CSNbbs

Quote: Commissioner Greg Sankey announced Friday that approximately $627.1 million of total revenue was divided among the 14 institutions of the Southeastern Conference for the 2017-18 fiscal year, which ended August 31, 2018.

The total includes $604.1 million distributed from the conference office, as well as $23.0 million retained by institutions that participated in 2017-18 football bowl games to offset travel and other related bowl expenses.

The average amount distributed from the conference office, excluding bowl money retained by participants, was slightly over $43.1 million per school.

http://www.secsports.com/article/2590024...stribution

(02-01-2019 12:12 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: Commissioner Greg Sankey announced Friday that approximately $627.1 million of total revenue was divided among the 14 institutions of the Southeastern Conference for the 2017-18 fiscal year, which ended August 31, 2018.

The total includes $604.1 million distributed from the conference office, as well as $23.0 million retained by institutions that participated in 2017-18 football bowl games to offset travel and other related bowl expenses.

The average amount distributed from the conference office, excluding bowl money retained by participants, was slightly over $43.1 million per school.

http://www.secsports.com/article/2590024...stribution

That's a little bit more than what the projected payout was for 2017-8. The projected had been 41.9, so the actual is 43.1 or 1.2 million more per school.

This might be the only time (before the ACC network payout is announced) I'm sorry I willingly opted-out on posting on the biased ACC board simply to be the one to post this news there and see the #goacc spin.

According to the ACC board "experts" the problem was FSU and Clemson fell down on the job and didn't carry the ACC in football. That seems to have been rectified since one or the other has been involved in both the last year of the BCS Championship and every year of the college football playoff. Because of the efforts of Clemson and FSU the ACC joins the SEC as the only conferences who have put teams in every playoff. The football problem is solved.

What's the excuse now? How can the freeloaders blame this increasing deficit on Clemson and FSU again? Inquiring minds want to know.

The SEC is still underpaid for TV rights because of the CBS contract. You can probably add another $5 or 6 million/year to those per-school numbers once that contract expires and is replaced by a deal at market value.

(02-02-2019 02:29 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The SEC is still underpaid for TV rights because of the CBS contract. You can probably add another $5 or 6 million/year to those per-school numbers once that contract expires and is replaced by a deal at market value.

The conservative estimate is 7 million. The optimistic one is 10 million. And that is actually an increasing of the 2017 estimate of 41.1 million. After this year's is calculated we should fall closer to 46.

(02-02-2019 01:26 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]This might be the only time (before the ACC network payout is announced) I'm sorry I willingly opted-out on posting on the biased ACC board simply to be the one to post this news there and see the #goacc spin.

According to the ACC board "experts" the problem was FSU and Clemson fell down on the job and didn't carry the ACC in football. That seems to have been rectified since one or the other has been involved in both the last year of the BCS Championship and every year of the college football playoff. Because of the efforts of Clemson and FSU the ACC joins the SEC as the only conferences who have put teams in every playoff. The football problem is solved.

What's the excuse now? How can the freeloaders blame this increasing deficit on Clemson and FSU again? Inquiring minds want to know.

The most realistic way to boost per school payouts in the ACC would be to start kicking out the lowest-value teams. If the ACC had 10 teams like the Big XII (assuming you keep the right 10) it would be making about the same amount but dividing it by 10 instead of 15. It'll never happen, but it's the truth.

(02-02-2019 03:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 01:26 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]This might be the only time (before the ACC network payout is announced) I'm sorry I willingly opted-out on posting on the biased ACC board simply to be the one to post this news there and see the #goacc spin.

According to the ACC board "experts" the problem was FSU and Clemson fell down on the job and didn't carry the ACC in football. That seems to have been rectified since one or the other has been involved in both the last year of the BCS Championship and every year of the college football playoff. Because of the efforts of Clemson and FSU the ACC joins the SEC as the only conferences who have put teams in every playoff. The football problem is solved.

What's the excuse now? How can the freeloaders blame this increasing deficit on Clemson and FSU again? Inquiring minds want to know.

