(03-09-2014 08:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 07:51 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 05:19 PM)CoogNellie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 05:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]Coog, you ought to listen to what Paco tried to tell you since he is in a position to know.
I wouldn't trust an ACC fan on this issue just like I wouldn't trust a Big 10 fan. It's clearly agenda driven and biased just like how Paco hand picked things to make the ACC look better. The Big 10 has a superior academic reputation.
I guess you could argue that the reputation is unfounded (you'd be wrong, but you could argue it). But that wouldn't change the fact that the reputation is what it is.
If you talk to an academic and say Clemson (#62 USA Today) is an elite public university but Minnesota (#69 USA Today) isn't, he'll laugh you out of the room. Noone in academia thinks USA Today is realistic. Doesn't mean schools don't cheat on it to get better #s(Clemson and Emory in recent years).
But the same is true in reverse--if you said Clemson isn't an elite public university, he'd rightly laugh at you.
The ACC and B1G both have a reputation as academically strong conferences. Which is why I don't buy the CIC as a big factor in Maryland moving. We're not talking about a school moving from the Big XII or SEC (which don't have good academic repuations) to the Big Ten or ACC. You're going from being a peer and competitor of Duke, UVA and UNC to being a peer and competitor of Ann Arbor, Northwestern and Bloomington.
Could Louisville benefit academically from the ACC tag? Absolutely--UL gets to claim now to be a peer competitor for Duke and UNC and UVA etc. in a way they never plausibly could with Georgetown, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, etc because that was never a Big East priority.
Tell me that Nebraska sees the CIC as a big factor in joining the Big Ten, and that they see associating with Ann Arbor and Madison and Columbus rather than Lubbock and Stillwater and Norman (and Austin) as raising their academic profile, that's credible to me.
*Note: doesn't mean that UMD isn't happy about the CIC. But it's not the reason that they're moving.
the sole reason that NU left the Big 12 was because they feared they would be left behind in conference realignment that their AD was told was starting to happen and it caught him totally and completely off guard especially when he was told that NU was not part of the discussion
Academics played no part in the real decision though it was an excuse and Nebraska was already well aware that they were on the verge of being booted from the AAU (they had had a decade of warnings) and they knew of that happened before they got into another conference (especially their only real choice in the matter the Big 10) that it would dramatically harm their chances of getting an offer from the Big 10 at all ever
and the idea of academics being important in the decision for Nebraska is a huge joke especially in light of the fact that they actually were kicked out of the AAU which was a much greater hit to their academic reputation than gaining membership to the Big 10........especially when at least two members of the Big 10 voted to boot them from the AAU while none of the AAU members of the Big 12 voted to boot them
Nebraska was able to move rapidly when athletics membership was on the line, but they sat by and did nothing for a decade when AAU membership was on the line.......that makes the argument about academics a huge joke
here is the story of how it all went down
http://www.omaha.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...09872/1685
again there is lip service to academics, but the reality is that mentioning "academics" while the university is scrambling in full panic mode to switch athletics conferences while not doing the same for a decade of warnings from the AAU really makes academics talk a joke
NU hurt themselves academically by showing their commitment to athletics first and they hurt the Big 10 by showing they would in fact let non-AAU members in based on athletics
100% of the members of the AAU in the Big 10 knew that Nebraska was coming up for a vote on membership
Short answer: Yes and I'm not totally sold that they were that unsafe without the GoR.
This is stupid. As far as academic reputation goes, the B10 and ACC are a wash and UMD fits squarely in the middle of either conference. Maryland is moving for the money, that's it.
(03-09-2014 09:52 PM)Hitch Wrote: [ -> ]This is stupid. As far as academic reputation goes, the B10 and ACC are a wash and UMD fits squarely in the middle of either conference. Maryland is moving for the money, that's it.
The ACC doesn't really have an academic reputation.....its comprised of a group of schools that in some cases have elite reputations.
The B1G has an academic reputation in of itself, a distinction worth noting.
(03-09-2014 10:25 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 09:52 PM)Hitch Wrote: [ -> ]This is stupid. As far as academic reputation goes, the B10 and ACC are a wash and UMD fits squarely in the middle of either conference. Maryland is moving for the money, that's it.
