Neutral site games are pretty great for FSU and their opponent, $5m a piece vs the average of $3.5m for the average home game.

(02-13-2024 09:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-13-2024 08:47 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(02-13-2024 05:09 PM)indianmustang Wrote:  So SMU gets around $18M,not bad

Maybe more...
in 2021 ND received $17.4 million, Hokie Mark mentioned that 4.8M was from tier 1 and the 12.6M was from ACCN.

"ND gets 20% X $24M = $4.8M, plus about $11M from ACCN" - Hokie Mark

Be careful - those estimates seem to keep increasing!

Correct in 2021-22.(ACCN was not a full year of Distro) In 2024 not only do we have full distro, but you have the "in subscriber rate: change for Cali & Texas. While I do understand that you divide that total by 3 more mouths, do we think the share is still 11M per team in 2024? Even if it is only 15M per ACCN share, we know that SMU is getting more than 1M in CFP monies, so lets say that is only 2M, and they get no more NCAA/CFP/BOWL reimbursement (not likely) or the new ACC Success unequal shares they will get 17M which will double there AAC 2021-22 share.

But lets get real, we know that the "in subscriber rate" is worth $$$ so even with three extra shares it is probably worth closer to 20M per school, I could be wrong, add in the CFP/NCAA/Unequal shares on top! Yea I think they will be looking at 19-25M per year, then when they get full shares of the 2026 new CFP contract it could be more

(02-14-2024 08:19 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(02-13-2024 09:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-13-2024 08:47 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(02-13-2024 05:09 PM)indianmustang Wrote:  So SMU gets around $18M,not bad

Maybe more...
in 2021 ND received $17.4 million, Hokie Mark mentioned that 4.8M was from tier 1 and the 12.6M was from ACCN.

"ND gets 20% X $24M = $4.8M, plus about $11M from ACCN" - Hokie Mark

Be careful - those estimates seem to keep increasing!

Correct in 2021-22.(ACCN was not a full year of Distro) In 2024 not only do we have full distro, but you have the "in subscriber rate: change for Cali & Texas. While I do understand that you divide that total by 3 more mouths, do we think the share is still 11M per team in 2024? Even if it is only 15M per ACCN share, we know that SMU is getting more than 1M in CFP monies, so lets say that is only 2M, and they get no more NCAA/CFP/BOWL reimbursement (not likely) or the new ACC Success unequal shares they will get 17M which will double there AAC 2021-22 share.

But lets get real, we know that the "in subscriber rate" is worth $$$ so even with three extra shares it is probably worth closer to 20M per school, I could be wrong, add in the CFP/NCAA/Unequal shares on top! Yea I think they will be looking at 19-25M per year, then when they get full shares of the 2026 new CFP contract it could be more

ACCN revenue will almost certainly increase, but without knowing (a) how many people in Texas and California already get it, and (b) how much/how much more ESPN will charge, I wouldn't even hazard a guess yet.

(02-14-2024 03:19 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ACCN revenue will almost certainly increase, but without knowing (a) how many people in Texas and California already get it, and (b) how much/how much more ESPN will charge, I wouldn't even hazard a guess yet.

Correct! Plus entering into the two most populated states ( Cali 13.4M & Texas 10.7M) will not only help ACC recruiting but also increase the ACC Network $$$ as all states that have an ACC team in that state must pay "in-state" subscription/carriage fees instead of the "out of state" subscription/carriage fees.

So the question becomes how many of the $ 24.1M have pay TV (Cable, Satellite, or live TV streaming platforms) ???

I do understand we are talking about share of 50% rev with ESPN, and then we have to figure of the 24.1M how many are "pay" but my "back of the napkin" (salute to former PAC2 commish GK) is a net of at least 1M to each school(18) and this is on top of a full year ACC Distro which we are waiting to fin out what that is.


so we know 1/2 year full distro is worth 11M, lets say full year Distro is only worth 18M to the ACC, that would put the share for each school at 1.2M so 12.2M is all each school gets, then another share for the Cali/Texas add is 13.2M... Please note this does not split the shared advertising revenue form the agreement.

