Compliments of Orangeyes from the SU Scout board:
Not sure how reliable all of this info is, because there were some noticeable mistakes in the article. For instance, the reporter states that the Acc's new tv deal starts this season, which is wrong. The acc tv deal is more than halfway over now. I think the writer may have confused the BE tv deal with the acc deal. The BE tv deal actually starts this season.
From the OrlandoSentinel.com
Miami's move from Big East to ACC starting to pay off finally
posted by Alan Schmadtke on Jul 8, 2008 2:24:13 PM
Some thoughts and observations and a few more specific financial numbers following Andrew Carter’s package last week on the 5-year anniversary of college football conference realignment:
Miami, the big domino in the entire restructuring, is just starting to see the big financial results that it hoped would come from the move. Had the Hurricanes been better in football in recent years -- that is, had they gone to BCS bowls that they used to go to regularly when they were in the Big East -- they’d have raked in even more money.
Miami, the big domino in the entire restructuring, is just starting to see the big financial results that it hoped would come from the move. Had the Hurricanes been better in football in recent years -- that is, had they gone to BCS bowls that they used to go to regularly when they were in the Big East -- they’d have raked in even more money.
Florida State has benefited financially from an expanded ACC but not by as much as it could have. (And for the same reason as Miami: only one BCS appearance recently.)
And so far some of the money winners in expansion are: Louisville, Virginia Tech, USF and the University of Central Florida.
The loser (so far): West Virginia and Syracuse.
(See detailed chart below.)
This is from Craig Barnes’ story from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel five years ago:
"Frankly, the Big East made a better financial offer over the next five years," Shalala said. "There is a fundamental difference in the way money is distributed. In the Big East, the more successful you were, the more money you got. If you look at the ACC, it is even distribution; everyone gets the same thing."
Miami will make $6.2 million in each of its first two ACC seasons, with the possibility of an additional $2 million if it plays in the Bowl Championship Series, and the number can be increased further if the conference has a championship game.
By the third year, the Hurricanes will be a full partner, collecting more than $9 million. That would be the season the ACC’s new TV deal begins.
The Big East's last proposal was to guarantee UM $9.7 million, the amount collected by each ACC school last year, for the next five years. The Big East also agreed to supplement Miami for its additional travel expenses.
Well now. It took Miami until the 2006-07 school year to earn more than $9.7 million in ACC revenue sharing. In other words, until last year the Hurricanes were operating with less money coming in from the ACC than they would have from the Big East -- at least initially -- had they stayed put.
But this was not a five-year move. This was a forever move. And if the latest payout by the ACC to Miami -- $11.7 million -- is indicative of where future finances are headed, Miami soon will make up the difference. If the Hurricanes get back to BCS prominence, their annual slice of the ACC pie won’t be as big as it would have been in the Big East. But it likely will jump to between $13 million and $15 million.
As for USF, the Bulls pulled in nearly $5.4 million from Big East revenue sharing in 2006-07. C-USA did not break out school-by-school distributions for 2003-04, but the last check the Bulls received from C-USA was the following year: $1.44 million. So USF is now pulling in about $4 million more a year because of the change in leagues.
UCF increased its conference revenue sharing from about $100,000 (from both the Atlantic Sun and Mid-American Conference) to more $2 million last year.
West Virginia’s haul from the Big East office fell by more than $1.5 million, but part of that is explained by the fact that the years that are being compared here include an earlier year in which the Mountaineers reaped excess BCS money.
School Change 2003-04 2004-05 2006-07 Difference
Miami Big East to ACC 9,039,435 11,719,004 2,679,569
Boston College Big East to ACC 6,637,314 8,789,080 2,151,766
Virginia Tech Big East to ACC 6,050,696 11,844,044 5,793,348
UCF MAC to C-USA 108,000 2,427,527 2,319,527
FSU No change 11,688,542 12,292,543 604,001
Syracuse No change 5,424,961 4,746,354 -678,607
West Virginia No change 8,520,044 6,952,221 -1,567,823
Louisville C-USA to Big East NA 3,109,759 7,888,930 4,779,171
USF C-USA to Big East NA 1,444,061 5,370,693 3,926,632
I don't know how they can rank West Virginia as a "loser". Didn't they make like 9.5 million dollars this year? And that is BEFORE the television deal kicked in.
