(05-28-2018 02:09 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (05-27-2018 12:30 PM)SoCalPanther Wrote: [ -> ]The 2010 TV contract is an albatross around the ACCs neck as stated earlier in this thread and many times on this board. /thread
Yup. But we got Raycom and Swoff got his kid a job.
I must say that I am very thankful for the ACC adding Louisville. We are glad to be members. But I must agree with SoCalPanther and Nola on the TV contract issue.
Yes, the 2010 deal was bad, bad, bad. Some of it was just timing and being unaware of market value before the PAC 12 struck, something that also affected the 2008 SEC deal (Slive is revered, but that contract turned out to be garbage), you cannot excuse the Raycom giveaway.
The ACC required their partner (ESPN) to sublease x amount of games to Raycom, which is less than corporate welfare to a business who's model had long run its course. It would be no different than requiring ACC schools to book all their travel at Ye Old Tobacco Road Travel Agency at a +30% cost, because that's how ACC schools travelled in 1970s and we're just going to pretend that the internet doesn't exist because ol' Gus at the travel agency is a good guy and has had season tickets to Tarheel basketball since 1950.
It's especially galling because Raycom then subleased a bunch of those rights to Fox. I have no problem with ACC on Fox, it's better than the Raycom affiliates, but that is absolute garbage paying for two middlemen. It wasn't even like Raycom produced them and it propped up Raycom's reputation and presence...it was a straight cash giveaway in which the ACC forced ESPN to sell rights at below market, simply so Raycom could resell and take a profit.
It is a freaking scandal. It's not like ESPN took the loss selling those games under market value...that was passed on (not passed on) in the contract. And there was absolutely no reason for it other than scratching the back of an old pal. None whatsoever. The fact that his son got a job there is just icing on the cake.
The Raycom giveaway was absolute indefensible garbage at the time, it's indefensible today. It's not something you can look back and say "well, we didn't realize where things were going" like the decision not to start a network. It was a move only the ACC made, and only the ACC would make. Remember, Raycom and JP used to have all the conferences...the ACC is the only one that not only saw fit to maintain the relationship, but literally prop them up financially be giving them underpriced content to sell.
I don't care what the ultimate dollar value the ACC gave away in the scheme, I don't think getting 60% of the value for the generally unappealing Raycom package or whatever they got is the difference between ACC money and SEC money. But it no doubt significantly complicated the ACC Network, it hurt the ACC's branding, and it's highly symbolic of a provincial attitude from the tobacco road folks that set the ACC back for decades of catch up.
And 100%...the leadership of the universities, including FSU and Clemson and everyone else is totally complicit in letting it happen. Of all the poor judgement and bad decisions, no matter how things go in the future, that Raycom giveaway can never be justified.
(05-29-2018 09:46 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, the 2010 deal was bad, bad, bad. Some of it was just timing and being unaware of market value before the PAC 12 struck, something that also affected the 2008 SEC deal (Slive is revered, but that contract turned out to be garbage), you cannot excuse the Raycom giveaway.
The ACC required their partner (ESPN) to sublease x amount of games to Raycom, which is less than corporate welfare to a business who's model had long run its course. It would be no different than requiring ACC schools to book all their travel at Ye Old Tobacco Road Travel Agency at a +30% cost, because that's how ACC schools travelled in 1970s and we're just going to pretend that the internet doesn't exist because ol' Gus at the travel agency is a good guy and has had season tickets to Tarheel basketball since 1950.
It's especially galling because Raycom then subleased a bunch of those rights to Fox. I have no problem with ACC on Fox, it's better than the Raycom affiliates, but that is absolute garbage paying for two middlemen. It wasn't even like Raycom produced them and it propped up Raycom's reputation and presence...it was a straight cash giveaway in which the ACC forced ESPN to sell rights at below market, simply so Raycom could resell and take a profit.
It is a freaking scandal. It's not like ESPN took the loss selling those games under market value...that was passed on (not passed on) in the contract. And there was absolutely no reason for it other than scratching the back of an old pal. None whatsoever. The fact that his son got a job there is just icing on the cake.
The Raycom giveaway was absolute indefensible garbage at the time, it's indefensible today. It's not something you can look back and say "well, we didn't realize where things were going" like the decision not to start a network. It was a move only the ACC made, and only the ACC would make. Remember, Raycom and JP used to have all the conferences...the ACC is the only one that not only saw fit to maintain the relationship, but literally prop them up financially be giving them underpriced content to sell.
I don't care what the ultimate dollar value the ACC gave away in the scheme, I don't think getting 60% of the value for the generally unappealing Raycom package or whatever they got is the difference between ACC money and SEC money. But it no doubt significantly complicated the ACC Network, it hurt the ACC's branding, and it's highly symbolic of a provincial attitude from the tobacco road folks that set the ACC back for decades of catch up.
