(03-29-2014 08:39 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 07:22 AM)Fburghokie Wrote:  Amazing no one challenges leadership at fsu. Managing a department means controlling expenses as well. No enterprise has unlimited resources ..vt has been in the black every year . It means managing expenses and or working on contributions and revenue. Some questions . Why fsu continues to fund the band??? Leave them home every year ?? Who is the official party that travels for free on road events?? It's not evey fsu dept head. Is it cost effective to sponsor x number of sports?? Have fsu maximized naming rights ???

That the challenge of an ad.

Even if FSU hasn't maximized naming rights, that doesn't have anything to do with teams losing money by playing in the ACC CG. As has already been mentioned, GT had this issue too.

I'm guessing teams lose money on every away game. Especially when they send the band and pay for player's families.

(03-29-2014 08:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Why is this even an issue? Schools are budgeted a certain amount for travel and ticket sales. If they go above and beyond that then that's on them. It doesn't make sense for the ACC to cover "everything". What would stop a school from flying up everybody and their mother on the ACC's dime. FSU chose to go above and beyond and like they said, "that's the cost of doing business".

Teams lose money each year for bowl games, champ games, etc. This is especially the case where teams have to travel significant distances to participate. So FSU pays a couple of hundred grand to play in the ACC championship game, then makes millions off that game. I'd be willing to bet every ACC team would pay to play in that game just for the exposure and increased interest in the program. Look what is has done for Duke. I've never seen so many articles on Duke as I've seen over the past few months.

That's the bottom line. Teams know in advance how much the ACC or bowls are going to cover in traveling expenses. If they don't, they're flat out incompetent administrators. But they aren't incompetent. There are benefits to going beyond paid-for expenses by having large contingents for high profile championship games played on prime time national tv for such reasons as fundraising, political greasing, heisman campaigning, etc.

This article is simply more pot-stirring bs from FSU's rivals site, which has a history of stoking the ignorant with alarmist back-of-the-napkin math. Not even the interviewed administrators gave quotes that sounded remotely as if they were concerned. These were the same morons not much more than a year ago that used Dude "logic" to push B12 membership as some sort of financial windfall.

When teams that stay at home for bowl games and conference title game earn more money from the conference than the ones that go.......that is SCREWED UP.


Same for NCAA March Madness.


If you succeed, you should not be punished.



You don't think there punishment for teams farther way from the Charlotte title game who are 'ENCOURAGED' by the ACC conference to bring their band (FSU's has over 400 to Duke's 100....another huge difference).

Hell, last year, UNC and Miami backed out of the game due to NCAA trouble, making the game less interesting to fans and FSU paid a financial penalty because of that. While the schools who got in trouble with the NCAA SAVED $$$$.

That is problematic.

The incentives and disincentives in this conference just suck.


The fact this is even a debate is nuts too me......this whole thread has fans that think it is wrong for SOME FSU fans to wonder if it is right FSU has to lose $700K to go to the title game the last 2 years.

Could we at least set it up so AFTER expenses the revenue is split? Don't give me FSU is given money for expenses...BS. They are required to bring a 600 person band along with other expenses.


Just another example of how this conference is run (Swofford is ROLLING in money FYI....despite the worst TV contract out there) and how it views football (despite bringing in 80% of revenue).


Sometimes I want the ACC to work, but then I see how differently this conference thinks compared to SEC/B1G fans, etc and I wsih FSU wasn't in the ACC.


Stop punishing the schools who bring in the money.


Rip away.

(03-31-2014 01:32 PM)nole Wrote:  When teams that stay at home for bowl games and conference title game earn more money from the conference than the ones that go.......that is SCREWED UP.


Same for NCAA March Madness.


If you succeed, you should not be punished.



You don't think there punishment for teams farther way from the Charlotte title game who are 'ENCOURAGED' by the ACC conference to bring their band (FSU's has over 400 to Duke's 100....another huge difference).

