figured even they couldn't spin that.

Two posts below yours show I was wrong.

Are you talking about this piece? There's no actual information there. None. Swofford was purposefully vague. You can read anything you want to into it because it's a blank slate.

Clemson fans, please tell your AD that you want to move to a different conference and watch him try to stifle his laughter. The SEC won't have you. The B1G won't have you. If you think there's any conceivable argument for the B12, you're nuts. The only things holding that conference together are its current media contract and the fact that no other conference would take any of its members other than Texas and Oklahoma. The ACC isn't holding back Clemson football. It's held back by the limited population of the state of SC. No other conference could change that. Move to a different conference and you'll probably get fewer recruits from NC.

(02-26-2015 03:57 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Haha. Nobody on here had ever said $2m is the minimum. Now our resident insider pulls it out of their butt in support of the commissioner when he makes stupid remarks.

I seem to recall that a $2 million minimum is a derivation of an old Barron comment made while at FSU. The comment was repeated at VT before Steagar retired.

The reason it's a logical minimum is because Chancellors are not in the business of tossing out upper end numbers. Keep expectations low, then folks are happy when you appear to get more.

You are a Wolfpack fan so you don't have any idea what it takes to be competitive on a national scale ( or in the conference either FWIW) in anything except bass fishing so I get why you spout the BS you do on here all the time about stadium size, etc. as excuses.

Our little sister in Columbia sat on their ass an did little to improve facilities up until about 10 years ago. Williams-Brice was so bad one year when we played there it almost looked like we were playing the game next to the Boardwalk at Myrtle Beach for all the sand. They hired Spurrier and he told them they either needed to improve facilities or dedicate their athletics somewhere else because they were at least 25 years behind everybody else. Since then they have renovated the dead cockroach, renovated their practice fields across the street, built an academic support facility, building a new indoor practice facility, built a new baseball stadium, built a new basketball arena, new tennis facility, new softball stadium, new athletics administration building, a new tailgating area adjacent to Williams-Brice, renovated their soccer stadium.......you get the picture? They are spending money hand over fist and eventually that will pay off for them.

As members of the SEC they have two baseball national titles and two NIT titles. They also have a SEC East title in football and have won the SEC in men's and women's hoops.

(02-26-2015 04:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  You are a Wolfpack fan so you don't have any idea what it takes to be competitive on a national scale ( or in the conference either FWIW) in anything except bass fishing so I get why you spout the BS you do on here all the time about stadium size, etc. as excuses.

Our little sister in Columbia sat on their ass an did little to improve facilities up until about 10 years ago. Williams-Brice was so bad one year when we played there it almost looked like we were playing the game next to the Boardwalk at Myrtle Beach for all the sand. They hired Spurrier and he told them they either needed to improve facilities or dedicate their athletics somewhere else because they were at least 25 years behind everybody else. Since then they have renovated the dead cockroach, renovated their practice fields across the street, built an academic support facility, building a new indoor practice facility, built a new baseball stadium, built a new basketball arena, new tennis facility, new softball stadium, new athletics administration building, a new tailgating area adjacent to Williams-Brice, renovated their soccer stadium.......you get the picture? They are spending money hand over fist and eventually that will pay off for them.

As members of the SEC they have two baseball national titles and two NIT titles. They also have a SEC East title in football and have won the SEC in men's and women's hoops.

Wow, chicken envy.

(02-26-2015 01:52 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Swofford, pondering aloud if the current model is the better option? Oy vey.

Sends a bad signal for where the ACC is right now.


Swofford "was purposefully vague" because that is what the future of the ACC is....vague. He will be vague in 5-10 years when they are still trying to figure this out.


This does not bode well at all for the ACC. Funny thing is....right before the ACC was signed....he told FSU's pres and BOT....the network was happening AND SOON.

Did he lie? Not have the facts? Was he unsure? Let's not pretend....we all know he lied his ass off just to save the ACC for the day. That is the future of the ACC...just hope it exists day to day while the P5 get ready to lap the ACC.