The ACC doesn't really have an academic reputation.....its comprised of a group of schools that in some cases have elite reputations.
The B1G has an academic reputation in of itself, a distinction worth noting.
This has passed boring and headed into tedious. Change directions with this pointless discussion or I'll return and close the thread. JR
(03-09-2014 10:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 10:25 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 09:52 PM)Hitch Wrote: [ -> ]This is stupid. As far as academic reputation goes, the B10 and ACC are a wash and UMD fits squarely in the middle of either conference. Maryland is moving for the money, that's it.
The ACC doesn't really have an academic reputation.....its comprised of a group of schools that in some cases have elite reputations.
The B1G has an academic reputation in of itself, a distinction worth noting.
This has passed boring and headed into tedious. Change directions with this pointless discussion or I'll return and close the thread. JR
I'm sorry for having to keep explaining the obvious.
(03-09-2014 06:30 PM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 06:16 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 05:19 PM)CoogNellie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 05:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]Coog, you ought to listen to what Paco tried to tell you since he is in a position to know.
I wouldn't trust an ACC fan on this issue just like I wouldn't trust a Big 10 fan. It's clearly agenda driven and biased just like how Paco hand picked things to make the ACC look better. The Big 10 has a superior academic reputation.
I guess you could argue that the reputation is unfounded (you'd be wrong, but you could argue it). But that wouldn't change the fact that the reputation is what it is.
It's a stupid issue. The ACC has the higher academic rating. The Big 10 has the most members of AAU. These are two different criteria. The issue is which has the superior academics. The answer is the ACC has the higher ranking. If the question was who sports the most member of the AAU the answer would be the Big 10. I'm an unbiased SEC guy and I've never thought that the Big 10 had superior academics to the ACC. The Big 10 has outstanding academic credentials but second to that of the ACC, but like with all things that too is subject to future realignment.
The problem with the ACC is that its a mixed institutional bag so it doesn't by itself act as an identifier.
Elite Privates: Notre Dame, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami Fl, Boston College, Syracuse
Public Ivies: Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech
Land Grants: Virginia Tech, NC State
Other: Pittsburgh, Florida St, Clemson, Louisville
The B1G is mostly a land grant conference with the exception of Northwestern (elite private) and Michigan (public ivy). IU might fall into the public Ivy category and they don't have an engineering school. The point taken is the B1G is a more consistent brand and Maryland's best chance to make a name for itself.
Clemson is also a land grant.
Pittsburgh, Florida St. and Louisville, as well as Georgia Tech, all are the clear number two public universities in states without a standalone land grant (a category shared by UCLA and Arizona St., among others).
Pitt isn't public, it is state related, and was private for most of its history.
In Pennsylvania, Penn, the Ivy in Philadelphia, is #1 in the state in research, admissions selectivity, faculty caliber, endowment size, and general academic prestige. This is indisputable.
Per the National Science Foundation, Pitt is currently #2 in the state for both total research expenditures and federal research awards behind Penn, not to mention many science impact rankings have it #2 in the state after Penn. Going from the latest report from the Center for Measuring University Performance, it is also#2 for the number of post-doctoral appointees after Penn. It is #2 in endowment size after Penn. It is #3 in the state for faculty with National Academy memberships after Penn and Carnegie-Mellon. It is #3 for the number of faculty major awards after Penn and Penn State. Pitt is #11 in SAT scores within the state, which is #1 among PA publics or state-related schools, nearly 100 points ahead of the next state-related school on the 1600 scale. It is #3 in the number of National Merit scholars behind Penn and Carnegie-Mellon. It is #1 or 2, on the number of Rhodes, Marshalls, and Truman scholars, and similar depending on the year. It is the third largest undergrad university behind Penn State and Temple, but the second largest for post-grads just behind Penn.
So yeah, maybe Pitt is #2 behind Penn if you are looking holistically at the university and at actual data and are considering research universities, not liberal arts schools like Swarthmore. Although I could see how you could put Carnegie-Mellon #2.
(03-09-2014 04:37 PM)CoogNellie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 04:20 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, you'd cite things based on ignorance, like most B10 fanboys would when they start throwing around sheet they don't understand like the CIC. The Big Ten has more AAU school than the Ivy, therefore, it must be better. Gotchya.