Hell, last year, UNC and Miami backed out of the game due to NCAA trouble, making the game less interesting to fans and FSU paid a financial penalty because of that. While the schools who got in trouble with the NCAA SAVED $$$$.

That is problematic.

The incentives and disincentives in this conference just suck.


The fact this is even a debate is nuts too me......this whole thread has fans that think it is wrong for SOME FSU fans to wonder if it is right FSU has to lose $700K to go to the title game the last 2 years.

Could we at least set it up so AFTER expenses the revenue is split? Don't give me FSU is given money for expenses...BS. They are required to bring a 600 person band along with other expenses.


Just another example of how this conference is run (Swofford is ROLLING in money FYI....despite the worst TV contract out there) and how it views football (despite bringing in 80% of revenue).


Sometimes I want the ACC to work, but then I see how differently this conference thinks compared to SEC/B1G fans, etc and I wsih FSU wasn't in the ACC.


Stop punishing the schools who bring in the money.


Rip away.

First, welcome aboard.

Second, as a Hokie fan, I agree with you - it's wrong for best teams to lose money while worst teams reap the financial reward.

FWIW, I think the half-measures the ACC took last year were insufficient and they need to address it yet again this Summer. I suspect they will.

Once again this isn't a punishment. FSU chose to go above and beyond what was budgeted. You can't rebudget after you spend the money. That would be unfair to everyone else and it would teach poor fiscal responsibility.

(03-31-2014 03:01 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Once again this isn't a punishment. FSU chose to go above and beyond what was budgeted. You can't rebudget after you spend the money. That would be unfair to everyone else and it would teach poor fiscal responsibility.

Based on what? Is the expense based on a school that is 60 minutes from Charlotte and a band of 100 people versus a school that is 8 hours from Charlotte and a band of 400 people?


It is a punishment and it isn't equal weighing against the schools winning in football, farther away from Charlotte, and with bigger bands (which the ACC HQ likes and requests).


It takes a MINOR adjustment to fix a MAJOR principal issue here. It is a no brainer.

If a school isn't investing in football and sitting at home WHILE making more money than schools that are investing in money....that is a bad business model.


On a side note, with the playoff starting, this neutral site game location is going to die and be a bigger money loser for the teams attending.

So when the ACC championship game was in Jacksonville, how did that turn out? The ACC threw you a bone in the beginning but it didn't work so now Charlotte is the gig.

(03-31-2014 03:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  So when the ACC championship game was in Jacksonville, how did that turn out? The ACC threw you a bone in the beginning but it didn't work so now Charlotte is the gig.

Regardless of where played.....teams in the game should not lose money.


ACC should not punish success.

(03-31-2014 04:00 PM)nole Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 03:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  So when the ACC championship game was in Jacksonville, how did that turn out? The ACC threw you a bone in the beginning but it didn't work so now Charlotte is the gig.

Regardless of where played.....teams in the game should not lose money.


ACC should not punish success.

Teams also shouldn't be allowed to spend above what they should. FSU chose to bring along all of Tallahassee. I'm sure they'll be other tweaks made to sweeten the deal but FSU can't complain. They have by far the best set up for any major conference team. They are in a conference they can dominate. They should always play in a major bowl or in the playoffs. They're making a ton of money. What's the problem?

(03-31-2014 04:11 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 04:00 PM)nole Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 03:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  So when the ACC championship game was in Jacksonville, how did that turn out? The ACC threw you a bone in the beginning but it didn't work so now Charlotte is the gig.

Regardless of where played.....teams in the game should not lose money.


ACC should not punish success.

Teams also shouldn't be allowed to spend above what they should. FSU chose to bring along all of Tallahassee. I'm sure they'll be other tweaks made to sweeten the deal but FSU can't complain. They have by far the best set up for any major conference team. They are in a conference they can dominate. They should always play in a major bowl or in the playoffs. They're making a ton of money. What's the problem?

Couple points....