So it is very easy to see How SMU is going to be closer to 20M per year in the ACC. Probably more when you add it all up. But I agree Hokie we need to wait for the published numbers.

Link
https://www.statista.com/statistics/2422...-by-state/

Some of the Sportico numbers are wrong as they are adding some radio money to the ACC media money.

It's not logically possible for VT and FSU to have a greater distribution than UNC for football year 22/basketball year 22/23.

In the Sportico numbers, VT's radio money is likely embedded in their media total and FSU seems to have double booked it's non-media ACC distribution revenue by some $6-7M. They are showing $14 m when no one else shows more than about $9 M.

If UNC got $42, the following numbers following distributions for 22-23 follow:

@ 44 M Clemson
@ 42 M UNC/Pitt
@ 41 M NC State/FSU/GT/VT/UVA

The differential is coming from the Orange Bowl and travel to the NY6 and Holiday bowls.



Radio contracts, sometimes called Tier 3, are not equally presented across all schools. Some seem to stick it in the media category but most seem to stick it in the sponsorship category, the point is these funds never go to the conference and so never come back to the school as a distribution from the conference.

Most of these contracts are with Learfield, iirc.

NC State for example gets about $7 M from Learfield, you can scale that up or down to see what your school should be getting based on the age of the contract.

The average ACC distribution has risen by the following using UNC's report of $42 M for FY 22-23:

22-23 - 4.5% (Despite No ACC CFB Playoff Team)
21-22 - 13.75% (Despite No ACC CFB Playoff Team)
20-21 - 16.8% (Despite No Orange Bowl)
19-20 - 5.7% (Clemson made Playoffs)

This shows the clear effect of the ACCN because the ACC has not had a taste of playoff money since 2020.

80% of the conference distribution is the TV contracts with ESPN. The other 20% is the NCAA Tournament, CFB Playoff, ACC Title Game in Football, and some Interest.

You can use the UNC number to go forward from 22-23.

Average Distribution:

22-23 $42 M (no real driver except ratchet)
23-24 $44 M (no real driver of increase this year except ratchet)
24-25 $56 M (Doubled Football Playoff Money $6.5 M), ($5.7 M 70% of Califord Distribution, Most of SMU Distribution)
25-26 $58 M (Slight ACCN increase and ratchets)
26-27 $60 M (ratchets) (FSU exit fee?)
27-28 $63 M (ratchets) (FSU exit fee?)
28-29 $66 M (FSU exit fee?)
29-30 $69 M (FSU exit fee?)
30-31 Califord and SMU get full pay,

In these averages there is no College football playoff appearance money. The ACC likely will average 1.5 appearances per year.

(02-15-2024 06:52 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  Some of the Sportico numbers are wrong as they are adding some radio money to the ACC media money.

It's not logically possible for VT and FSU to have a greater distribution than UNC for football year 22/basketball year 22/23.

In the Sportico numbers, VT's radio money is likely embedded in their media total and FSU seems to have double booked it's non-media ACC distribution revenue by some $6-7M. They are showing $14 m when no one else shows more than about $9 M.

If UNC got $42, the following numbers following distributions for 22-23 follow:

@ 44 M Clemson
@ 42 M UNC/Pitt
@ 41 M NC State/FSU/GT/VT/UVA

The differential is coming from the Orange Bowl and travel to the NY6 and Holiday bowls.



Radio contracts, sometimes called Tier 3, are not equally presented across all schools. Some seem to stick it in the media category but most seem to stick it in the sponsorship category, the point is these funds never go to the conference and so never come back to the school as a distribution from the conference.

Most of these contracts are with Learfield, iirc.

NC State for example gets about $7 M from Learfield, you can scale that up or down to see what your school should be getting based on the age of the contract.