:puke:Another ACC homer article. God how i love hearing them trying to justify why they suck on the field and how things are actually looking better than they are. God bless the ACC
I agree. I don't see how a team that has 2 BCS bowl victories (3 straight bowl wins) since their departure can be seen as a loser by anybody. However, those figures are taken as a 5-year average figure. As time goes by, those figure will radically adjust.
Im surprised that they havent touched on when is Miami's attendance will catch up with what it was in BE. It is almost 15k les than it was before the move.
and in year #1 when UM went 9-3 they avg 59k, but after that its been 45k,41k and 43k
bitcruncher Wrote:I agree. I don't see how a team that has 2 BCS bowl victories (3 straight bowl wins) since their departure can be seen as a loser by anybody. However, those figures are taken as a 5-year average figure. As time goes by, those figure will radically adjust.
WVU has more BCS wins then the entire ACC Conference so I would not pay much attention to that article.
I guess if you watch college football solely for the purpose of how much money your school gonna make, then winning means squat. Why are people like that even college football fans? Why don't they just watch the NFL where they have salary cap etc?
Miami sucks as a football program now. WVU is in the top 10 regularly and have won 2 BCS bowls already since the new BE. I would say WVU is definitely the winner here.
Ask yourselves this: If Miami is so damn rich, why were they unable to hire Shiano away from Rutgers
Cubanbull Wrote:Im surprised that they havent touched on when is Miami's attendance will catch up with what it was in BE. It is almost 15k less than it was before the move.
And in year #1 when UM went 9-3 they avg 59k, but after that its been 45k,41k and 43k
And, if memory serves, since I have done a few posts on this very topic over the past few years - 2004 had home dates against FSU, VT, and Clemson as well as two big OOC games - one against Louisville and the other against Florida.
The ACC did the Hurricanes no favors by scheduling FSU and VT (permanent games for Miami) together either on the road or at home rather than mix them up. And the other program with traveling fans (Clemson) only cycles through about every 6 years or so at home.
Let's face it, for Miami to do well in terms of attendance they need to get fans from the metro area of Miami interested in showing up for the games. There are enough transplanted northeasterners in Miami to get them to show up for northeasterner teams to the tune of about 50K or more when Miami is in the hunt for a BCS/Gator Bowl game.
Otherwise they need a Florida opponent (FSU, Florida, hopefully USF) or one whose fans travel (any good SEC team, Louisville, ECU, etc.).
It will be interesting to see if moving games to Dolphin Stadium helps attendance increase for the wine and cheese crowd from the ACC.
Cheers,
Neil
I have the prejudice of wanting BE to do well....as that stabilizes CUSA's situation. So, I have a bias but, then again, I am an outsider looking in and perhaps that brings a different perspective.
Certainly, existing BE schools didn't want to lose teams to ACC but they did. Looking at this, I would say BE football is doing quite well and the basketball.....the basketball is out of this world! So were existing BE teams winners or losers? I say winners and strong winners. Dealt an upleasant hand, the BE sorted it all out and landed on its feet. There were decisions to be made and compromises struck. If I were an instructor of business, I would use BE as a classroom example of business success at a time of crisis and stress.
And, if I were an instructor of business, I would also use MWC but as an example of how not to do business. The existing MWC schools and their predecessor conference of the pre-expansion WAC, had many strengths and were poised to move on up....but, somehow, thru hurried decisions, lack of patience, an apparent lack of information, and lack of a strategic plan of the future....somehow, it appears to me, the MWC is less than where it was in terms of the publicly perceived status. The badly negotiated and apparently unread and not understood tv contract was the biggest joke of all.
Today, because of BE's huge success, too many BE fans take success and BCS status as granted. Today, because of MWC's many blunders, it is hard for BE fans to realize they could have lost the BCS status to this, at that time, to that well positioned confernece. But that could have easily happened if MWC had better administrators and decision makers.