*Again, the ACC 'requests' teams bring their bands. I don't think it is the kind of request FSU can ignore. FSU has a 400 person band. Very expensive. FSU is 8 hours (approx.) from Charlotte. That is a disproportionate expense for FSU versus say Duke this year (smaller band and distance).

*FSU does NOT have 'by far the best setup for any major conference team.' FSU is in a basketball conference with the lowest payout of the Power 5 and being asked to compete with the powerhouse SEC and their revenue machine. That is far from great. FSU struggles filling a 80K stadium when Syracuse is visiting versus UF having Bama visit. UF also has a conference that puts the focus on football, where 80% of revenue comes from, while FSU is in a basketball conference that thinks basketball first. Not optimal at all for a football school.

*FSU does not make a 'ton of money.' Look at this list:

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...-programs/

Kentucky FOOTBALL made more profit than FSU football. That should let you know FSU does not make a 'ton of money.' Not even close.

It is trying to compete with football traditional powers that do, but FSU is not one of them.


*The problem is simple. It is a horrible business model to punish success. That is what the ACC is doing here. It takes a MINOR adjustment to fix a MAJOR core issue here. It is VERY reasonable IMHO. I believe Swofford himself claimed no school should lose money in the conference title game. Well, it is happening....again.


REWARD success......don't punish it. Give schools incentive to invest in football.....don't discourage them from it.

If you really can't afford it you leave part of your band at home. Nobody cares if you bring 200 or 400 members. If you think you need extra then don't complain about the expenses.

I think reasonable expenses should be paid for by the conference. It sounds like they stepped up this year and did that. If FSU chooses to spend more than is allocated then it comes out of their own budget. Sounds like the FSU AD is ok with that arrangement and deemed it important for FSU to increase their entourage.

As to the point about UNC and Miami last year. I don't think teams that lose bowl eligibility should split bowl money.

(03-31-2014 04:00 PM)nole Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 03:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  So when the ACC championship game was in Jacksonville, how did that turn out? The ACC threw you a bone in the beginning but it didn't work so now Charlotte is the gig.

Regardless of where played.....teams in the game should not lose money.


ACC should not punish success.

I agree, when the expenses incurred are reasonable. FSU has shown in the recent past that hasn't always been the case. The fact that they brought a 400 or 600 piece band (which is it as you have used both figures) shows one glaring example. The vast majority of schools bring a smaller "pep" band on the road to keep expenses down.

(03-31-2014 05:07 PM)nole Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 04:11 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 04:00 PM)nole Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 03:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  So when the ACC championship game was in Jacksonville, how did that turn out? The ACC threw you a bone in the beginning but it didn't work so now Charlotte is the gig.

Regardless of where played.....teams in the game should not lose money.


ACC should not punish success.

Teams also shouldn't be allowed to spend above what they should. FSU chose to bring along all of Tallahassee. I'm sure they'll be other tweaks made to sweeten the deal but FSU can't complain. They have by far the best set up for any major conference team. They are in a conference they can dominate. They should always play in a major bowl or in the playoffs. They're making a ton of money. What's the problem?

Couple points....

*Again, the ACC 'requests' teams bring their bands. I don't think it is the kind of request FSU can ignore. FSU has a 400 person band. Very expensive. FSU is 8 hours (approx.) from Charlotte. That is a disproportionate expense for FSU versus say Duke this year (smaller band and distance).

*FSU does NOT have 'by far the best setup for any major conference team.' FSU is in a basketball conference with the lowest payout of the Power 5 and being asked to compete with the powerhouse SEC and their revenue machine. That is far from great. FSU struggles filling a 80K stadium when Syracuse is visiting versus UF having Bama visit. UF also has a conference that puts the focus on football, where 80% of revenue comes from, while FSU is in a basketball conference that thinks basketball first. Not optimal at all for a football school.

*FSU does not make a 'ton of money.' Look at this list:

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...-programs/

Kentucky FOOTBALL made more profit than FSU football. That should let you know FSU does not make a 'ton of money.' Not even close.