I would say the CIC is very important and it's one of the main things the Maryland president talked about when they moved to the Big 10, so for you to just brush it aside makes me think maybe you don't understand it.
Like I said, you could pull random ACT or SAT scores or average income of graduates or any random thing and make the ACC look better than the Big 10 but the perception clearly favors the Big 10. Don't believe me? Take a poll on every rivals message board of every school outside the ACC and Big 10. I'll guarantee you they select the Big 10 as more prestigious.
Not sure why you take it so personally since Pitt is a great school academically. Maybe you should try living through your own schools accomplishments (from the 70s I think?) instead of attaching your ego to the ACC?
I used US News rankings and the most used standardized admission measure in the country. SOOOOO random. Sooooo obscure.
But you want to take a poll on Rivals message boards about academic prestige and consider that even remotely legitimate? My lord, that's probably the most laughable statement yet. Again, the whole thing is BS, but that in itself needed to be highlighted because it is fairly unbelievable that any sane or sober person would even suggest such a thing as a legitimate measure. Kuddos.
BTW, the academic qualities of the universities that I've attended, been trained at, worked at, taught at, and have done research at are in no way attached to their athletic achievements, not in the least. Some of these institutions don't even have athletic programs, or FBS football, yet they have greater prestige and bring in more research money than any CIC institution. Imagine that?!? Must be witchcraft or something.
I care because people don't know what the hell they are talking about, pass around absolute garbage as fact, and refuse to even consider alternatives because they are too busy being fanboys, not even of their school, but a freakin'
athletic conference, and none of them are named the Ivy League. Hell, I guess if people want to believe 2+2=5, have at it.
(03-09-2014 07:51 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]If you talk to an academic and say Clemson (#62 USA Today) is an elite public university but Minnesota (#69 USA Today) isn't, he'll laugh you out of the room. Noone in academia thinks USA Today is realistic.
More to the point, even is the USA Today rankings were 100% respected, the ones that people normally use still wouldn't be relevant to this discussion, since they are undergrad rankings, and in the higher ranks of academia, undergrad teaching is the cash cow used to fund grad schools, and academic status is tied up in graduate school status.
Indeed, that is how UNL lost its AAU standing ... UNL has the ag school, UN-Omaha has the medical school, ag grants are mostly distributed on a formula basis, so that money isn't included in the AAU grant indices, medical research grants are mostly distributed on a competitive basis, so are included in the AAU grant indices.
Also, the volume of grants awarded on a competitive basis is why the observation that "the CIC only gives you an advantage in collaborating to land research funding" directly contradicts "the CIC is meaningless to the amount of research funding a University receives".
If y'all want to use US News rankings because they are widely available, use the grad school rankings, eg, Md-College Park engineering #19 ~ the Big Ten has 5 of the top 25, 7 of the top 30, Md makes 6 of the top 25, 8 out of the top 30. In the support disciplines 3 top25 departments in Science, 3 top25 departments in Humanities and Social Sciences, 4 top25 departments in the Health professions.
(03-10-2014 12:17 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ][quote='bullet' pid='10522677' dateline='1394412669']
Also, the volume of grants awarded on a competitive basis is why the observation that "the CIC only gives you an advantage in collaborating to land research funding" directly contradicts "the CIC is meaningless to the amount of research funding a University receives".
CIC doesn't give you any collaborative advantage that would facilitate research applications that doesn't exist anywhere else. It has one program that facilitates collaboration that may be relevant to grant applications, and that is in its TBI consortium that shares concussion data, but that is not limited to CIC schools, nor is it the only TBI study consortium out there. So hey, that one thing is great, but there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how academic collaborations are fostered and develop because the CIC isn't in the position to do that. To do that, it would mean sponsoring field specific professional meetings. But no one is wasting their time or travel money to go to a professional field-specific academic meetings where attendance is restricted to a dozen or so institutions based on membership in an athletic conference.
(03-09-2014 11:34 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 06:30 PM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 06:16 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2014 05:19 PM)CoogNellie Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't trust an ACC fan on this issue just like I wouldn't trust a Big 10 fan. It's clearly agenda driven and biased just like how Paco hand picked things to make the ACC look better. The Big 10 has a superior academic reputation.
I guess you could argue that the reputation is unfounded (you'd be wrong, but you could argue it). But that wouldn't change the fact that the reputation is what it is.