(02-26-2015 04:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Our little sister in Columbia... hired Spurrier and he told them they either needed to improve facilities or dedicate their athletics somewhere else because they were at least 25 years behind everybody else. Since then they have renovated the dead cockroach, renovated their practice fields across the street, built an academic support facility, building a new indoor practice facility, built a new baseball stadium, built a new basketball arena, new tennis facility, new softball stadium, new athletics administration building, a new tailgating area adjacent to Williams-Brice, renovated their soccer stadium... They are spending money hand over fist and...

...so far what has it gotten them?

(02-26-2015 04:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As members of the SEC they have two baseball national titles and two NIT titles. They also have a SEC East title in football and have won the SEC in men's and women's hoops.

IIRC, did they win the men's hoops BEFORE they spent all that money on facilities? Yeah, they've upgraded their baseball stadium, but I'd credit their AC and their baseball coach more than the facilities. Not saying those things are important, but hiring the right people is the key factor.

Don't get me wrong - I want the ACC to fix their bad contracts in media, bowls, etc. as much as anybody, and for ACC football teams to get better and win more OOC games, too - but let's be honest about one thing: if Clemson were in the SEC they'd have more athletic revenue, but that doesn't mean they'd be any better on the field than they are now. The Gamecocks didn't get better at football because of the SEC - they got better because of Spurrier (they were pretty good in 1984, too, but they haven't had a coach this good for this long).

(02-26-2015 03:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 01:52 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Swofford, pondering aloud if the current model is the better option? Oy vey.

Translation (IMO): "$2 million in the hand might be better than a network in the works." (or something like that).

Remember, this is just Swofford talking - it's the Presidents who actually decide whether to invest in a cable channel.

Remember the $2 million is a bottom figure.

If you think about it - ESPN has to pay the ACC enough to keep 4-6 of UNC, UVa, VT, NC State, Duke, Syracuse, BC, GT, and ND from ever moving in with the B10 and Fox. A move of a team to the SEC doesn't hurt ESPN.

A move of an ACC team to the SEC could hurt ESPN. It just depends upon the team. If Florida State or Clemson (or both) moved to the SEC the SEC gains no significant market value but does add to its content value. However, the move would likely reduce the real value of the ACC product more than it would enhance the value of the SEC. So why would ESPN want to do that?

If however two teams with counterparts in the same states made that move and those states were not in the SEC's footprint then the value to ESPN would be significant, and probably worth the bump in pay they would create and receive. If ESPN could then replace those with schools of higher value, and with new markets for the ACC they have doubled down. They have enhanced the value of the SEC and ACC simultaneously with one set of moves. Consider this hypothetical situation. Both the SEC and ACC expand to 18. The SEC takes two ACC schools from new markets and takes two Big 12 schools needing a home. The ACC takes three Big 12 schools and lands Notre Dame because of the resultant value.

An ACC enhanced by Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame is now worth every bit as much as the SEC. An SEC with Oklahoma State, West Virginia (or another), and the markets of North Carolina and Virgina has a bigger piece of DFW, and three new markets along with content at the mid level. ESPN now has two rival conferences essentially that mirror one another that are of relatively equal value. Now the SECN can be expanded to house the ACCN as well. Both can be produced out of the same studio and we have 4 channels instead of 2 or 3, but with one gigantic footprint putting out at a rate of 1.30 per household and which has content in the Fall, Winter, and Spring/Summer to broadcast.

The ACC purists will hate the notion. SEC guys will want Oklahoma instead of the Cowboys. But it would be far more profitable to both and especially to ESPN if the top brands of the Big 12 could be accommodated within our two conferences. From a strictly business perspective that maximizes markets and content while eliminating duplicated expenses in producing two networks and trying to market them separately.

(02-26-2015 07:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 01:52 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Swofford, pondering aloud if the current model is the better option? Oy vey.

Translation (IMO): "$2 million in the hand might be better than a network in the works." (or something like that).

Remember, this is just Swofford talking - it's the Presidents who actually decide whether to invest in a cable channel.

Remember the $2 million is a bottom figure.