It is trying to compete with football traditional powers that do, but FSU is not one of them.


*The problem is simple. It is a horrible business model to punish success. That is what the ACC is doing here. It takes a MINOR adjustment to fix a MAJOR core issue here. It is VERY reasonable IMHO. I believe Swofford himself claimed no school should lose money in the conference title game. Well, it is happening....again.


REWARD success......don't punish it. Give schools incentive to invest in football.....don't discourage them from it.

Its a give and take my friend. SU fans arent exactly exited to play FSU in bb either at home or away. But we dont sit around bellyaching about it. And your fans certainly didnt mind SU bb coming to town and helping you fill up your arena. Its interesting that when we dont have good attendance at a game for bb or fb, we tend to blame our own fans, rather than depending on the other team to fill up our stadium.

But I would suggest that if your fanbase is so worried about home attendance then they should apply some pressure to your AD dept. about not scheduling the sisters of the poor in fb, like Nevada, Bethune Cookman and Idaho. Then they can schedule better opponents than Syracuse, that your fanbase would be more interested in playing.

(03-31-2014 02:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 01:32 PM)nole Wrote:  When teams that stay at home for bowl games and conference title game earn more money from the conference than the ones that go.......that is SCREWED UP.


Same for NCAA March Madness.


If you succeed, you should not be punished.



You don't think there punishment for teams farther way from the Charlotte title game who are 'ENCOURAGED' by the ACC conference to bring their band (FSU's has over 400 to Duke's 100....another huge difference).

Hell, last year, UNC and Miami backed out of the game due to NCAA trouble, making the game less interesting to fans and FSU paid a financial penalty because of that. While the schools who got in trouble with the NCAA SAVED $$$$.

That is problematic.

The incentives and disincentives in this conference just suck.


The fact this is even a debate is nuts too me......this whole thread has fans that think it is wrong for SOME FSU fans to wonder if it is right FSU has to lose $700K to go to the title game the last 2 years.

Could we at least set it up so AFTER expenses the revenue is split? Don't give me FSU is given money for expenses...BS. They are required to bring a 600 person band along with other expenses.


Just another example of how this conference is run (Swofford is ROLLING in money FYI....despite the worst TV contract out there) and how it views football (despite bringing in 80% of revenue).


Sometimes I want the ACC to work, but then I see how differently this conference thinks compared to SEC/B1G fans, etc and I wsih FSU wasn't in the ACC.


Stop punishing the schools who bring in the money.


Rip away.

First, welcome aboard.

Second, as a Hokie fan, I agree with you - it's wrong for best teams to lose money while worst teams reap the financial reward.

FWIW, I think the half-measures the ACC took last year were insufficient and they need to address it yet again this Summer. I suspect they will.

This is why the ACC is pushing for the ability to send two teams from he same division.

(03-31-2014 07:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 01:32 PM)nole Wrote:  When teams that stay at home for bowl games and conference title game earn more money from the conference than the ones that go.......that is SCREWED UP.


Same for NCAA March Madness.


If you succeed, you should not be punished.



You don't think there punishment for teams farther way from the Charlotte title game who are 'ENCOURAGED' by the ACC conference to bring their band (FSU's has over 400 to Duke's 100....another huge difference).

Hell, last year, UNC and Miami backed out of the game due to NCAA trouble, making the game less interesting to fans and FSU paid a financial penalty because of that. While the schools who got in trouble with the NCAA SAVED $$$$.

That is problematic.

The incentives and disincentives in this conference just suck.


The fact this is even a debate is nuts too me......this whole thread has fans that think it is wrong for SOME FSU fans to wonder if it is right FSU has to lose $700K to go to the title game the last 2 years.

Could we at least set it up so AFTER expenses the revenue is split? Don't give me FSU is given money for expenses...BS. They are required to bring a 600 person band along with other expenses.


Just another example of how this conference is run (Swofford is ROLLING in money FYI....despite the worst TV contract out there) and how it views football (despite bringing in 80% of revenue).


