(05-21-2017 11:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 10:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 08:34 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Big 12 falls behind because they have only 10 teams. I think this also includes ticket sales.

But ... "falling behind" in total revenue only matters to the extent that it means you are falling behind in per-school money, which is what matters.

Bottom line is that the SEC, B1G, and ACC have to make 40% more gross revenue than the Big 12, because they have 40% more mouths to feed. So far, the first two are succeeding at that, and then some, but the ACC isn't.

The bottom line for the ACC is that they are having issues selling tickets for some schools to even make up the differences. Duke and Wake Forest have stadiums that are not really considered P5 standards, and they are behind on that department.

The ACC's structural problem remains: It's not a cohesive "conference" per se, rather a cobbling-together of all the southern/eastern schools not in the B1G or SEC that are Power-level. It's got a northern wing, a mid-Atlantic wing, and deep-south wing that have nothing in common other than being thankful that they weren't stranded in a non-power league. The ACC is basically an upgraded version of what the Big East was 10 years ago, a catch-all conference, an island of misfit toys that do fit the Power profile.

Of course, that doesn't mean the ACC can't compete on the field. By stripping the Big East, the ACC shored up its hoops and, despite the tournament flop by the conference as a whole, is clearly the structurally strongest basketball league. Really, it will be a surprise when the ACC doesn't put a team in the Final 4.

And this year's bowl season proved the ACC can play great football too.

But the deeper structural issues remain.

(05-21-2017 10:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 08:34 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Big 12 falls behind because they have only 10 teams. I think this also includes ticket sales.

But ... "falling behind" in total revenue only matters to the extent that it means you are falling behind in per-school money, which is what matters.

Bottom line is that the SEC, B1G, and ACC have to make 40% more gross revenue than the Big 12, because they have 40% more mouths to feed. So far, the first two are succeeding at that, and then some, but the ACC isn't.

only until their media deal is up. after that, they are gonna get a nice haircut.

(05-21-2017 11:51 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Honest question: What's the point of extra money beyond a certain point? Does it really make the team any better? Most FBS programs either don't make a profit because they can't - or because they often don't even want to.

For the ACC it only matters in so much at a place like Florida State, Clemson, Virginia and North Carolina who could realistically entertain membership in the SEC or B1G.

Recruiting is still largely tied to access to CFP and other NYD bowl games. In this regard the ACC continues to have plenty of access.

That is why the best thing the G5 could do is increase access to top/mid level bowl games against the P5 to build up recruiting.

(05-21-2017 02:01 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Revenue is a meaningless number without having the expenses too.

Pac12 counts all the revenue of their network because it is wholly owned. All the money that comes in isn't profit. They have to pay the expenses of running the network from some of that revenue.

With the varying ownership models between conferences, gross revenue is a pretty meaningless measure. It would be useful comparing revenue increases year to year within a given conference.

+1

(05-21-2017 02:01 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Revenue is a meaningless number without having the expenses too.

Pac12 counts all the revenue of their network because it is wholly owned. All the money that comes in isn't profit. They have to pay the expenses of running the network from some of that revenue.

With the varying ownership models between conferences, gross revenue is a pretty meaningless measure. It would be useful comparing revenue increases year to year within a given conference.

I totally disagree and for this reason. With the possible exception of the PAC the conference overhead of each of these conferences amounts to one equal share of the revenue.

With that exception, the rest of the conference gross revenue figures are very telling. It's at the school level where it is meaningless. Some departments spend every dime (Alabama's built in Waterfalls) and some don't and actually show a profit. But that accounting is done whatever way seems best for the school involved.

So take these numbers divide them by the number of schools plus one more equal share and what you have are the funds available to the schools. That's the last number you will see untainted by accounting.

(05-21-2017 09:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 02:01 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Revenue is a meaningless number without having the expenses too.

Pac12 counts all the revenue of their network because it is wholly owned. All the money that comes in isn't profit. They have to pay the expenses of running the network from some of that revenue.