The average ACC distribution has risen by the following using UNC's report of $42 M for FY 22-23:

22-23 - 4.5% (Despite No ACC CFB Playoff Team)
21-22 - 13.75% (Despite No ACC CFB Playoff Team)
20-21 - 16.8% (Despite No Orange Bowl)
19-20 - 5.7% (Clemson made Playoffs)

This shows the clear effect of the ACCN because the ACC has not had a taste of playoff money since 2020.

80% of the conference distribution is the TV contracts with ESPN. The other 20% is the NCAA Tournament, CFB Playoff, ACC Title Game in Football, and some Interest.

You can use the UNC number to go forward from 22-23.

Average Distribution:

22-23 $42 M (no real driver except ratchet)
23-24 $44 M (no real driver of increase this year except ratchet)
24-25 $56 M (Doubled Football Playoff Money $6.5 M), ($5.7 M 70% of Califord Distribution, Most of SMU Distribution)
25-26 $58 M (Slight ACCN increase and ratchets)
26-27 $60 M (ratchets) (FSU exit fee?)
27-28 $63 M (ratchets) (FSU exit fee?)
28-29 $66 M (FSU exit fee?)
29-30 $69 M (FSU exit fee?)
30-31 Califord and SMU get full pay,

In these averages there is no College football playoff appearance money. The ACC likely will average 1.5 appearances per year.

Solid Info! Thank you! Do you have any opinion on the ACC new unequal shares via the new success incentive initiative and according to ESPN projections, the ACC’s could provide schools with anywhere from $10 million to $15 million annually on top of the ACC’s per-school payouts, which won’t change under the model. Is that your take also?

I would guestimate a 5% incentive program where 5% of the total revenue goes into the incentives.

Lets use $700 M as the base. Five percent is $35 million. 80% football and 20% basketball gets you $28 and $7 M. You can pay the ACC football champ 50%, the title game loser 25% and the 3rd and 4th schools 12.5% of that 28 M.

Here's what I get with something like that over the last 6 full playing seasons - Football then Basketball incentive:

FB 59.5 M Clemson, Pitt and FSU 17.5 M, NC State 14 M, UNC and Miami 10.5 M, ND, WF, UVa, and Louisville 7 M.

BB 10.5 M Duke, 8.75 M UVa, 7 M FSU, 5.25 M UNC, 4.375 M VT, 3.5 M GT, 1.75 M Miami, .875 M Louisville and ND

Total of both:

Clemson 59.5 M, FSU 24.5 M, Pitt 17.5 M, UVa 15.75, UNC 15.25 M, NC State 14.0 M, Miami 11.75 M, Duke 10.5 M, Louis, ND, and VT 7.85 M, WF and GT 7 M, Syracuse 3.5 M, BC - 0 M

With the amount of 35 M and looking at 6 years, the break even is 14M if the money had been equally split over the 6 years.

In this scenario using our last 6 full years, Clemson would have made an extra 45.5 M (59.5-14= 45.5M)
FSU would have netted 10.5 M
Pitt would have netted 3.5 M
UVa would have netted 1.75
UNC would have netted 1.25
NC State breaks even.

The loss is substantial to BC and Syracuse. The loss to GT, VT, and Louisville is about $1 million per year.

This is close to what I expect. Real football excellence gets rewarded. Excellence in basketball keeps you from getting killed for bad football.

The ACC might put more money into the pot, I don't know.

I don't think the ACC will adopt a plan that rewards schools for how much they spend on a sport like football or basketball. I know there was some call for that but that would shock me.

(02-15-2024 11:05 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  I would guestimate a 5% incentive program where 5% of the total revenue goes into the incentives.

Lets use $700 M as the base. Five percent is $35 million. 80% football and 20% basketball gets you $28 and $7 M. You can pay the ACC football champ 50%, the title game loser 25% and the 3rd and 4th schools 12.5% of that 28 M.