The most realistic way to boost per school payouts in the ACC would be to start kicking out the lowest-value teams. If the ACC had 10 teams like the Big XII (assuming you keep the right 10) it would be making about the same amount but dividing it by 10 instead of 15. It'll never happen, but it's the truth.

If Virginia Tech, Clemson, or Florida State, want to earn more they need to leave the ACC and join a conference where their content value can be multiplied by other top brands who would play them in football. All three have brand potential that is being swept under the rug because of so many relatively meaningless games against schools which even if they defeat it doesn't earn them more glamour. It is the lack of association with other top football schools that reduces your economic impact upon your region, and keeps your national branding from growth.

So unless your schools have a sincere desire to be the best and compete with the best athletically you are going to remain peter principled right where you are and all of the expressions of the desire to earn more and be more are just so many idle words.

The answer is not who you will kick out of the ACC because that will never happen. The answer is bound to whether or not your school would seriously consider leaving. If not, then no, there is no solution to your complaints.

As an outsider, the way I see it the ACC has the same problem the Pac-10 had in the 00’s: you have one strong team and the rest are trying to catch up. Perception wise it’s not good when your second best team is Syracuse and 5 loss Pitt is a division champ. Miami, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, NC State plus another one like Georgia Tech need to start winning ASAP otherwise the problem will continue. The ACCN better start delivering fast otherwise you’ll start seeing schools that have options sending signals to the B1G, SEC and XII.

One thing is to be behind Ohio State and Alabama (monetarily) if you’re Clemson or Florida State. Another thing is to be behind Minnesota and Missouri. When the CBS deal is renegotiated, SEC schools will be getting over $50 million. I don’t think that’s good news in places like Tallahassee, Clemson and Blacksburg.

(02-02-2019 03:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 01:26 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]This might be the only time (before the ACC network payout is announced) I'm sorry I willingly opted-out on posting on the biased ACC board simply to be the one to post this news there and see the #goacc spin.

According to the ACC board "experts" the problem was FSU and Clemson fell down on the job and didn't carry the ACC in football. That seems to have been rectified since one or the other has been involved in both the last year of the BCS Championship and every year of the college football playoff. Because of the efforts of Clemson and FSU the ACC joins the SEC as the only conferences who have put teams in every playoff. The football problem is solved.

What's the excuse now? How can the freeloaders blame this increasing deficit on Clemson and FSU again? Inquiring minds want to know.

The most realistic way to boost per school payouts in the ACC would be to start kicking out the lowest-value teams. If the ACC had 10 teams like the Big XII (assuming you keep the right 10) it would be making about the same amount but dividing it by 10 instead of 15. It'll never happen, but it's the truth.

The conference bylaws probably make it almost impossible to kick out a full member.

But, if it could be done, for sure thinning the herd would be the most efficient way of increasing per-school payouts, for any league. Just to use round numbers, if the ACC members other than Notre Dame were splitting $420 million/year, that's $30 million for each, but if they dropped 4 members and split the same amount 10 ways, it's $42 million for each.

Which, as you note, is why the Big 12 per-school numbers look good, because they are cutting their pie into a smaller number of slices than any other P5 conference.

(02-02-2019 04:20 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 03:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 01:26 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]This might be the only time (before the ACC network payout is announced) I'm sorry I willingly opted-out on posting on the biased ACC board simply to be the one to post this news there and see the #goacc spin.

According to the ACC board "experts" the problem was FSU and Clemson fell down on the job and didn't carry the ACC in football. That seems to have been rectified since one or the other has been involved in both the last year of the BCS Championship and every year of the college football playoff. Because of the efforts of Clemson and FSU the ACC joins the SEC as the only conferences who have put teams in every playoff. The football problem is solved.

What's the excuse now? How can the freeloaders blame this increasing deficit on Clemson and FSU again? Inquiring minds want to know.

The most realistic way to boost per school payouts in the ACC would be to start kicking out the lowest-value teams. If the ACC had 10 teams like the Big XII (assuming you keep the right 10) it would be making about the same amount but dividing it by 10 instead of 15. It'll never happen, but it's the truth.