With the varying ownership models between conferences, gross revenue is a pretty meaningless measure. It would be useful comparing revenue increases year to year within a given conference.

I totally disagree and for this reason. With the possible exception of the PAC the conference overhead of each of these conferences amounts to one equal share of the revenue.

With that exception, the rest of the conference gross revenue figures are very telling. It's at the school level where it is meaningless. Some departments spend every dime (Alabama's built in Waterfalls) and some don't and actually show a profit. But that accounting is done whatever way seems best for the school involved.

So take these numbers divide them by the number of schools plus one more equal share and what you have are the funds available to the schools. That's the last number you will see untainted by accounting.

I'll give you another example.

Some conferences manage their football championship game in house. So all ticket sales and advertising will be accounted on their books as revenue. Let's call this $50 million gross. Some conferences let an outfit like IMG manage the game from selling tickets to lining up sponsers. They usually get a set amount plus bonuses for reaching certain milestones. So let's say the contract pays $15million.
Now the first conference has to pay the vendors, concessions, stadium rent, parking attendants, ushers, advertising firms, and ticket outlets from their $50million in revenue. Let's say they clear $12million after expenses.
Is it meaningful in any way that the first conferences gross revenue is $50m vs $15m if they net less?
There are many more ways revenue can be gamed. It isn't a meaningful number across conferences.

Edit:
A few examples off the top of my head that influence revenue.
The Pac12 network revenue is a huge one. I would question whether the SEC is running their revenue gross or net.
The Pac12 also controls in stadium advertising I believe. Most conferences leave this to schools.
Some conferences have contracted their sponsorships to IMG type outfits like the ACC. Others retain advertising rights (and associated expenses).
The Big12 is famous for not controling every home game.

(05-21-2017 10:58 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 09:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 02:01 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Revenue is a meaningless number without having the expenses too.

Pac12 counts all the revenue of their network because it is wholly owned. All the money that comes in isn't profit. They have to pay the expenses of running the network from some of that revenue.

With the varying ownership models between conferences, gross revenue is a pretty meaningless measure. It would be useful comparing revenue increases year to year within a given conference.

I totally disagree and for this reason. With the possible exception of the PAC the conference overhead of each of these conferences amounts to one equal share of the revenue.

With that exception, the rest of the conference gross revenue figures are very telling. It's at the school level where it is meaningless. Some departments spend every dime (Alabama's built in Waterfalls) and some don't and actually show a profit. But that accounting is done whatever way seems best for the school involved.

So take these numbers divide them by the number of schools plus one more equal share and what you have are the funds available to the schools. That's the last number you will see untainted by accounting.

I'll give you another example.

Some conferences manage their football championship game in house. So all ticket sales and advertising will be accounted on their books as revenue. Let's call this $50 million gross. Some conferences let an outfit like IMG manage the game from selling tickets to lining up sponsers. They usually get a set amount plus bonuses for reaching certain milestones. So let's say the contract pays $15million.
Now the first conference has to pay the vendors, concessions, stadium rent, parking attendants, ushers, advertising firms, and ticket outlets from their $50million in revenue. Let's say they clear $12million after expenses.
Is it meaningful in any way that the first conferences gross revenue is $50m vs $15m if they net less?
There are many more ways revenue can be gamed. It isn't a meaningful number across conferences.

Well that's another nice thing about the SEC. The numbers for putting on the championship game go to the house, the house deducts the expenses and then we get paid. The conference otherwise operates on 1 full share. Our accounting is fairly transparent until it gets to the schools.

(05-21-2017 08:34 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Big 12 falls behind because they have only 10 teams. I think this also includes ticket sales.

For football? BYU, East Carolina, UCF, USF, Boise State, Temple, Memphis, Navy, Houston and Army are the top performance.

Basketball, it could be the top teams like Wichita State.