And 100%...the leadership of the universities, including FSU and Clemson and everyone else is totally complicit in letting it happen. Of all the poor judgement and bad decisions, no matter how things go in the future, that Raycom giveaway can never be justified.
This is the truest thing you'll ever read.
(05-25-2018 04:24 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote: [ -> ] (05-25-2018 04:00 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-25-2018 12:59 PM)Hallcity Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Steve Berkowitz
Verified account @ByBerkowitz
27m27 minutes ago
Power 5 conference per-school distributions for FY17:
--SEC: $42.M to $39.9M
--Big Ten: $37.2M to $37M
--Big 12: Roughly $34.3M per school except Baylor
--Pac-12: $30.9M per school
--ACC: $30.7M to $25.3M except Notre Dame
A few thoughts:
1) What I see here is clustering. Being last sucks but there's not that much difference between first and last. The ACC network won't have to be that all that successful to move the ACC well up this list.
2) Why the large spread in ACC distributions? I thought you got a little more for going to a bowl game but that was it. Were the newer members still getting reduced distributions in 2017?
3) Haven't we heard that the B12, at least, plays games with the numbers it releases? Including funds used for conference operations as if they were distributed to the schools? Or perhaps they distribute the funds but take them back as conference dues just to make their numbers look more impressive than they are? Do any other conferences, like the PAC, do this sort of thing?
As to point #3 about the Big 12 the news there is actually that they don't play games with their numbers. The 34.3 million is all that their conference distributes and it is equal shares now that the buyins of T.C.U. and West Virginia have normalized. Baylor's is less I believe because of fines imposed by the conference for their scandal. A Big 12 person might provide more clarity on that.
The problem with the Big 12 numbers is that their T3 revenue is independent of the conference and therefore every schools is different. So to figure the Big 12's total media revenue you have to look up each individual school's tax filings and not just those of the conference.
Texas made 34.3 from the conference. They pulled down a little more than 14 million from the LHN and they probably finished around 50 million for the year. The Sooners earn 7 million for T3 but they front overhead. So probably in the range of 38 million. Kansas does the same and they are likely knocking down close to 37 or 38 after costs as well. It is reported that WVU makes around 7 also, but I have never seen their terms and don't know what is deducted in expenses there if any. The rest reportedly make under 3 million. So the real totals of the Big 12 would range from 36 million to 50 million.
The problem with Tier 3 is it is full of kook $. When people talk about Tier 3, it typically includes everything: radio, promotions, sponsorships, stadium signage, along with the gazillions promised by mostly worthless left over event broadcast rights. Every major school has similar tier 3 financial deals except for UT having the LHN.
The only school that is including other Tier 3 revenues that everyone gets from radio, advertising, etc. in one deal that I am aware of is WVU. Where WVU's tier 3 gets blurred is they renegotiated the deal at the same time the tv was available and rolled it into one. The current deal is 12 years, I don't know what the previous one was and that's where the issue lies. What has happened is people/articles look at the new deal which now includes the T3 tv and it was around 5M more than the previous and they state that's what the tv was worth. No, they are not factoring in the growth of the non tv T3 material. I don't know how long the previous deal was but if they had a contract for the T3 previously without the tv for say 8 years, you need factor in that growth and subtract it for a true number.
Most of the schools besides Texas, Ks. & OU probably get a modest 1-3M from the tv T3 but there is not a lot of content with a 10 team league. 1 football game and 5-6 basketball games typically. It does give a modest amount of revenue for MOST schools but also provides some nice exposure especially in the instance for Iowa State who developed their own channel and has gained carriage from the states largest cable subscriber and people can also buy streaming memberships.
The original post (on Forbes, called "
The ACC's Third Tier Rights And Why They're Killing The Conference") which got the whole tier 3 myth started ranked schools by TOTAL T3 contract value - NOT per year. So schools with longer contracts were ranked higher. This was totally illogical, but the idea stuck because too many people were too lazy to read the fine print. However, even with that data, ACC schools compared favorably with Big XII schools - despite not having any football to sell.
LINK:
ACC Bashing - Will it Never End?
At that time (which was AFTER the Big XII schools secured rights to one football game each year), only ONE Big XII school (Texas) made more T3 money than UNC, only TWO made more than FSU (UT + OU), and only FOUR made more than NC State.
Unfortunately the data source from Sports Business Journal has since been pulled, though I do have a copy of the data on my blog. *** This data is from 2012 and so is somewhat outdated. I was pointing out what STARTED this line of thinking, so that is valid, but if you want to say that Big XII teams NOW make more in T3 contracts, go for it ***
(05-26-2018 04:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2018 02:46 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2018 02:20 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]...I'm no lover of the things that Swofford has done on behalf of the ACC. But its silly to try to place the blame on him.