Today, everyone is a winner. The existing BE teams are winners. USF, Cincy, and Louisiville are winners. And while Louisville initially grabbed a lot of attention, initially there is no doubt in my mind that USF and Cincy can be much more than their already good level. And Louisville will be back.
Finally, God takes care of fools and idiots. UTEP, SMU, Rice, and Tulsa may be the biggest winners of all. These four schools shared a common trait with the MWC bretheren at that time....the lack to plan wisely and have good information and making too hasty decisions. This situation here bears a close relationship to BE's situation. Because the old Southwest Conference, its history and brand, were quickly abandoned....the total opposite of the BE which, from the git go, decided not to abandon ship but sail into the wind....capitalizing on the BE brand name. The BE's ship did come in. So there is a second example of bad business decision making, this time by the former SWC scohools....and, have no doubt about it. College sports is a business.
I have a lot of issues with a lot of BE posters. But I think many BE fans, having success, great success in football and supreme success in basketball, that by having this success that BE fans do not realize how bad it could have gone. If the pre-expansion had made decisions astutely, then the pre-expansion WAC could have taken that BCS slot away from the apparent truncated BE.
Well said, tallgrass. But are you saying that either the MWC or Wac-16 would have taken the BCS spot? Don't think so, the other BCS conf's wouldn't have gone for it, and rules allow for as few as 5 conf's. Plus, the BE is still in because the BE was one of the founding conf's of the BCS, so they were already in.
ShoreBuc Wrote:bitcruncher Wrote:I agree. I don't see how a team that has 2 BCS bowl victories (3 straight bowl wins) since their departure can be seen as a loser by anybody. However, those figures are taken as a 5-year average figure. As time goes by, those figure will radically adjust.
WVU has more BCS wins then the entire ACC Conference so I would not pay much attention to that article.
Trust me. I don't pay any attention to it, other than as an amusing curiousity.
The WAC could end up becoming a BCS conference, and the ACC could end up on the outside looking in. Things happen, and so does change. It's all relative.
Jose_Jalapeno_on_a_Stick Wrote:Ask yourselves this: If Miami is so damn rich, why were they unable to hire Shiano away from Rutgers
Touché...
Crimsonelf Wrote:Well said, tallgrass. But are you saying that either the MWC or Wac-16 would have taken the BCS spot? Don't think so, the other BCS conf's wouldn't have gone for it, and rules allow for as few as 5 conf's. Plus, the BE is still in because the BE was one of the founding conf's of the BCS, so they were already in.
The MWC's greatest problem is lack of tv audience, that is, population. The MWC needed/needs a presence in two states, California and Texas. One or two California or Texas schools won't do it.
And, the Big 10 can afford to carry Northwestern, SEC can carry Vanderbilt, and the Big 12 can carry Baylor. But the MWC is not strong enough tv wise to carry Wyoming. So, to go after BCS status, I would ask Wyoming to leave and then build upon SDSU, UNLV, Utah, BYU, CSU, AFA, and NM.
The BE has made wise decisions. Look at just one of those decisions. The BE asked Temple to leave. MWC needs to do that with Wyoming, whose tv audience puts Wyoming in the Big Sky Conference category and does nothing tv wise for MWC or the existing WAC.
With this base, where to start? I would start with the far western colussus of California...I would add Fresno State and SJSU. Fresno is superb; SJSU needs patience. The colussus of California would be covered now with SDSU, Fresno, and SJSU. That's 9 teams and, from there, I am going to drop the issue. Everyone else can speculate from there who to add but Texas would be the target. Boise State has marvelous football teams but what are their tv ratings for a state that doesn't have one million people?
How do you make wise decisions in Texas? UNT is coming on strong and UNT reminds me of where UCF and USF were in their programs not all that long ago. UNT has more resident students living on campus than the combined enrollment of SMU and TCU. So, in Texas, if I were involved, UNT would be thoroughly reviewed and considered. In this post, I am not saying what MWC should have done; rather, how should MWC gone about making their decisions?