It's a stupid issue. The ACC has the higher academic rating. The Big 10 has the most members of AAU. These are two different criteria. The issue is which has the superior academics. The answer is the ACC has the higher ranking. If the question was who sports the most member of the AAU the answer would be the Big 10. I'm an unbiased SEC guy and I've never thought that the Big 10 had superior academics to the ACC. The Big 10 has outstanding academic credentials but second to that of the ACC, but like with all things that too is subject to future realignment.
The problem with the ACC is that its a mixed institutional bag so it doesn't by itself act as an identifier.
Elite Privates: Notre Dame, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami Fl, Boston College, Syracuse
Public Ivies: Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech
Land Grants: Virginia Tech, NC State
Other: Pittsburgh, Florida St, Clemson, Louisville
The B1G is mostly a land grant conference with the exception of Northwestern (elite private) and Michigan (public ivy). IU might fall into the public Ivy category and they don't have an engineering school. The point taken is the B1G is a more consistent brand and Maryland's best chance to make a name for itself.
Clemson is also a land grant.
Pittsburgh, Florida St. and Louisville, as well as Georgia Tech, all are the clear number two public universities in states without a standalone land grant (a category shared by UCLA and Arizona St., among others).
Pitt isn't public, it is state related, and was private for most of its history.
In Pennsylvania, Penn, the Ivy in Philadelphia, is #1 in the state in research, admissions selectivity, faculty caliber, endowment size, and general academic prestige. This is indisputable.
Per the National Science Foundation, Pitt is currently #2 in the state for both total research expenditures and federal research awards behind Penn, not to mention many science impact rankings have it #2 in the state after Penn. Going from the latest report from the Center for Measuring University Performance, it is also#2 for the number of post-doctoral appointees after Penn. It is #2 in endowment size after Penn. It is #3 in the state for faculty with National Academy memberships after Penn and Carnegie-Mellon. It is #3 for the number of faculty major awards after Penn and Penn State. Pitt is #11 in SAT scores within the state, which is #1 among PA publics or state-related schools, nearly 100 points ahead of the next state-related school on the 1600 scale. It is #3 in the number of National Merit scholars behind Penn and Carnegie-Mellon. It is #1 or 2, on the number of Rhodes, Marshalls, and Truman scholars, and similar depending on the year. It is the third largest undergrad university behind Penn State and Temple, but the second largest for post-grads just behind Penn.
So yeah, maybe Pitt is #2 behind Penn if you are looking holistically at the university and at actual data and are considering research universities, not liberal arts schools like Swarthmore. Although I could see how you could put Carnegie-Mellon #2.
I agree with you Paco. Calling Pitt a #2 public in PA behind Penn State is a farce that lacks true understanding of the academics at Pitt.
I would say Pitt despite the public assistance is more a peer of quality urban research universities like Boston College and Syracuse, though Im sure of exceeding those universities in most areas of research. Its very difficult to measure up Pitt because there really are no peer schools.
Kind of late to this conversation, but it seems that when Maryland first announced it was going, they provided the reasons which might cause worry within the ACC--money.
The reports showed that Maryland will be making $100 million more than ACC schools will by 2020.
"The University of Maryland stands to make nearly $100 million more in conference revenue by 2020 with its switch from the ACC to the Big Ten, according to projected revenue information presented to the school by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, SI.com has learned....
The real jump in projected revenue comes in 2017, after the Big Ten negotiates its new television contract. The Big Ten payout that year projects to $43 million, dwarfing the $24 million the ACC projects to pay out that year. During his Monday press conference, Maryland president Wallace D. Loh said the school's motivation to realign is largely financial."
Read More:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/wr...z2vYkZS7Sl
This caused quite a bit of concern in the ACC-- such as at UNC:
Emails show UNC doubts about ACC after Maryland’s departure
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/10/3...rylink=cpy
The financial concern is why the ACC remains at risk
(03-10-2014 06:55 AM)Tbringer Wrote: [ -> ]Kind of late to this conversation, but it seems that when Maryland first announced it was going, they provided the reasons which might cause worry within the ACC--money.
The reports showed that Maryland will be making $100 million more than ACC schools will by 2020.