Except his son's deal which was sublet to Yes proved to be quite the impediment to the pursuance of the ACCN at an earlier date.
I'm not aware of the details of the YES Network contract to show ACC sports. The only information I found stated that Raycom subleased the rights to Fox, which in turn subleased them again to YES. Highly inefficient: not one, or two, but THREE middle-men skimmed profits off what should've been ACC tv revenue.
I agree with CuseRoc that Swofford simply isn't as powerful as some people make him out to be. For this reason, I limit my criticism of the man to the fact that he's been merely adequate while his toughest competitors have been outstanding.
Let's face it: for the majority of the history of the ACC, it has been ruled by a subgroup of UNC, Duke, NC State and UVa (and usually Wake Forest), none of which were traditionally "football-first" schools.
This won't be a popular statement, but the biggest mistake the ACC ever made was also its very first decision: including 4 schools from North Carolina. Every "bad" decision since then has had its roots in that one. JMO though.
Can it be fixed? I think so, but it will take time.
There is a big difference between making a bad decision and making a decision that had a bad outcome many years later. In 1953, the college sports world was still in the stone age. If the Tobacco Road schools "ruled" the ACC in its early years, how does one account for the momentous decisions made in the modern era when those schools simply no longer have the votes to "rule" anything?
The so-called football first schools have gone along with every decision they now criticize Swofford for. Decisions made by all the leagues's presidents. It's easy to say today that the 2010 media contract was a bad decision. But the people at the table (not the ones looking on from outside the room) didn't see it that way.
In 2010 the ACC had fewer true national football powers than any other conference. Mostly, it had Florida State and a few second tier teams. So they got paid less than the other power conferences. When the league members decided to lock each other to a GoR, they were making a tradeoff. They did so again when they extended its term in exchange for a boatload of cash.
The biggest difference between 2010 and now is that Clemson has emerged as a second national championship contender. But who could have seen that coming in 2010? Surely not the many people who wondered whether the league would even still exist as a power conference by 2018.
If Swofford is getting paid too much, whose fault is that? If he signed a deal with a company his son works for, whose fault is that? If he signed, as the agent for the ACC, a media contract extension until 2035, whose fault is that? If his 15 bosses don't think he is doing a good job, why don't they find someone else?
I think the answer is they don't see things the way fans on message boards do. They have information we aren't privy to. And who knows? If the bottom falls out of the TV rights market in the next couple of years, maybe that extension until 2035 will start looking pretty good. Because hindsight is always better than foresight.
Well the Big 12 gave their actual per school revenue out today. Big 12 members averaged 36.5 million per school for their T1 & T2 contracts.
(06-01-2018 04:42 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Well the Big 12 gave their actual per school revenue out today. Big 12 members averaged 36.5 million per school for their T1 & T2 contracts.
Well, not exactly... SportsDay says "The total figure is $364.875 million or nearly $36.5 on the average to the 10 member schools," but that completely ignores the conference cut (which the Big XII almost always ignores in these press releases). Further down in the article it states "the Big 12 distributed an average of $34.8 million per school" -- not from media, but TOTAL conference payout.
The article also indicates that this is NOT apples to apples, because this new Big XII number must be for the 2017-18 fiscal year (which isn't done yet for most conferences). Why do I conclude that? Because it also states "The increase came despite the Big 12 not having Sugar Bowl revenue because of the College Football Playoff rotation..." that was true THIS year, not the previous one.
https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college...ings-close
The ACC may not pay out $34.8M/school next year, but I guarantee it'll be closer that it was this year (FTR, I'm predicting $32M/school next year).
So $34.8 Million to the ACC's $26 Million. Just rounding down $34-$26 or $8 MIllion more! And they keep tier 3.
Not only is the SEC/B1G crushing ACC in revenue, but the 'weaker' conferences are as well. Just how many more decades till we get a new contract?
Crazy.
(06-02-2018 08:29 AM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]So $34.8 Million to the ACC's $26 Million. Just rounding down $34-$26 or $8 MIllion more! And they keep tier 3.
Not only is the SEC/B1G crushing ACC in revenue, but the 'weaker' conferences are as well. Just how many more decades till we get a new contract?
Crazy.
The ACC has five football programs that perform significantly below P5 average. The Big 12 has Kansas. So which is "weaker"?
My two cents....
The ACC’s $418.1 million in revenue, a record for the league, ranked fourth among the Power Five football conferences, ahead of the Big 12’s $371 million. (SEC 596.9M, BIG513M PAC12 509M) and the ACC TV network has not even launched... The media is using Distributions instead of revenue so they can keep the ACC down, but the bottomline is the ACC is growing lighting fast and when the ACC network launches... I can see 10M to 15M out the gate..
