OK, fair enough. That's why we hash things out here on an internet message board.


And yes Stever, seems improbably low.

(10-06-2016 09:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Those of you saying you'll make more money playing another OOC game instead of playing a conference game + $500k of TV money.

Yeah, how does that work???


A: play non-conf game
- you get $$$ from the gameday revenues
- no extra from TV deal for this game, it gets put on TV but you don't get anything extra for it

B: play conference game
- you get $$$ from the gameday revenues
- you get $500k extra TV money for this game being a conf game


So you're saying that the gameday revenues for playing an non-conf game are more than $500k higher than the gameday revenues for playing a conf game????? I don't buy that.

The cheapest ticket available from Clemson for the Notre Dame game last year was $85. Even at that price it means $7 million in ticket sales revenue. The only ACC games that are appealing enough to come anywhere close to that ticket price are FSU, GT, and maybe Miami. We already play FSU and GT every year so the extra conference game isn't worth losing the high profile OOC home game every other year, and it especially isn't worth it for $500k.

It appears going forward you have 4 Schools that will do everything to block 9 Conference Games...Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech and Louisville...all for different reasons on this but now a solid Football block...

Kap,

Hence why I was saying make Notre Dame be the extra conference game. But, you wouldn't get them at home every year obviously. So anyway ...

(10-06-2016 09:44 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem with B is that the game might be on the road. So you wouldn't get the $$$ from gameday revenues.

Think about this. You see often times teams paying over a million dollars for an OOC opponent.

Frankly, the 500k number is one of the more dumbfounding things I've heard in all of this. It's like ESPN wanted them to say no. 7 million dollars isn't much at all to ESPN expenses wise. There's something else here in play.

That something else is structure.

It's not just about 9 conference games but how you schedule the games outside your division. Do rotate more frequently, do you pick up another cross division rival, etc., etc.

That issue is magnified by the imbalance between the top of the two divisions. The Atlantic has Clemson, FSU, and Louisville. That means the other four in that division have a built in three games against top 15 programs. Do they need a fourth or a fifth?

NC State has FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Miami, and UNC in conference this year. Even though Notre Dame is down, they are still ND.

That imbalance affects scheduling and that issue makes strange political bedfellows with the anti 9 conference games.

You will likely not see the ACC play 9 conference games until there is a divisional realignment, but no one in the Coastal wants that and the alignment was wedged into the ACC's bylaws so it takes 12 affirmative votes to change that policy.

So what does that mean in a practical world - it means that nothing will happen until Notre Dame is pushed into the Coastal division and that might never happen.

(10-06-2016 09:44 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem with B is that the game might be on the road. So you wouldn't get the $$$ from gameday revenues.

Think about this. You see often times teams paying over a million dollars for an OOC opponent.

Frankly, the 500k number is one of the more dumbfounding things I've heard in all of this. It's like ESPN wanted them to say no. 7 million dollars isn't much at all to ESPN expenses wise. There's something else here in play.

I agree that something else is in play here. It has to be. If the B1G just set a new market value with their recently struck deal with ESPN as everyone claims, and you factor in the extension the ACC agreed to, $500,000 for an additional conference game or another P5 school doesn't make sense at all.

I mean, a game today against another P5 be it ooc or in conference has never been worth more.

Something's a foot Watson!

(10-06-2016 10:24 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Kap,

Hence why I was saying make Notre Dame be the extra conference game. But, you wouldn't get them at home every year obviously. So anyway ...

It's not just Notre Dame though. The tickets for the Auburn game next year and probably Texas A&M in 2019 will be as much, possibly more as the number of season tickets continue to increase. Unless ESPN is going to pay us enough for the 9th conference game to offset what we would lose from those second high profile games every other year it isn't worth it financially for Clemson because as I have stated there simply isn't anybody on the Coastal side, except maybe Miami, that will generate that kind of demand.

(10-06-2016 10:33 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 09:44 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem with B is that the game might be on the road. So you wouldn't get the $$$ from gameday revenues.

Think about this. You see often times teams paying over a million dollars for an OOC opponent.

Frankly, the 500k number is one of the more dumbfounding things I've heard in all of this. It's like ESPN wanted them to say no. 7 million dollars isn't much at all to ESPN expenses wise. There's something else here in play.

That something else is structure.

It's not just about 9 conference games but how you schedule the games outside your division. Do rotate more frequently, do you pick up another cross division rival, etc., etc.

That issue is magnified by the imbalance between the top of the two divisions. The Atlantic has Clemson, FSU, and Louisville. That means the other four in that division have a built in three games against top 15 programs. Do they need a fourth or a fifth?

NC State has FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Miami, and UNC in conference this year. Even though Notre Dame is down, they are still ND.

That imbalance affects scheduling and that issue makes strange political bedfellows with the anti 9 conference games.

You will likely not see the ACC play 9 conference games until there is a divisional realignment, but no one in the Coastal wants that and the alignment was wedged into the ACC's bylaws so it takes 12 affirmative votes to change that policy.

So what does that mean in a practical world - it means that nothing will happen until Notre Dame is pushed into the Coastal division and that might never happen.

lumber, do you have a link to the ACC's bylaws? I can't seem to find them in print anywhere.

(10-06-2016 10:35 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 09:44 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem with B is that the game might be on the road. So you wouldn't get the $$$ from gameday revenues.

Think about this. You see often times teams paying over a million dollars for an OOC opponent.

Frankly, the 500k number is one of the more dumbfounding things I've heard in all of this. It's like ESPN wanted them to say no. 7 million dollars isn't much at all to ESPN expenses wise. There's something else here in play.

I agree that something else is in play here. It has to be. If the B1G just set a new market value with their recently struck deal with ESPN as everyone claims, and you factor in the extension the ACC agreed to, $500,000 for an additional conference game or another P5 school doesn't make sense at all.