Could the WAC-16 been BCS? That conference would have been standing in place and hard to not acknowledge at the time of the BE implosion. It might have come down to an issue like perhaps BE and WAC-16 "sharing" the 6th BCS spot. The presence of the WAC-16 would have been an issue for the BE, without question, and that question would probably been carried into the future and raised BCS cartel and legal issues. Remember all the political commotion that lead to NonBCS confernces being included in BCS bowls? I think you would have seen something like that....and my guess is BCS would be scared enough of a legal lawsuit and/or political firestorm...to probably grant WAC-16 BCS status as a way for BCS to buy itself out of potential harm.
Fortunately for BCS and BE, the MWC had imploded, lost the Holiday, Copper (Insight), and Freedom Bowls, and had nothing to show for its efforts whereas the BE started with a "brand" name and superb basketball.
Let me say two things about WAC-16. First, the WAC-16 allowed BYU to get into the Cotton Bowl where the Cougars beat KSU. Second, the WAC-16 Conference Championship game had the highest tv ratings of any WAC (and now MWC) tv game ever telecast. So, in two short years, the WAC-16 demonstrated its potential.
Just about each and every MWC fan will disagree with me because they don't want to admit that maybe they could have been BCS...and they held it within their own hands. Just about each and every BE fans will disagree with me because they don't want to admint that maybe the WAC-16 could have taken that BCS status away from BE.
My business trainer tells me if you lose, then at least don't lose the lesson. I would extend his remarks by saying don't lose the lesson when you have success. As an outsider looking in, in my book, the BE's success is attributed with the superb basketball status it had plus the strong and patient leadership it had.
Today, the BE is this nation's premiere basketball conference and a football conference that has BCS bowl victories over Oklahoma and Georgia. It doesn't get much better than that.
Well by the BCS bylaws Tallgrass you can have as low as 5 BCS conferences and up to 7 BCS conferences. No way Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, Rutgers lose their bid. Now if anything the WAC 16 would've just been the 7th BCS conference. The Big East is very secure when it comes with the BCS. I'll be the first person to admit that BYU is the only mid-major with a national championship and they do deserve to be in a BCS conference. With the population shift out west I wouldn't be surprised to see the MWC or WAC or a hybrid of the 2 earning a automatic bid to BCS berth sometime in the next 15 years.
I agree animus, I said from day one the BE had virtually no chance of losing its bid.. they would have changed the rules if needed to keep them there. its a club and they are members. I also dont think the MWC has any chance of ever becoming bcs.. the bcs added the market size consideration to protect the BE after the raids.. that new piece will always keep the MWC out. that is part of the big market approach by CUSA. the only non bcs that has a long shot chance of ever breaking in is CUSA and thats a real long shot. CUSA would have to start getting regular bcs bowl bids..(fairly tough scheduling by east schools makes that unlikely) and have the bottom 1/3 of the league get better,, which is possible. CUSA has advantage in markets and league size.. BCS brings in cusa they gain 12 schools to the cartel for one addition rather than 9. That is the only reason I would consider CUSA going to 14 all sports to add even more to that advantage.
animus Wrote:Well by the BCS bylaws Tallgrass you can have as low as 5 BCS conferences and up to 7 BCS conferences. No way Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, Rutgers lose their bid. Now if anything the WAC 16 would've just been the 7th BCS conference. The Big East is very secure when it comes with the BCS. I'll be the first person to admit that BYU is the only mid-major with a national championship and they do deserve to be in a BCS conference. With the population shift out west I wouldn't be surprised to see the MWC or WAC or a hybrid of the 2 earning a automatic bid to BCS berth sometime in the next 15 years.
Anything could have happened. Who knows? But, if I were to lay $5 on the table as a bet, I would have bet something that WAC-16 became 7th BCS conference......or an arrangment whereby the higher rated team from the BE or MWC would be invited to the BCS bowls. BE is very secure today; but, at that time, everyting was up in the air. The BE (along with CUSA) had many critics.