Sometimes I want the ACC to work, but then I see how differently this conference thinks compared to SEC/B1G fans, etc and I wsih FSU wasn't in the ACC.


Stop punishing the schools who bring in the money.


Rip away.

First, welcome aboard.

Second, as a Hokie fan, I agree with you - it's wrong for best teams to lose money while worst teams reap the financial reward.

FWIW, I think the half-measures the ACC took last year were insufficient and they need to address it yet again this Summer. I suspect they will.

This is why the ACC is pushing for the ability to send two teams from he same division.

I don't see what changing the opponent is going to do to alleviate this situation. This isn't an ACC problem, it's an FSU spending like a sailor on shore leave after 6 months at sea problem, and that is something that isn't limited to the ACCCG as witnessed by the conference having to "find" money to get them out of the red a few years back. Maybe instead of fussing at the ACC the FSU folks need to fuss at their athletic department and tell them to live within their means.

The problem with FSU is with donors. Compared to a lot or their peers, FSU was sorely lacking on that side of the house. Since Jimbo took over those numbers have started to get better. They still have a ways to go, but it's not as bad as it used to be. So if FSU wants to spend more, they need to go scream at the boosters.

It is more like FSU and Clemson are the only schools competing with SEC schools in the $$$ dept.

80% of revenue from the ACC comes from football. With the ACC being the poorest Power 5 school, it is another kick in the nuts to have these schools lose money in the title game and then turn and ask them to compete with the likes of Bama, Auburn, etc.

In 5-10 years with the B1G and SEC network, I don't think they can.


You can't have 2-3 schools at the MOST compete for football titles, punish them for success and then demand they compete with with MUCH richer schools in the SEC.

I am still amazed for think it is odd that folks take issue with losing $$$ compared to teams sitting at home. You are punishing success.


But in the ACC, bball schools want to sit home get a 'equal share' of the 80% football revenue (while the title teams lose $$$) and then drive that money into the sport generating 20% of the revenue.

It is a bad business model.

In the SEC, 80% of the schools are driving their money into the sport generating 80% of the profit.

In the ACC, 80% of the schools (really less) are driving their money into the sport that generates 20% of the profit.


To do this and then ask for schools in the title game to lose money....it isn't right.



It is simple....how can a school sitting at home, not investing in the sport that generates profit earn more from the ACC than the schools that are.

(03-31-2014 10:11 PM)nole Wrote:  It is more like FSU and Clemson are the only schools competing with SEC schools in the $$$ dept.

80% of revenue from the ACC comes from football. With the ACC being the poorest Power 5 school, it is another kick in the nuts to have these schools lose money in the title game and then turn and ask them to compete with the likes of Bama, Auburn, etc.

In 5-10 years with the B1G and SEC network, I don't think they can.


You can't have 2-3 schools at the MOST compete for football titles, punish them for success and then demand they compete with with MUCH richer schools in the SEC.

I am still amazed for think it is odd that folks take issue with losing $$$ compared to teams sitting at home. You are punishing success.


But in the ACC, bball schools want to sit home get a 'equal share' of the 80% football revenue (while the title teams lose $$$) and then drive that money into the sport generating 20% of the revenue.

It is a bad business model.

In the SEC, 80% of the schools are driving their money into the sport generating 80% of the profit.

In the ACC, 80% of the schools (really less) are driving their money into the sport that generates 20% of the profit.


To do this and then ask for schools in the title game to lose money....it isn't right.



It is simple....how can a school sitting at home, not investing in the sport that generates profit earn more from the ACC than the schools that are.

Which schools do you have in mind?

Also, I do not believe its correct that 80% of the Acc money comes from fb.

I'll go on record suggesting this idea:

There should be a two tier payout. If a school isn't playing FSU, Clemson, VT, or UNC (?), that school should have a lower burden (i.e. bigger cut, lower ticket commitment, etc.). However, if a school is playing FSU, Clemson, VT or UNC (?), that school should have a normal burden.