If the PAC 12 did expand by 4, and none of them are Big 12? I think Boise State, San Diego State, Houston and maybe New Mexico or Colorado State could be there which could help boast them with more revenue. Boise State and Houston could do that with football.

Big 12 football is like third conference, but this shows the overall product of all sports.
That means if they go to 6? They need to look at all sports.
BYU and Air Force
Houston is out. So, Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, UConn. and East Carolina which could boast their ticket sales for both football and basketball.
SEC might want to pull away, but who do they try to grab? Toledo? Temple? Old Dominion? Appalachian State?
Would the ACC grab Navy and Notre Dame to go 16?
Big 10 is stuck with both ACC and Big 12 are locked in GORs. Would they go to two AAU schools not in P5 conference on the east coast like Stony Brook and Buffalo, or do they go with UMass. on the east and a North Dakota State on the west? (North Dakota State fans seem to be loyal to their team and travel.)

I'll just address one part of your post. The Big 12 falls behind not because they have ten teams, but because they have no conference network!!!

(05-20-2017 10:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://www.seccountry.com/sec/sec-easil...16-revenue

Read this carefully to catch just how much of a difference it really is.

the striking thing to me about that is how much the Big12 is going to be behind the rest when the ACC Network money starts rolling in.

it's going to then be:

P4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Big12
|
|
|
|
|
AAC
|
|
|
G4

(05-21-2017 03:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 11:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 10:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 08:34 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Big 12 falls behind because they have only 10 teams. I think this also includes ticket sales.

But ... "falling behind" in total revenue only matters to the extent that it means you are falling behind in per-school money, which is what matters.

Bottom line is that the SEC, B1G, and ACC have to make 40% more gross revenue than the Big 12, because they have 40% more mouths to feed. So far, the first two are succeeding at that, and then some, but the ACC isn't.

The bottom line for the ACC is that they are having issues selling tickets for some schools to even make up the differences. Duke and Wake Forest have stadiums that are not really considered P5 standards, and they are behind on that department.

The ACC's structural problem remains: It's not a cohesive "conference" per se, rather a cobbling-together of all the southern/eastern schools not in the B1G or SEC that are Power-level. It's got a northern wing, a mid-Atlantic wing, and deep-south wing that have nothing in common other than being thankful that they weren't stranded in a non-power league. The ACC is basically an upgraded version of what the Big East was 10 years ago, a catch-all conference, an island of misfit toys that do fit the Power profile.

Of course, that doesn't mean the ACC can't compete on the field. By stripping the Big East, the ACC shored up its hoops and, despite the tournament flop by the conference as a whole, is clearly the structurally strongest basketball league. Really, it will be a surprise when the ACC doesn't put a team in the Final 4.

And this year's bowl season proved the ACC can play great football too.

But the deeper structural issues remain.

Quo, this stuff you write sometimes is embarrassingly self-serving and almost always extraordinarily and transparently biased. This post jumps the shark. Your ACC hatred is putrid. The ACC is the best Basketball conference and has the second best performing Football teams. Who also occasionally win national championships.

The fact that the SEC and the Big Ten chose to water down down their conferences (Missouri, Texas A&M, Rutgers, Maryland) while the ACC improved theirs (Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville) apparently didn't enter your thinking. Because of the obvious focal bias.

(05-24-2017 08:44 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 10:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://www.seccountry.com/sec/sec-easil...16-revenue

Read this carefully to catch just how much of a difference it really is.

the striking thing to me about that is how much the Big12 is going to be behind the rest when the ACC Network money starts rolling in.

it's going to then be:

P4
|
|
|
Big12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AAC
|
G4

FIFY for true scale.