Here's what I get with something like that over the last 6 full playing seasons - Football then Basketball incentive:

FB 59.5 M Clemson, Pitt and FSU 17.5 M, NC State 14 M, UNC and Miami 10.5 M, ND, WF, UVa, and Louisville 7 M.

BB 10.5 M Duke, 8.75 M UVa, 7 M FSU, 5.25 M UNC, 4.375 M VT, 3.5 M GT, 1.75 M Miami, .875 M Louisville and ND

Total of both:

Clemson 59.5 M, FSU 24.5 M, Pitt 17.5 M, UVa 15.75, UNC 15.25 M, NC State 14.0 M, Miami 11.75 M, Duke 10.5 M, Louis, ND, and VT 7.85 M, WF and GT 7 M, Syracuse 3.5 M, BC - 0 M

With the amount of 35 M and looking at 6 years, the break even is 14M if the money had been equally split over the 6 years.

In this scenario using our last 6 full years, Clemson would have made an extra 45.5 M (59.5-14= 45.5M)
FSU would have netted 10.5 M
Pitt would have netted 3.5 M
UVa would have netted 1.75
UNC would have netted 1.25
NC State breaks even.

The loss is substantial to BC and Syracuse. The loss to GT, VT, and Louisville is about $1 million per year.

This is close to what I expect. Real football excellence gets rewarded. Excellence in basketball keeps you from getting killed for bad football.

The ACC might put more money into the pot, I don't know.

Pretty good way to think about it. I might weight the recent performance more than the older performance. So in a five-year rating protocol, the most current season gets 5/15 of the weight. Two seasons back gets 4/15... and so on.

And, yes, I'd rank FB as 72%. MBB as 18%. All other sports combined (revenue or non-revenue) as 10%.

Really just fine-tuning your basic approach, which is very solid.

(02-15-2024 11:05 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  I would guestimate a 5% incentive program where 5% of the total revenue goes into the incentives.

Lets use $700 M as the base. Five percent is $35 million. 80% football and 20% basketball gets you $28 and $7 M. You can pay the ACC football champ 50%, the title game loser 25% and the 3rd and 4th schools 12.5% of that 28 M.

Here's what I get with something like that over the last 6 full playing seasons - Football then Basketball incentive:

FB 59.5 M Clemson, Pitt and FSU 17.5 M, NC State 14 M, UNC and Miami 10.5 M, ND, WF, UVa, and Louisville 7 M.

BB 10.5 M Duke, 8.75 M UVa, 7 M FSU, 5.25 M UNC, 4.375 M VT, 3.5 M GT, 1.75 M Miami, .875 M Louisville and ND

Total of both:

Clemson 59.5 M, FSU 24.5 M, Pitt 17.5 M, UVa 15.75, UNC 15.25 M, NC State 14.0 M, Miami 11.75 M, Duke 10.5 M, Louis, ND, and VT 7.85 M, WF and GT 7 M, Syracuse 3.5 M, BC - 0 M

With the amount of 35 M and looking at 6 years, the break even is 14M if the money had been equally split over the 6 years.

In this scenario using our last 6 full years, Clemson would have made an extra 45.5 M (59.5-14= 45.5M)
FSU would have netted 10.5 M
Pitt would have netted 3.5 M
UVa would have netted 1.75
UNC would have netted 1.25
NC State breaks even.

The loss is substantial to BC and Syracuse. The loss to GT, VT, and Louisville is about $1 million per year.

This is close to what I expect. Real football excellence gets rewarded. Excellence in basketball keeps you from getting killed for bad football.

The ACC might put more money into the pot, I don't know.

It's my understanding that the incentive money will come out of the pro rata for the 3 new teams. Every existing team will get at least the same amount as before, so no one really loses money (except the 3 newbies).

(02-16-2024 12:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It's my understanding that the incentive money will come out of the pro rata for the 3 new teams. Every existing team will get at least the same amount as before, so no one really loses money (except the 3 newbies).

Correct! so it will be an additional 10-15M on top of the current payouts.