*I'm not sure UNC should be included in this list, but I can't think of a second team in the coastal. Maybe Miami if they ever become Miami again. I gave the nod to UNC because I think that the ACCCG will be in NC pretty much every year from here on out, and UNC has the biggest fan base in NC out of the teams in the coastal, so it should be easier to sell tickets against UNC than any coastal team not named VT (or Miami if they ever become the Miami of old).*

That keeps teams like VT, FSU, Clemson, etc. from having to eat a bunch of tickets just because they got unlucky and had to play Duke/Wake/BC.

That said, FSU does need to pull back on spending. I think that both sides have a point.

(03-31-2014 10:11 PM)nole Wrote:  It is more like FSU and Clemson are the only schools competing with SEC schools in the $$$ dept.

80% of revenue from the ACC comes from football. With the ACC being the poorest Power 5 school, it is another kick in the nuts to have these schools lose money in the title game and then turn and ask them to compete with the likes of Bama, Auburn, etc.

In 5-10 years with the B1G and SEC network, I don't think they can.


You can't have 2-3 schools at the MOST compete for football titles, punish them for success and then demand they compete with with MUCH richer schools in the SEC.

I am still amazed for think it is odd that folks take issue with losing $$$ compared to teams sitting at home. You are punishing success.


But in the ACC, bball schools want to sit home get a 'equal share' of the 80% football revenue (while the title teams lose $$$) and then drive that money into the sport generating 20% of the revenue.

It is a bad business model.

In the SEC, 80% of the schools are driving their money into the sport generating 80% of the profit.

In the ACC, 80% of the schools (really less) are driving their money into the sport that generates 20% of the profit.


To do this and then ask for schools in the title game to lose money....it isn't right.



It is simple....how can a school sitting at home, not investing in the sport that generates profit earn more from the ACC than the schools that are.

Nole,

You are confused about the situation in the ACC. You are confused as to where the money comes from.

The number one source of revenue in the ACC and the SEC is from football ticket sales and all donations related to football.

The TV revenue that you are so worried about is not even half of the football ticket revenue.

The AVERAGE SEC stadium seats 78K people, with a range of 40K to 102 K. The AVERAGE ACC stadium seats 58K people, with a range of 31K to 82K.

You have an average size SEC stadium.

That 20,000 seat differential roughs out to be about $14 million per year. Your average SEC size stadium is 20K smaller than Bama or UT and 10K smaller than Georgia and LSU. If you have less money than Bama, UT, Georgia, and LSU, that deficiency starts with your SEC average sized football stadium.

Why have you not added 10K - 15K seats so that you can compete with Bama, Auburn, Georgia, LSU, etc regarding money. That's YOUR fault, not the ACC's fault.

Why is football ticket demand so low in west Florida?

NC State, UNC, and Duke sit in the same metropolitan area and they sell a combined 145,000 football tickets - why aren't you selling 100K? How is it that pitiful Duke, NC State and UNC sell so many football tickets year in and year out? They also have to compete with the a professional hockey franchise in their metro. You compete with no one.

In fact, no SEC schools have more than two SEC schools in their state, and at most SEC schools - KY, SC, Tenn, Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, MSU, Mizzou, Arkansas, and TAMU, the SEC sports are the ONLY GAME IN TOWN. UF is near the Jacksonville and Orland Metros. UGA is near the Atlanta metro. LSU is near the New Orleans Metro.

You FSU fans want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to dominate the ACC but you want to do it on the cheap. You like brining in the most money, but it's never enough. You want SEC money, but you are unwilling and unable to expand your football stadium to actually compete with the SEC money. You love being able to blame the ACC for your own bad financial decision or lack of SEC level fan support.

You really ought to be damn glad that you have the best deal in college football.

If you want BAMA money, expand to 100K and on top of that charge a BAMA level annual donation fee for tickets. If not shut up.