(05-24-2017 09:21 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 08:44 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 10:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://www.seccountry.com/sec/sec-easil...16-revenue

Read this carefully to catch just how much of a difference it really is.

the striking thing to me about that is how much the Big12 is going to be behind the rest when the ACC Network money starts rolling in.

it's going to then be:

P4
|
|
|
Big12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AAC
|
G4

FIFY for true scale.

ha! fair enough.

would you want to be a Big12 member in that scale? Specifically, Oklahoma?

just a matter of time before they bolt for greener pa$ture$.

(05-24-2017 09:16 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 03:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 11:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 10:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 08:34 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Big 12 falls behind because they have only 10 teams. I think this also includes ticket sales.

But ... "falling behind" in total revenue only matters to the extent that it means you are falling behind in per-school money, which is what matters.

Bottom line is that the SEC, B1G, and ACC have to make 40% more gross revenue than the Big 12, because they have 40% more mouths to feed. So far, the first two are succeeding at that, and then some, but the ACC isn't.

The bottom line for the ACC is that they are having issues selling tickets for some schools to even make up the differences. Duke and Wake Forest have stadiums that are not really considered P5 standards, and they are behind on that department.

The ACC's structural problem remains: It's not a cohesive "conference" per se, rather a cobbling-together of all the southern/eastern schools not in the B1G or SEC that are Power-level. It's got a northern wing, a mid-Atlantic wing, and deep-south wing that have nothing in common other than being thankful that they weren't stranded in a non-power league. The ACC is basically an upgraded version of what the Big East was 10 years ago, a catch-all conference, an island of misfit toys that do fit the Power profile.

Of course, that doesn't mean the ACC can't compete on the field. By stripping the Big East, the ACC shored up its hoops and, despite the tournament flop by the conference as a whole, is clearly the structurally strongest basketball league. Really, it will be a surprise when the ACC doesn't put a team in the Final 4.

And this year's bowl season proved the ACC can play great football too.

But the deeper structural issues remain.

Quo, this stuff you write sometimes is embarrassingly self-serving and almost always extraordinarily and transparently biased. This post jumps the shark. Your ACC hatred is putrid. The ACC is the best Basketball conference and has the second best performing Football teams. Who also occasionally win national championships.

The fact that the SEC and the Big Ten chose to water down down their conferences (Missouri, Texas A&M, Rutgers, Maryland) while the ACC improved theirs (Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville) apparently didn't enter your thinking. Because of the obvious focal bias.

Your post is the biased one. It addressed zero of the facts I mentioned about the structure of the ACC, all it did was regurgitate rah-rah ACC homerisms.

(05-24-2017 08:44 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 10:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://www.seccountry.com/sec/sec-easil...16-revenue

Read this carefully to catch just how much of a difference it really is.

the striking thing to me about that is how much the Big12 is going to be behind the rest when the ACC Network money starts rolling in.

it's going to then be:

P4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Big12
|
|
|
|
|
AAC
|
|
|
G4

We'll see. Remember, the ACC, B1G, and SEC all have to gross 40% more revenue than the Big 12 just to keep even in terms of what matters, per-school revenue.

So far, the ACC hasn't been able to do that.

(05-24-2017 09:21 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 08:44 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 10:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://www.seccountry.com/sec/sec-easil...16-revenue

Read this carefully to catch just how much of a difference it really is.

the striking thing to me about that is how much the Big12 is going to be behind the rest when the ACC Network money starts rolling in.

it's going to then be:

P4
|
|
|
Big12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AAC
|
G4

FIFY for true scale.

The scale doesn't reflect the differences among the P4, and while I agree the ACCN will help them close the GAP, even if it opened as successfully as the SECN there would still be a significant gap. It will be a great thing for the ACC, but not the magical bean that Jack needs to reach the giants.

Remember that content value has to be multiplied to garner more revenue. In the Big 10 basketball is 20% of their total revenue. In the SEC it is 15% of the total revenue. Football is what the ACC has to improve because it is about 80% of their revenue as well. Clemson, Florida State and Louisville help them tremendously. But that's only 4 games total of must see content if all three play each other. Add a consistently good Virginia Tech, Miami, and North Carolina to that total and then you start to play catch up. Throw in N.C. State and Georgia Tech with consistent challenges to the upper echelon of the ACC and now you are reaching a point close enough to the Big 10 and SEC to be in the grouping. Toss in N.D. all the way and you are there, provided N.D. picks it up again.