I mean, a game today against another P5 be it ooc or in conference has never been worth more.

Something's a foot Watson!

Maybe most the extra conf games left on the table are not that interesting tv wise?
And frankly, the same could be said about most of the possible extra ooc games out there?
ESPN has most of the acc conf and acc ooc marquis matchups already locked in.
And paying for a home game are under different demands compared to tv paying to broadcast it.

Kap,

I don't think it's worth arguing about, because I wasn't factoring in the 9th game being away some years.

BUT if you just want to talk the logic of my argument -- which would require you accept the idea that the 9th conf game would always be a home game for Clemson, which is NOT true .....

Then it would boil down to:

- would the gameday revenue from Clemson hosting a major non-conf game (Auburn, A&M, etc.) come to more than $500k higher than the gameday revenue for hosting a regular old ACC cross-division game.


Since I assume Clemson sells out every game regardless who the opponent is, then the only way that could be true is if Clemson is charging a significantly higher amount on the face value for those tickets. The fact that they go bananas on the aftermarket doesn't do anything for Clemson.

See what I'm saying?


But I don't know the answer to that hypothetical (again, assuming the 9th conf would also be home game ... which I know isn't true), you'd have to tell me.

(10-06-2016 10:33 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 09:44 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem with B is that the game might be on the road. So you wouldn't get the $$$ from gameday revenues.

Think about this. You see often times teams paying over a million dollars for an OOC opponent.

Frankly, the 500k number is one of the more dumbfounding things I've heard in all of this. It's like ESPN wanted them to say no. 7 million dollars isn't much at all to ESPN expenses wise. There's something else here in play.

That something else is structure.

It's not just about 9 conference games but how you schedule the games outside your division. Do rotate more frequently, do you pick up another cross division rival, etc., etc.

That issue is magnified by the imbalance between the top of the two divisions. The Atlantic has Clemson, FSU, and Louisville. That means the other four in that division have a built in three games against top 15 programs. Do they need a fourth or a fifth?

NC State has FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Miami, and UNC in conference this year. Even though Notre Dame is down, they are still ND.

That imbalance affects scheduling and that issue makes strange political bedfellows with the anti 9 conference games.

You will likely not see the ACC play 9 conference games until there is a divisional realignment, but no one in the Coastal wants that and the alignment was wedged into the ACC's bylaws so it takes 12 affirmative votes to change that policy.

So what does that mean in a practical world - it means that nothing will happen until Notre Dame is pushed into the Coastal division and that might never happen.

Hip, hip, hooray!!!!! :)

(10-06-2016 12:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 10:33 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 09:44 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem with B is that the game might be on the road. So you wouldn't get the $$$ from gameday revenues.

Think about this. You see often times teams paying over a million dollars for an OOC opponent.

Frankly, the 500k number is one of the more dumbfounding things I've heard in all of this. It's like ESPN wanted them to say no. 7 million dollars isn't much at all to ESPN expenses wise. There's something else here in play.

That something else is structure.

It's not just about 9 conference games but how you schedule the games outside your division. Do rotate more frequently, do you pick up another cross division rival, etc., etc.

That issue is magnified by the imbalance between the top of the two divisions. The Atlantic has Clemson, FSU, and Louisville. That means the other four in that division have a built in three games against top 15 programs. Do they need a fourth or a fifth?

NC State has FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Miami, and UNC in conference this year. Even though Notre Dame is down, they are still ND.

That imbalance affects scheduling and that issue makes strange political bedfellows with the anti 9 conference games.

You will likely not see the ACC play 9 conference games until there is a divisional realignment, but no one in the Coastal wants that and the alignment was wedged into the ACC's bylaws so it takes 12 affirmative votes to change that policy.

So what does that mean in a practical world - it means that nothing will happen until Notre Dame is pushed into the Coastal division and that might never happen.

lumber, do you have a link to the ACC's bylaws? I can't seem to find them in print anywhere.

Here's a link: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/bc/g...13_ACC.pdf

This particular copy is a little old, but the football and baseball divisions are in Section 2 of the Code. The Code is appendix to the Bylaws per the Code. The Code can be amended per Article 23 of the Code by a majority vote of the members. So that's 8 of 15. Some things can be changed by 2/3rd vote 10 of 15. The Constitution is changed by a 3/4th vote 12 of 15. The Code does not specify the annual crossover football game or if it did I missed it. I can't remember what I had read that made me think you really needed 12, perhaps something in the football contracts. The way the Constitution, Bylaws, and Code is written they reference back and forth to one another and with the committee system, doing anything with a simple majority is more difficult than it looks.

(10-05-2016 09:32 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Acc and sec should do a challenge Labor Day weekend, count the 4 rival games in the deal. I'd try to get nd to play 4 acc and 1 sec school, espn money would need to be in play, so they are part of the deal.

Scheduling overload, particularly in the ACC, particularly if they went to 9 conference games. Then the SEC rivalry teams (UofL, GT, CU, FSU) could have an OOC slate that is Notre Dame, SEC rival, and one other game. That's pretty brutal. And the ACC has shown clearly that you get no rewards from the public or pundits for scheduling hard. Cavman has played quality opponents from anywhere, even if they were clearly overmatched. Oregon, BYU, Boise State, UCLA, Southern Cal, TCU, and Penn State among others. All they have to show for plopping their balls out on the table for everybody to see is a bunch of losses, fired coaches, and a program in freefall.

swagger,

8 + 2 = 8 ACC games, + SEC rivalry, + Notre Dame/9th conf game. Then you get two more games to schedule non-conf. Seems very reasonable to me.

Especially if they rigged it so you could never play Notre Dame/9th conf game on the road the same year you play on the road at the SEC rival.