"The University of Maryland stands to make nearly $100 million more in conference revenue by 2020 with its switch from the ACC to the Big Ten, according to projected revenue information presented to the school by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, SI.com has learned....
The real jump in projected revenue comes in 2017, after the Big Ten negotiates its new television contract. The Big Ten payout that year projects to $43 million, dwarfing the $24 million the ACC projects to pay out that year. During his Monday press conference, Maryland president Wallace D. Loh said the school's motivation to realign is largely financial."
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/wr...z2vYkZS7Sl
This caused quite a bit of concern in the ACC-- such as at UNC:
Emails show UNC doubts about ACC after Maryland’s departure
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/10/3...rylink=cpy
The financial concern is why the ACC remains at risk
Being the contrarian that I am, I don't think the money gap will be as great as some are predicting. I also don't think it will matter that much.
The B1G and the SEC have always brought in more football revenue than the ACC. That's no secret. There is a lot of speculation about how much the next round of contract renewals will bring. The recent growth rate has been exponentially higher than in the past, and we tend to simply extrapolate into the future as if those exponential growth rates will continue ad infinitum.
I believe there are more forces currently at work to dampen the appetite of ESPN and Fox for football product than there are to stimulate it. But that's just my opinion. Regardless, if the B1G had been earning, say, $20 million per school to the ACC's $10 million, that gave them a much bigger competitive advantage than a gap between $80 million and $60 million would. At some point, unless there is true and equitable revenue sharing with players, there are only so many ways to spend those millions. How much more lavish can they make weight rooms and player lounges?
In short, I'm not too worried about the ACC's position right now.
(03-10-2014 06:55 AM)Tbringer Wrote: [ -> ]Kind of late to this conversation, but it seems that when Maryland first announced it was going, they provided the reasons which might cause worry within the ACC--money.
The reports showed that Maryland will be making $100 million more than ACC schools will by 2020.
"The University of Maryland stands to make nearly $100 million more in conference revenue by 2020 with its switch from the ACC to the Big Ten, according to projected revenue information presented to the school by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, SI.com has learned....
The real jump in projected revenue comes in 2017, after the Big Ten negotiates its new television contract. The Big Ten payout that year projects to $43 million, dwarfing the $24 million the ACC projects to pay out that year. During his Monday press conference, Maryland president Wallace D. Loh said the school's motivation to realign is largely financial."
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/wr...z2vYkZS7Sl
This caused quite a bit of concern in the ACC-- such as at UNC:
Emails show UNC doubts about ACC after Maryland’s departure
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/10/3...rylink=cpy
The financial concern is why the ACC remains at risk
And it's been well documented that the numbers presented to the UM board and reported in the media at that time did not include the ACC's addition of ND, Syracuse, and Pitt, not the ACC's Orange Bowl Money or Playoff Money. The B10 money includes all revenue.
The B10's $43 million includes $6.35 from the Rose Bowl and Playoff. The ACC's $24 million does not include $5.5 million from Orange Bowl or the Playoff. Nor does it include the $2 million bump from ESPN even if there is no network, nor the extra .5 million from Louisville.
What Loh presented understated the ACC by $5.5 million $24 million instead of $29.5 million and could not include the $2.5 that came after Maryland left. That's $32 million.
To get to $43 million the B10's total TV has to jump $13.4 million per school in 2017 - a 70% increase.
Even if that does happen the claim that Maryland would net $100 more than in the ACC is false. If MD does indeed gross $11 million more per year starting in 2017, that's only $44 million more by 2020 and out of that $44 million UM has to pay exit fees. Maryland's net compared to staying in the ACC is a net loss potentially well into 2023-2024.
The ACC has no financial concern relative to the B10.
The emails to UNC's AD are from worried fans who have read misleading information.
(03-10-2014 09:00 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2014 06:55 AM)Tbringer Wrote: [ -> ]Kind of late to this conversation, but it seems that when Maryland first announced it was going, they provided the reasons which might cause worry within the ACC--money.
The reports showed that Maryland will be making $100 million more than ACC schools will by 2020.
"The University of Maryland stands to make nearly $100 million more in conference revenue by 2020 with its switch from the ACC to the Big Ten, according to projected revenue information presented to the school by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, SI.com has learned....