The conference bylaws probably make it almost impossible to kick out a full member.

But, if it could be done, for sure thinning the herd would be the most efficient way of increasing per-school payouts, for any league. Just to use round numbers, if the ACC members other than Notre Dame were splitting $420 million/year, that's $30 million for each, but if they dropped 4 members and split the same amount 10 ways, it's $42 million for each.

Which, as you note, is why the Big 12 per-school numbers look good, because they are cutting their pie into a smaller number of slices than any other P5 conference.

The bylaws require only a 3/4th vote. It takes 11 of 15 with the current membership to expel someone.

(02-02-2019 03:33 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote: [ -> ]As an outsider, the way I see it the ACC has the same problem the Pac-10 had in the 00’s: you have one strong team and the rest are trying to catch up. Perception wise it’s not good when your second best team is Syracuse and 5 loss Pitt is a division champ. Miami, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, NC State plus another one like Georgia Tech need to start winning ASAP otherwise the problem will continue. The ACCN better start delivering fast otherwise you’ll start seeing schools that have options sending signals to the B1G, SEC and XII.

One thing is to be behind Ohio State and Alabama (monetarily) if you’re Clemson or Florida State. Another thing is to be behind Minnesota and Missouri. When the CBS deal is renegotiated, SEC schools will be getting over $50 million. I don’t think that’s good news in places like Tallahassee, Clemson and Blacksburg.

As Maryland has found out, getting more conference money doesn't count for squat when the real issue is an inability to fill a 100,000 seat stadium. The last time the ACC had an open market for the contract was the expiring ESPN agreement that was to expire in 2011.


A new deal was signed with ESPN in 2010. The ACC's football bargaining power was as follows:


FSU Record 2004-2009

9-3, 8-5, 7-6, 7-6, 9-4, 7-6

Clemson Record 2004-2009

6-5, 8-4, 8-5, 9-4, 7-6, 9-5

Miami Record 2004-2009

9-3, 9-3, 5-7, 7-6, 9-4, 7-6

That's the ACC's supposed three big dogs and not a double digit winning season for six years between them. In 2010 the ACC had a turd to sell. FSU, then Clemson turned things around by 2011-2012 but the contract was bid and renewed when they stunk.


If you have on average only 40% of the alumni base as ACC schools versus Big 10 schools, and if your largest 3-4 stadiums seat 20-25K less people than the comparable schools in the SEC and Big 10, by what logic does one expect equal money?

More conference money will not close FSU's and Clemson's 20-25K seat gap between Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Tennessee, LSU, TAMU, and Alabama. It won't close the 10-12K seat gap with Auburn, Florida, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.

Ask Maryland how that extra money feels.

(02-02-2019 10:45 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]...The last time the ACC had an open market for the contract was the expiring ESPN agreement that was to expire in 2011.

A new deal was signed with ESPN in 2010. The ACC's football bargaining power was as follows:

FSU Record 2004-2009

9-3, 8-5, 7-6, 7-6, 9-4, 7-6

Clemson Record 2004-2009

6-5, 8-4, 8-5, 9-4, 7-6, 9-5

Miami Record 2004-2009

9-3, 9-3, 5-7, 7-6, 9-4, 7-6

That's the ACC's supposed three big dogs and not a double digit winning season for six years between them. In 2010 the ACC had a turd to sell. FSU, then Clemson turned things around by 2011-2012 but the contract was bid and renewed when they stunk...

AGREED... so, knowing that they had a poor quality product to sell, why in the world did they lock in the price for 10 years at that time?

(02-02-2019 11:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 10:45 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]...The last time the ACC had an open market for the contract was the expiring ESPN agreement that was to expire in 2011.