If you think about it - ESPN has to pay the ACC enough to keep 4-6 of UNC, UVa, VT, NC State, Duke, Syracuse, BC, GT, and ND from ever moving in with the B10 and Fox. A move of a team to the SEC doesn't hurt ESPN.

A move of an ACC team to the SEC could hurt ESPN. It just depends upon the team. If Florida State or Clemson (or both) moved to the SEC the SEC gains no significant market value but does add to its content value. However, the move would likely reduce the real value of the ACC product more than it would enhance the value of the SEC. So why would ESPN want to do that?

If however two teams with counterparts in the same states made that move and those states were not in the SEC's footprint then the value to ESPN would be significant, and probably worth the bump in pay they would create and receive. If ESPN could then replace those with schools of higher value, and with new markets for the ACC they have doubled down. They have enhanced the value of the SEC and ACC simultaneously with one set of moves. Consider this hypothetical situation. Both the SEC and ACC expand to 18. The SEC takes two ACC schools from new markets and takes two Big 12 schools needing a home. The ACC takes three Big 12 schools and lands Notre Dame because of the resultant value.

An ACC enhanced by Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame is now worth every bit as much as the SEC. An SEC with Oklahoma State, West Virginia (or another), and the markets of North Carolina and Virgina has a bigger piece of DFW, and three new markets along with content at the mid level. ESPN now has two rival conferences essentially that mirror one another that are of relatively equal value. Now the SECN can be expanded to house the ACCN as well. Both can be produced out of the same studio and we have 4 channels instead of 2 or 3, but with one gigantic footprint putting out at a rate of 1.30 per household and which has content in the Fall, Winter, and Spring/Summer to broadcast.

The ACC purists will hate the notion. SEC guys will want Oklahoma instead of the Cowboys. But it would be far more profitable to both and especially to ESPN if the top brands of the Big 12 could be accommodated within our two conferences. From a strictly business perspective that maximizes markets and content while eliminating duplicated expenses in producing two networks and trying to market them separately.

UNC and U.Va to the SEC? Kansas and Oklahoma to the ACC? There's no point even talking with someone who can seriously entertain such impossibilities. Utter nonsense.

(02-26-2015 08:30 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 07:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 01:52 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Swofford, pondering aloud if the current model is the better option? Oy vey.

Translation (IMO): "$2 million in the hand might be better than a network in the works." (or something like that).

Remember, this is just Swofford talking - it's the Presidents who actually decide whether to invest in a cable channel.

Remember the $2 million is a bottom figure.

If you think about it - ESPN has to pay the ACC enough to keep 4-6 of UNC, UVa, VT, NC State, Duke, Syracuse, BC, GT, and ND from ever moving in with the B10 and Fox. A move of a team to the SEC doesn't hurt ESPN.

A move of an ACC team to the SEC could hurt ESPN. It just depends upon the team. If Florida State or Clemson (or both) moved to the SEC the SEC gains no significant market value but does add to its content value. However, the move would likely reduce the real value of the ACC product more than it would enhance the value of the SEC. So why would ESPN want to do that?

If however two teams with counterparts in the same states made that move and those states were not in the SEC's footprint then the value to ESPN would be significant, and probably worth the bump in pay they would create and receive. If ESPN could then replace those with schools of higher value, and with new markets for the ACC they have doubled down. They have enhanced the value of the SEC and ACC simultaneously with one set of moves. Consider this hypothetical situation. Both the SEC and ACC expand to 18. The SEC takes two ACC schools from new markets and takes two Big 12 schools needing a home. The ACC takes three Big 12 schools and lands Notre Dame because of the resultant value.

An ACC enhanced by Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame is now worth every bit as much as the SEC. An SEC with Oklahoma State, West Virginia (or another), and the markets of North Carolina and Virgina has a bigger piece of DFW, and three new markets along with content at the mid level. ESPN now has two rival conferences essentially that mirror one another that are of relatively equal value. Now the SECN can be expanded to house the ACCN as well. Both can be produced out of the same studio and we have 4 channels instead of 2 or 3, but with one gigantic footprint putting out at a rate of 1.30 per household and which has content in the Fall, Winter, and Spring/Summer to broadcast.