(05-24-2017 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 09:16 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 03:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 11:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 10:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But ... "falling behind" in total revenue only matters to the extent that it means you are falling behind in per-school money, which is what matters.

Bottom line is that the SEC, B1G, and ACC have to make 40% more gross revenue than the Big 12, because they have 40% more mouths to feed. So far, the first two are succeeding at that, and then some, but the ACC isn't.

The bottom line for the ACC is that they are having issues selling tickets for some schools to even make up the differences. Duke and Wake Forest have stadiums that are not really considered P5 standards, and they are behind on that department.

The ACC's structural problem remains: It's not a cohesive "conference" per se, rather a cobbling-together of all the southern/eastern schools not in the B1G or SEC that are Power-level. It's got a northern wing, a mid-Atlantic wing, and deep-south wing that have nothing in common other than being thankful that they weren't stranded in a non-power league. The ACC is basically an upgraded version of what the Big East was 10 years ago, a catch-all conference, an island of misfit toys that do fit the Power profile.

Of course, that doesn't mean the ACC can't compete on the field. By stripping the Big East, the ACC shored up its hoops and, despite the tournament flop by the conference as a whole, is clearly the structurally strongest basketball league. Really, it will be a surprise when the ACC doesn't put a team in the Final 4.

And this year's bowl season proved the ACC can play great football too.

But the deeper structural issues remain.

Quo, this stuff you write sometimes is embarrassingly self-serving and almost always extraordinarily and transparently biased. This post jumps the shark. Your ACC hatred is putrid. The ACC is the best Basketball conference and has the second best performing Football teams. Who also occasionally win national championships.

The fact that the SEC and the Big Ten chose to water down down their conferences (Missouri, Texas A&M, Rutgers, Maryland) while the ACC improved theirs (Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville) apparently didn't enter your thinking. Because of the obvious focal bias.

Your post is the biased one. It addressed zero of the facts I mentioned about the structure of the ACC, all it did was regurgitate rah-rah ACC homerisms.

Well, Quo, you must enjoy yourself a lot. You stated zero facts in your post, just the worst form of bias possible.

Interesting info on PAC 12 athletic finances.

PAC12 debt

(05-24-2017 02:00 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Interesting info on PAC 12 athletic finances.

PAC12 debt

Yeah I saw that. Oregon's red ink is 19 million against and athletic revenue of over a 100 million. That's not even a 20% liability. It also means the other school that reported average less than 10 million in debt each. In the athletic business that's hardly anything to worry about.

(05-24-2017 02:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 02:00 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Interesting info on PAC 12 athletic finances.

PAC12 debt

Yeah I saw that. Oregon's red ink is 19 million against and athletic revenue of over a 100 million. That's not even a 20% liability. It also means the other school that reported average less than 10 million in debt each. In the athletic business that's hardly anything to worry about.

That's not debt, it's debt service payment for this fiscal year.

(05-24-2017 03:36 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 02:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 02:00 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Interesting info on PAC 12 athletic finances.

PAC12 debt

Yeah I saw that. Oregon's red ink is 19 million against and athletic revenue of over a 100 million. That's not even a 20% liability. It also means the other school that reported average less than 10 million in debt each. In the athletic business that's hardly anything to worry about.

That's not debt, it's debt service payment for this fiscal year.

Well at 3.5% interest that would be 32.5 million in debt for every million in a service payment. So that means the average PAC school is 325 million in debt. That does make a difference.

Thanks, I wasn't thinking that they might be managed like the Federal Government.
So that begs the question as to why they would be spending so much on infrastructure when the fan apathy is so high?