A new deal was signed with ESPN in 2010. The ACC's football bargaining power was as follows:

FSU Record 2004-2009

9-3, 8-5, 7-6, 7-6, 9-4, 7-6

Clemson Record 2004-2009

6-5, 8-4, 8-5, 9-4, 7-6, 9-5

Miami Record 2004-2009

9-3, 9-3, 5-7, 7-6, 9-4, 7-6

That's the ACC's supposed three big dogs and not a double digit winning season for six years between them. In 2010 the ACC had a turd to sell. FSU, then Clemson turned things around by 2011-2012 but the contract was bid and renewed when they stunk...

AGREED... so, knowing that they had a poor quality product to sell, why in the world did they lock in the price for 10 years at that time?

Because the only commissioner out there that could rival Larry Scott for being king of the putzes is John Swofford.

(02-02-2019 10:45 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 03:33 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote: [ -> ]As an outsider, the way I see it the ACC has the same problem the Pac-10 had in the 00’s: you have one strong team and the rest are trying to catch up. Perception wise it’s not good when your second best team is Syracuse and 5 loss Pitt is a division champ. Miami, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, NC State plus another one like Georgia Tech need to start winning ASAP otherwise the problem will continue. The ACCN better start delivering fast otherwise you’ll start seeing schools that have options sending signals to the B1G, SEC and XII.

One thing is to be behind Ohio State and Alabama (monetarily) if you’re Clemson or Florida State. Another thing is to be behind Minnesota and Missouri. When the CBS deal is renegotiated, SEC schools will be getting over $50 million. I don’t think that’s good news in places like Tallahassee, Clemson and Blacksburg.

As Maryland has found out, getting more conference money doesn't count for squat when the real issue is an inability to fill a 100,000 seat stadium. The last time the ACC had an open market for the contract was the expiring ESPN agreement that was to expire in 2011.


A new deal was signed with ESPN in 2010. The ACC's football bargaining power was as follows:


FSU Record 2004-2009

9-3, 8-5, 7-6, 7-6, 9-4, 7-6

Clemson Record 2004-2009

6-5, 8-4, 8-5, 9-4, 7-6, 9-5

Miami Record 2004-2009

9-3, 9-3, 5-7, 7-6, 9-4, 7-6

That's the ACC's supposed three big dogs and not a double digit winning season for six years between them. In 2010 the ACC had a turd to sell. FSU, then Clemson turned things around by 2011-2012 but the contract was bid and renewed when they stunk.


If you have on average only 40% of the alumni base as ACC schools versus Big 10 schools, and if your largest 3-4 stadiums seat 20-25K less people than the comparable schools in the SEC and Big 10, by what logic does one expect equal money?

More conference money will not close FSU's and Clemson's 20-25K seat gap between Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Tennessee, LSU, TAMU, and Alabama. It won't close the 10-12K seat gap with Auburn, Florida, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.

Ask Maryland how that extra money feels.

In other conferences when teams go through down periods other teams step up. Before Alabama's run there was Florida, LSU, Auburn and Tennessee.

In the ACC everybody except VT sits back and lets Clemson and FSU do all the heavy lifting, with the leeches in Raleigh being the worst of the bunch. No football title since 1979 and no basketball title since 1987. It seems the only things that NC State brings to the table is conspiracy theories, flimsy excuses, and a crybaby football coach who encourages his team to injure opposing players.

It’s not impossible to get NC State to contend though. Say what you will about Chuck Amato, but he did light a fire under the football team’s butt!! And seeing rival East Carolina do well also seems to light a fire under NC State as well. But Amato is long gone, and ECU has been doing worse than NC State lately.

(02-03-2019 11:58 AM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]It’s not impossible to get NC State to contend though. Say what you will about Chuck Amato, but he did light a fire under the football team’s butt!! And seeing rival East Carolina do well also seems to light a fire under NC State as well. But Amato is long gone, and ECU has been doing worse than NC State lately.

NC State never finished better than 4th pre-expansion under Amato and in the two seasons he had in the divisional era they finished 4th and 6th.

They did, however, throw a parade for their first and only double digit win season in 2002. They finished 4th in the conference that year.

(02-02-2019 10:11 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 04:20 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 03:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 01:26 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]This might be the only time (before the ACC network payout is announced) I'm sorry I willingly opted-out on posting on the biased ACC board simply to be the one to post this news there and see the #goacc spin.