The real jump in projected revenue comes in 2017, after the Big Ten negotiates its new television contract. The Big Ten payout that year projects to $43 million, dwarfing the $24 million the ACC projects to pay out that year. During his Monday press conference, Maryland president Wallace D. Loh said the school's motivation to realign is largely financial."
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/wr...z2vYkZS7Sl
This caused quite a bit of concern in the ACC-- such as at UNC:
Emails show UNC doubts about ACC after Maryland’s departure
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/10/3...rylink=cpy
The financial concern is why the ACC remains at risk
Being the contrarian that I am, I don't think the money gap will be as great as some are predicting. I also don't think it will matter that much.
The B1G and the SEC have always brought in more football revenue than the ACC. That's no secret. There is a lot of speculation about how much the next round of contract renewals will bring. The recent growth rate has been exponentially higher than in the past, and we tend to simply extrapolate into the future as if those exponential growth rates will continue ad infinitum.
I believe there are more forces currently at work to dampen the appetite of ESPN and Fox for football product than there are to stimulate it. But that's just my opinion. Regardless, if the B1G had been earning, say, $20 million per school to the ACC's $10 million, that gave them a much bigger competitive advantage than a gap between $80 million and $60 million would. At some point, unless there is true and equitable revenue sharing with players, there are only so many ways to spend those millions. How much more lavish can they make weight rooms and player lounges?
In short, I'm not too worried about the ACC's position right now.
Out of curiosity why do you think that the ACC's revenue gap with other conferences won't be as described?
Also, why do you think it won't matter?
(03-10-2014 09:29 AM)Tbringer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2014 09:00 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2014 06:55 AM)Tbringer Wrote: [ -> ]Kind of late to this conversation, but it seems that when Maryland first announced it was going, they provided the reasons which might cause worry within the ACC--money.
The reports showed that Maryland will be making $100 million more than ACC schools will by 2020.
"The University of Maryland stands to make nearly $100 million more in conference revenue by 2020 with its switch from the ACC to the Big Ten, according to projected revenue information presented to the school by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, SI.com has learned....
The real jump in projected revenue comes in 2017, after the Big Ten negotiates its new television contract. The Big Ten payout that year projects to $43 million, dwarfing the $24 million the ACC projects to pay out that year. During his Monday press conference, Maryland president Wallace D. Loh said the school's motivation to realign is largely financial."
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/wr...z2vYkZS7Sl
This caused quite a bit of concern in the ACC-- such as at UNC:
Emails show UNC doubts about ACC after Maryland’s departure
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/10/3...rylink=cpy
The financial concern is why the ACC remains at risk
Being the contrarian that I am, I don't think the money gap will be as great as some are predicting. I also don't think it will matter that much.
The B1G and the SEC have always brought in more football revenue than the ACC. That's no secret. There is a lot of speculation about how much the next round of contract renewals will bring. The recent growth rate has been exponentially higher than in the past, and we tend to simply extrapolate into the future as if those exponential growth rates will continue ad infinitum.
I believe there are more forces currently at work to dampen the appetite of ESPN and Fox for football product than there are to stimulate it. But that's just my opinion. Regardless, if the B1G had been earning, say, $20 million per school to the ACC's $10 million, that gave them a much bigger competitive advantage than a gap between $80 million and $60 million would. At some point, unless there is true and equitable revenue sharing with players, there are only so many ways to spend those millions. How much more lavish can they make weight rooms and player lounges?
In short, I'm not too worried about the ACC's position right now.
Out of curiosity why do you think that the ACC's revenue gap with other conferences won't be as described?
Also, why do you think it won't matter?
Because he knows the B10's and UM's presentation of ACC numbers was false and misleading - designed to bamboozle the UM board.
(03-10-2014 09:29 AM)Tbringer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2014 09:00 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2014 06:55 AM)Tbringer Wrote: [ -> ]Kind of late to this conversation, but it seems that when Maryland first announced it was going, they provided the reasons which might cause worry within the ACC--money.
The reports showed that Maryland will be making $100 million more than ACC schools will by 2020.
"The University of Maryland stands to make nearly $100 million more in conference revenue by 2020 with its switch from the ACC to the Big Ten, according to projected revenue information presented to the school by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, SI.com has learned....