The problem that I see with CUSA is that when they went to 12 they added schools that in reality do NOT help them in getting the overall strength to chalenge as a good all around league. There are some schools that while god academics do not have the size nor the drive to become good football programs. CUSA would have been a stronger football league by just becoming a9 team league rather than 12.
goodknightfl Wrote:I agree animus, I said from day one the BE had virtually no chance of losing its bid.. they would have changed the rules if needed to keep them there. its a club and they are members. I also dont think the MWC has any chance of ever becoming bcs.. the bcs added the market size consideration to protect the BE after the raids.. that new piece will always keep the MWC out. that is part of the big market approach by CUSA. the only non bcs that has a long shot chance of ever breaking in is CUSA and thats a real long shot. CUSA would have to start getting regular bcs bowl bids..(fairly tough scheduling by east schools makes that unlikely) and have the bottom 1/3 of the league get better,, which is possible. CUSA has advantage in markets and league size.. BCS brings in cusa they gain 12 schools to the cartel for one addition rather than 9. That is the only reason I would consider CUSA going to 14 all sports to add even more to that advantage.
By its bad decision making, MWC lost out on the possibility of being in a position to receive a BCS bid....and, at the same time, has not been able to separate itself from CUSA. CUSA had done a good job with bowls and tv...and is poised for more in the future.
The old pre-expansion WAC most resembled the old Big 8. Both had good teams. Both had low populations. Big 8 solved its problems with Texas. The population alternative for MWC is primarily California and the MWC failed/fails to capitalize on California. If nothing else, throw out Wyoming and add Fresno State.
IMO, all the potential of the WAC-16 has now been shifted to CUSA. UCF is our Fresno; Fla Int'l and Florida Atlantic can be our SDSU and SJSU. If BCS status can be attained by expansion, do it. But CUSA mustn't jump too quickly and made decisions on hopes rather than reality.
Both WAC and MWC now share the common problem of three top teams at the top with no depth below.
IMO, CUSA/West teams fear UNT. IMO/East teams don't want additional competition from a team like Florida Atlantic. But, if BCS is obtained, every CUSA team's recruiting and tv dollars will jump. The BE school that I point to most is Cincinnati...and what BCS status can do for a school.
Cubanbull Wrote:The problem that I see with CUSA is that when they went to 12 they added schools that in reality do NOT help them in getting the overall strength to chalenge as a good all around league. There are some schools that while god academics do not have the size nor the drive to become good football programs. CUSA would have been a stronger football league by just becoming a9 team league rather than 12.
Cuban,
I don't know if I completely agree with that statement. UCF, Marshall and UTEP are all respectable programs.
From all accounts UCF is positioning itself to make a serious run at joining the Big East when that time comes. Their facilities and support are second to known.
Marshall has a storied football history. Though much of their recent success was in another conference, the Herd still have a solid program. The WVU faithful like to give Herd fans sh*t but they respect what the folks in Huntington have done.
UTEP, like UCF, has tremendous support. I believe I remember reading that they averaged more fans last season than many schools in the Big East.
That's just 3 of the programs that CUSA added. Tulsa has been good the last few years as well.
In some ways I see CUSA football being stronger now than before the expansion, just like the Big East.
CJ
Tallgrass Wrote:Today, because of BE's huge success, too many BE fans take success and BCS status as granted. Today, because of MWC's many blunders, it is hard for BE fans to realize they could have lost the BCS status to this, at that time, to that well positioned confernece. But that could have easily happened if MWC had better administrators and decision makers.
An otherwise great post Tallgrass, but I completely disagree with your perception that we’re taking the success for granted. I think many of the posters on here still see this league as #6 in some important areas, such as perception and (more importantly) $$$$. But, we also know that all the programs in the league continue to work hard in building this thing.
As a UC fan, I’m not resting on last season’s laurels. I know they need to ramp up Nippert’s capacity, not to mention provide an indoor practice field, if UC has any designs of competing. I see the other programs in the league doing that, and everyone needs to keep up.
The fact that the league’s programs are doing that makes us all confident. Perhaps you mistake that confidence for taking things for granted.