The ACC purists will hate the notion. SEC guys will want Oklahoma instead of the Cowboys. But it would be far more profitable to both and especially to ESPN if the top brands of the Big 12 could be accommodated within our two conferences. From a strictly business perspective that maximizes markets and content while eliminating duplicated expenses in producing two networks and trying to market them separately.

UNC and U.Va to the SEC? Kansas and Oklahoma to the ACC? There's no point even talking with someone who can seriously entertain such impossibilities. Utter nonsense.

Who said anything about UVa and UNC? Did the term mid-level throw you off? What is utter nonsense is the kind of arrogance that would limit all of the schools of your conference an opportunity to secure a top level income in what will continue to be a period of shrinking government funds. The issue is business, but you've already ignored the issues pertaining to the bottom line in athletic department revenues to focus in on an aspect that is at best less than 5% of the pie (that being the difference in conference incomes). But you do illustrate my point about how the ACC purists would feel even over the movement of Virginia Tech and N.C. State. Try trading those two for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and a full membership for the Irish? The proposal is strictly illustrative of what could be coup economically for all involved. The resistance to an open mindedness on the issue is the Achilles heel for the present leadership of the ACC in my opinion.

(02-26-2015 07:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 01:52 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Swofford, pondering aloud if the current model is the better option? Oy vey.

Translation (IMO): "$2 million in the hand might be better than a network in the works." (or something like that).

Remember, this is just Swofford talking - it's the Presidents who actually decide whether to invest in a cable channel.

Remember the $2 million is a bottom figure.

If you think about it - ESPN has to pay the ACC enough to keep 4-6 of UNC, UVa, VT, NC State, Duke, Syracuse, BC, GT, and ND from ever moving in with the B10 and Fox. A move of a team to the SEC doesn't hurt ESPN.

A move of an ACC team to the SEC could hurt ESPN. It just depends upon the team. If Florida State or Clemson (or both) moved to the SEC the SEC gains no significant market value but does add to its content value. However, the move would likely reduce the real value of the ACC product more than it would enhance the value of the SEC. So why would ESPN want to do that?

If however two teams with counterparts in the same states made that move and those states were not in the SEC's footprint then the value to ESPN would be significant, and probably worth the bump in pay they would create and receive. If ESPN could then replace those with schools of higher value, and with new markets for the ACC they have doubled down. They have enhanced the value of the SEC and ACC simultaneously with one set of moves. Consider this hypothetical situation. Both the SEC and ACC expand to 18. The SEC takes two ACC schools from new markets and takes two Big 12 schools needing a home. The ACC takes three Big 12 schools and lands Notre Dame because of the resultant value.

An ACC enhanced by Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame is now worth every bit as much as the SEC. An SEC with Oklahoma State, West Virginia (or another), and the markets of North Carolina and Virgina has a bigger piece of DFW, and three new markets along with content at the mid level. ESPN now has two rival conferences essentially that mirror one another that are of relatively equal value. Now the SECN can be expanded to house the ACCN as well. Both can be produced out of the same studio and we have 4 channels instead of 2 or 3, but with one gigantic footprint putting out at a rate of 1.30 per household and which has content in the Fall, Winter, and Spring/Summer to broadcast.

The ACC purists will hate the notion. SEC guys will want Oklahoma instead of the Cowboys. But it would be far more profitable to both and especially to ESPN if the top brands of the Big 12 could be accommodated within our two conferences. From a strictly business perspective that maximizes markets and content while eliminating duplicated expenses in producing two networks and trying to market them separately.

Instead of flying poor college students half-way across the country, the simplest way to accomplish the same thing would be to move an ACC school to the SEC and a SEC school to the ACC. It would help both conferences gain acceptance in each others territory and it would benefit ESPN by increased viewership across both platforms.
At this point moving NC State to the SEC and replacing them with Tennessee in the ACC would work as the first move.