According to the ACC board "experts" the problem was FSU and Clemson fell down on the job and didn't carry the ACC in football. That seems to have been rectified since one or the other has been involved in both the last year of the BCS Championship and every year of the college football playoff. Because of the efforts of Clemson and FSU the ACC joins the SEC as the only conferences who have put teams in every playoff. The football problem is solved.

What's the excuse now? How can the freeloaders blame this increasing deficit on Clemson and FSU again? Inquiring minds want to know.

The most realistic way to boost per school payouts in the ACC would be to start kicking out the lowest-value teams. If the ACC had 10 teams like the Big XII (assuming you keep the right 10) it would be making about the same amount but dividing it by 10 instead of 15. It'll never happen, but it's the truth.

The conference bylaws probably make it almost impossible to kick out a full member.

But, if it could be done, for sure thinning the herd would be the most efficient way of increasing per-school payouts, for any league. Just to use round numbers, if the ACC members other than Notre Dame were splitting $420 million/year, that's $30 million for each, but if they dropped 4 members and split the same amount 10 ways, it's $42 million for each.

Which, as you note, is why the Big 12 per-school numbers look good, because they are cutting their pie into a smaller number of slices than any other P5 conference.

The bylaws require only a 3/4th vote. It takes 11 of 15 with the current membership to expel someone.

11/15 = 73%. You need 12.

(02-03-2019 01:06 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 10:11 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 04:20 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 03:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 01:26 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]This might be the only time (before the ACC network payout is announced) I'm sorry I willingly opted-out on posting on the biased ACC board simply to be the one to post this news there and see the #goacc spin.

According to the ACC board "experts" the problem was FSU and Clemson fell down on the job and didn't carry the ACC in football. That seems to have been rectified since one or the other has been involved in both the last year of the BCS Championship and every year of the college football playoff. Because of the efforts of Clemson and FSU the ACC joins the SEC as the only conferences who have put teams in every playoff. The football problem is solved.

What's the excuse now? How can the freeloaders blame this increasing deficit on Clemson and FSU again? Inquiring minds want to know.

The most realistic way to boost per school payouts in the ACC would be to start kicking out the lowest-value teams. If the ACC had 10 teams like the Big XII (assuming you keep the right 10) it would be making about the same amount but dividing it by 10 instead of 15. It'll never happen, but it's the truth.

The conference bylaws probably make it almost impossible to kick out a full member.

But, if it could be done, for sure thinning the herd would be the most efficient way of increasing per-school payouts, for any league. Just to use round numbers, if the ACC members other than Notre Dame were splitting $420 million/year, that's $30 million for each, but if they dropped 4 members and split the same amount 10 ways, it's $42 million for each.

Which, as you note, is why the Big 12 per-school numbers look good, because they are cutting their pie into a smaller number of slices than any other P5 conference.

The bylaws require only a 3/4th vote. It takes 11 of 15 with the current membership to expel someone.

11/15 = 73%. You need 12.

That's not the way you do it. The way you do it is to propose minimum standards for facilities, requisite numbers of sports, number of away tickets that must be provided for events, minimum parking (even if it is somewhat remote to the venue), etc. That way schools like North Carolina and N.C. State can vote for something that is proactive for the conference. It's not the same as voting Wake or somebody else out. But it is a vote to enhance the conference, no grandfathering may be permitted since it is progressive for the value of all, and those who do not wish to invest in the enhancements will have to make their own choices about staying.

Then the culling becomes a matter of keeping pace, not a vote to ouster anyone.

(02-03-2019 02:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-03-2019 01:06 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 10:11 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 04:20 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 03:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]The most realistic way to boost per school payouts in the ACC would be to start kicking out the lowest-value teams. If the ACC had 10 teams like the Big XII (assuming you keep the right 10) it would be making about the same amount but dividing it by 10 instead of 15. It'll never happen, but it's the truth.

The conference bylaws probably make it almost impossible to kick out a full member.