The real jump in projected revenue comes in 2017, after the Big Ten negotiates its new television contract. The Big Ten payout that year projects to $43 million, dwarfing the $24 million the ACC projects to pay out that year. During his Monday press conference, Maryland president Wallace D. Loh said the school's motivation to realign is largely financial."
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/wr...z2vYkZS7Sl
This caused quite a bit of concern in the ACC-- such as at UNC:
Emails show UNC doubts about ACC after Maryland’s departure
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/10/3...rylink=cpy
The financial concern is why the ACC remains at risk
Being the contrarian that I am, I don't think the money gap will be as great as some are predicting. I also don't think it will matter that much.
The B1G and the SEC have always brought in more football revenue than the ACC. That's no secret. There is a lot of speculation about how much the next round of contract renewals will bring. The recent growth rate has been exponentially higher than in the past, and we tend to simply extrapolate into the future as if those exponential growth rates will continue ad infinitum.
I believe there are more forces currently at work to dampen the appetite of ESPN and Fox for football product than there are to stimulate it. But that's just my opinion. Regardless, if the B1G had been earning, say, $20 million per school to the ACC's $10 million, that gave them a much bigger competitive advantage than a gap between $80 million and $60 million would. At some point, unless there is true and equitable revenue sharing with players, there are only so many ways to spend those millions. How much more lavish can they make weight rooms and player lounges?
In short, I'm not too worried about the ACC's position right now.
Out of curiosity why do you think that the ACC's revenue gap with other conferences won't be as described?
Also, why do you think it won't matter?
I thought I had addressed both those questions in my post (see bold). When you already have enough, more isn't so important.
For those who think that Maryland moved to the B1G for academic reasons, let me ask you this.
If it had been the ACC that was projected to bring in $100 million more athletics revenue than the B1G, do you think Maryland would have moved anyway, for academic reasons?
(03-10-2014 09:34 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2014 09:29 AM)Tbringer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2014 09:00 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2014 06:55 AM)Tbringer Wrote: [ -> ]Kind of late to this conversation, but it seems that when Maryland first announced it was going, they provided the reasons which might cause worry within the ACC--money.
The reports showed that Maryland will be making $100 million more than ACC schools will by 2020.
"The University of Maryland stands to make nearly $100 million more in conference revenue by 2020 with its switch from the ACC to the Big Ten, according to projected revenue information presented to the school by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, SI.com has learned....
The real jump in projected revenue comes in 2017, after the Big Ten negotiates its new television contract. The Big Ten payout that year projects to $43 million, dwarfing the $24 million the ACC projects to pay out that year. During his Monday press conference, Maryland president Wallace D. Loh said the school's motivation to realign is largely financial."
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/wr...z2vYkZS7Sl
This caused quite a bit of concern in the ACC-- such as at UNC:
Emails show UNC doubts about ACC after Maryland’s departure
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/10/3...rylink=cpy
The financial concern is why the ACC remains at risk
Being the contrarian that I am, I don't think the money gap will be as great as some are predicting. I also don't think it will matter that much.
The B1G and the SEC have always brought in more football revenue than the ACC. That's no secret. There is a lot of speculation about how much the next round of contract renewals will bring. The recent growth rate has been exponentially higher than in the past, and we tend to simply extrapolate into the future as if those exponential growth rates will continue ad infinitum.
I believe there are more forces currently at work to dampen the appetite of ESPN and Fox for football product than there are to stimulate it. But that's just my opinion. Regardless, if the B1G had been earning, say, $20 million per school to the ACC's $10 million, that gave them a much bigger competitive advantage than a gap between $80 million and $60 million would. At some point, unless there is true and equitable revenue sharing with players, there are only so many ways to spend those millions. How much more lavish can they make weight rooms and player lounges?
In short, I'm not too worried about the ACC's position right now.
Out of curiosity why do you think that the ACC's revenue gap with other conferences won't be as described?
Also, why do you think it won't matter?
I thought I had addressed both those questions in my post (see bold). When you already have enough, more isn't so important.
Not sure how a statement of unexplained "forces at work" explains any part of what I've asked? More detail would be required here.
As to the second part, I provided a link you may have missed from leaders at UNC who've said in fact, money differences at the levels described does matter very much to them. That is why I'm curious as to why you suggest it isn't.