The ACC is on the uptick
(06-02-2018 09:33 PM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ]The media is using Distributions instead of revenue so they can keep the ACC down
The only thing that matters is what reaches the schools so that they can use the money to better their programs. If the Big 12 makes less money as a whole but distributes more money to the schools then the Big 12 is in reality a better place than the ACC. To argue otherwise is absolutely foolish.
Quote:when the ACC network launches... I can see 10M to 15M out the gate..
You care to place a wager on that? If we don't reach $10 million per school initial distribution you can't post in this forum ever again. If we reach $10 million per school I'll never post here again. Deal?
(06-02-2018 11:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:when the ACC network launches... I can see 10M to 15M out the gate..
You care to place a wager on that? If we don't reach $10 million per school initial distribution you can't post in this forum ever again. If we reach $10 million per school I'll never post here again. Deal?
Hey, that's not fair to the rest of us who enjoy reading posts from BOTH of you. Make it a month, or better yet, the loser could change his avatar to the other guy's school mascot...?
(06-02-2018 11:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ] (06-02-2018 09:33 PM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ]The media is using Distributions instead of revenue so they can keep the ACC down
The only thing that matters is what reaches the schools so that they can use the money to better their programs. If the Big 12 makes less money as a whole but distributes more money to the schools then the Big 12 is in reality a better place than the ACC. To argue otherwise is absolutely foolish.
Quote:when the ACC network launches... I can see 10M to 15M out the gate..
You care to place a wager on that? If we don't reach $10 million per school initial distribution you can't post in this forum ever again. If we reach $10 million per school I'll never post here again. Deal?
hmmm.... very interesting... You think the BIG12 is a better place than the ACC. I do not.. I see the ACC on the uptick, and the BIG12 in trouble.
(06-06-2018 09:35 AM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ] (06-02-2018 11:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ] (06-02-2018 09:33 PM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ]The media is using Distributions instead of revenue so they can keep the ACC down
The only thing that matters is what reaches the schools so that they can use the money to better their programs. If the Big 12 makes less money as a whole but distributes more money to the schools then the Big 12 is in reality a better place than the ACC. To argue otherwise is absolutely foolish.
Quote:when the ACC network launches... I can see 10M to 15M out the gate..
You care to place a wager on that? If we don't reach $10 million per school initial distribution you can't post in this forum ever again. If we reach $10 million per school I'll never post here again. Deal?
hmmm.... very interesting... You think the BIG12 is a better place than the ACC. I do not.. I see the ACC on the uptick, and the BIG12 in trouble.
LOL A reply that has absolutely nothing to do with the quoted post.
But in response to your question that has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted: I see the Big 12 giving their member schools more money than the ACC is giving it's member schools.
Oh yeah, and the Big XII schools retained broadcast rights that the ACC schools gave up and are getting additional revenue compared to ACC schools.
The wager stands if you care to nut up and accept it. If the ACC gets $10 million per school I'll never post in this forum again. If it fails to reach $10 million you never post in this forum again. Let's see who has the most confidence in their sources.
Don't take the bait...if Kaplony loses the bet (which I don't think he will) he'll just change his name to something original like "Catdaddy2".
Seriously most guesses are $4-7M the first year.
(06-14-2018 09:42 AM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]...most guesses are $4-7M the first year.
I'm going with $6M, then $8M, then $10M by year 3
(06-14-2018 09:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2018 09:42 AM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]...most guesses are $4-7M the first year.
I'm going with $6M, then $8M, then $10M by year 3
I think this is a solid projection if you lean optimistic. Not going to considerably close the gap with the B1G/SEC, but would hopefully outpace the PAC comfortably and potentially edge the B12 distribution. The Big 12 splitting only 10 ways is an advantage that's always going to tough to overcome with 14.35 programs.
I once hoped that the ACC might close the gap to about 85%-90% of the B1G/SEC, which is kind of where I realistically think their value could be relative those conferences if they'd played their cards perfectly the whole way, now I'm kind of thinking that 75% might be the ceiling realistically (something like $42M to $55) at least until something significantly changes, such as the NY6 bowl contracts. Still better than if things had continued on their pre-ACCN trajectory I guess.
GOOD Read for the folks worried about the ACC Network.. These are as official as you can get as these are the numbers that ESPN/ACC AD's have discussed...For the haters I understand the proof is in the pudding!
Link
http://awfulannouncing.com/league-networ...hools.html
Highlights:
1. The ACC’s revised television deal will deliver an increased payout of $3 million in the 2017-18 fiscal year.
2. ACC Network projections have indicated that the distribution per school will increase by $8 million-$10 million in 2019-20, and then $10 million-$15 million in future years.
3. They are saying this network should have the same kind of return that the SEC Network has had in their first couple of years.
(06-14-2018 09:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2018 09:42 AM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]...most guesses are $4-7M the first year.
I'm going with $6M, then $8M, then $10M by year 3
OK I will play..
1st year 8M, 2nd 10M, 3rd 12M.........