But, if it could be done, for sure thinning the herd would be the most efficient way of increasing per-school payouts, for any league. Just to use round numbers, if the ACC members other than Notre Dame were splitting $420 million/year, that's $30 million for each, but if they dropped 4 members and split the same amount 10 ways, it's $42 million for each.

Which, as you note, is why the Big 12 per-school numbers look good, because they are cutting their pie into a smaller number of slices than any other P5 conference.

The bylaws require only a 3/4th vote. It takes 11 of 15 with the current membership to expel someone.

11/15 = 73%. You need 12.

That's not the way you do it. The way you do it is to propose minimum standards for facilities, requisite numbers of sports, number of away tickets that must be provided for events, minimum parking (even if it is somewhat remote to the venue), etc. That way schools like North Carolina and N.C. State can vote for something that is proactive for the conference. It's not the same as voting Wake or somebody else out. But it is a vote to enhance the conference, no grandfathering may be permitted since it is progressive for the value of all, and those who do not wish to invest in the enhancements will have to make their own choices about staying.

Then the culling becomes a matter of keeping pace, not a vote to ouster anyone.

Exactly. Former Big East fans know this to be true - minimum investment in athletics, minimum standards for attendance, minimum standards for facilities, etc. Once the ACCN money is in these are some of the things that need to be established by the conference. but ultimately, the only thing that will ensure the ACC's future is for Miami and VT to join Clemson and FSU and then have two or three from the following grouping (listed alpha) - GT, L'ville, NCST, Pitt, SU, and UVA step up and be support for when one or two of the Top 4 have a down year or two. I still believe that is doable since these are the programs that appear to be making the investments for football already.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-03-2019 05:56 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-03-2019 02:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-03-2019 01:06 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 10:11 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2019 04:20 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The conference bylaws probably make it almost impossible to kick out a full member.

But, if it could be done, for sure thinning the herd would be the most efficient way of increasing per-school payouts, for any league. Just to use round numbers, if the ACC members other than Notre Dame were splitting $420 million/year, that's $30 million for each, but if they dropped 4 members and split the same amount 10 ways, it's $42 million for each.

Which, as you note, is why the Big 12 per-school numbers look good, because they are cutting their pie into a smaller number of slices than any other P5 conference.

The bylaws require only a 3/4th vote. It takes 11 of 15 with the current membership to expel someone.

11/15 = 73%. You need 12.

That's not the way you do it. The way you do it is to propose minimum standards for facilities, requisite numbers of sports, number of away tickets that must be provided for events, minimum parking (even if it is somewhat remote to the venue), etc. That way schools like North Carolina and N.C. State can vote for something that is proactive for the conference. It's not the same as voting Wake or somebody else out. But it is a vote to enhance the conference, no grandfathering may be permitted since it is progressive for the value of all, and those who do not wish to invest in the enhancements will have to make their own choices about staying.

Then the culling becomes a matter of keeping pace, not a vote to ouster anyone.

Exactly. Former Big East fans know this to be true - minimum investment in athletics, minimum standards for attendance, minimum standards for facilities, etc. Once the ACCN money is in these are some of the things that need to be established by the conference. but ultimately, the only thing that will ensure the ACC's future is for Miami and VT to join Clemson and FSU and then have two or three from the following grouping (listed alpha) - GT, L'ville, NCST, Pitt, SU, and UVA step up and be support for when one or two of the Top 4 have a down year or two. I still believe that is doable since these are the programs that appear to be making the investments for football already.

Cheers,
Neil

Some schools like Wake Forest have already made those decisions.
The late Skip Prosser, Wake Forest's former basketball coach, was able to keep his basketball team "in line". When Dino Gaudio took over, the team actually got better, but Gaudio couldn't manage is team's off court behavior and he was dismissed (WHILE WAKE FOREST WAS THE #1 RANKED TEAM IN THE COUNTRY) along with the offending players.
The school was more important than athletics, and not an institution willing to pump UConn type money into athletics in an effort to keep up with schools with much a much larger of alumni base of support.