http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-analysis/

The ACC vs Maryland lawsuit keeps rolling. Now Maryland has filed a market analysis done by the ACC (post-Maryland):

Quote:which aimed to “evaluate the current-day competitiveness of the ACC and the long-term growth opportunities and positioning of the conference in the industry.”

The accompanying legal brief, a response against the ACC’s motion to dismiss Maryland’s counterclaim under the state’s antitrust act, explicitly references the market analysis only once, in a section discussing the “relevant product and geographic markets,” a key point of contention during antitrust suits. The ACC’s analysis, however, deals with six distinct sections, each aiming to show the league’s future competitiveness: Academics, Geographic Footprint, Football, Basketball, Television and Financial.

The filing itself is relatively benign. Maryland is only including it to make a point about geographic markets.

But the analysis itself is rather amusing. And it's included in the link. Included in the analysis are such gems as:

Quote:In referencing supposedly misleading “media reports” that “would lead one to believe the ACC has limited competitive abilities in football,” the conference first cites recruiting numbers to demonstrate a football prowess that evidently has gone ignored.

Every conference should do one of these to show that their football prowess has gone ignored.

Quote:The ACC has always been one of the leading basketball leagues.

With the new members joing, there is no doubt which conference is supreme in basketball.

Hubris, much?

It's meant to be, though.

If Maryland was excluded from these meetings (which is what they said), how did they get this?

(04-24-2014 02:15 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  If Maryland was excluded from these meetings (which is what they said), how did they get this?

Heh, heh.

Getting people to ask that question is a big part of why Maryland filed the document.

I didn't read the analysis (yawn), but the summary statement leads me to conclude that Maryland made a mistake leaving the ACC.

(04-24-2014 02:15 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  If Maryland was excluded from these meetings (which is what they said), how did they get this?

Washington Post wrote that GT and VT have submitted documents per Maryland's subpoena, could be where they got this from but I'm not sure.

(04-24-2014 02:24 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:15 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  If Maryland was excluded from these meetings (which is what they said), how did they get this?

Washington Post wrote that GT and VT have submitted documents per Maryland's subpoena, could be where they got this from but I'm not sure.

Could be, but if that's the case, seems like the press would report it as "documents produced in discovery"…

Page 29 of the PDF makes a couple of interesting points:

1) the ACC TV contract pays $19.2M per school per year

2) the ACC is 2nd overall in payout on a per school basis (trailing only the Pac-12, and NOT including conference network payouts).

So, when you factor in conference networks, it's still possible that the Big Ten, Pac-12 and now the SEC are all ahead of the ACC in TV money... but according to this they'd still be ahead of the Big XII in terms of TV revenue.

(04-24-2014 02:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Page 29 of the PDF makes a couple of interesting points:

1) the ACC TV contract pays $19.2M per school per year

2) the ACC is 2nd overall in payout on a per school basis (trailing only the Pac-12, and NOT including conference network payouts).

So, when you factor in conference networks, it's still possible that the Big Ten, Pac-12 and now the SEC are all ahead of the ACC in TV money... but according to this they'd still be ahead of the Big XII in terms of TV revenue.

It's quite a disingenuous statement from the ACC - "WE HAVE SO MUCH HIGHER TV CONTRACT NUMBERS (as long as you ignore the existence of conference networks)". I was REALLY REALLY REALLY unimpressed by that ACC document. It was a complete puff piece with irrelevant information (i.e. just showing total TV households instead of whether the conference actually penetrated those markets, showing recruiting Rivals ratings as evidence of football "prowess", trying to pull a fast one by saying the Big Ten was 5th in TV revenue by excluding conference network money, etc.). I was actually hoping to see some substantive info like how Florida State can be leveraged in its home state or that the national media has been underestimating the value of schools like UNC and Duke. Instead, we got the equivalent of a bunch of Bleacher Report slides.

(04-24-2014 02:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Page 29 of the PDF makes a couple of interesting points:

1) the ACC TV contract pays $19.2M per school per year

2) the ACC is 2nd overall in payout on a per school basis (trailing only the Pac-12, and NOT including conference network payouts).

So, when you factor in conference networks, it's still possible that the Big Ten, Pac-12 and now the SEC are all ahead of the ACC in TV money... but according to this they'd still be ahead of the Big XII in terms of TV revenue.

It's quite a disingenuous statement from the ACC - "WE HAVE SO MUCH HIGHER TV CONTRACT NUMBERS (as long as you ignore the existence of conference networks)". I was REALLY REALLY REALLY unimpressed by that ACC document. It was a complete puff piece with irrelevant information (i.e. just showing total TV households instead of whether the conference actually penetrated those markets, showing recruiting Rivals ratings as evidence of football "prowess", trying to pull a fast one by saying the Big Ten was 5th in TV revenue by excluding conference network money, etc.). I was actually hoping to see some substantive info like how Florida State can be leveraged in its home state or that the national media has been underestimating the value of schools like UNC and Duke. Instead, we got the equivalent of a bunch of Bleacher Report slides.

Oh, I totally agree that this is fluff and not very useful. I think the 19.2M and the ranking above the Big XII (the only other conference without its own network) are just about the only 2 useful bits of information here.

I know Maryland will try to use this to show that the ACC was not damaged by their exiting, but I'm sure the ACC will try to show that these numbers would've been even higher with Maryland still in the fold. In the end I have no idea what will happen...

(04-24-2014 02:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I was actually hoping to see some substantive info like how Florida State can be leveraged in its home state or that the national media has been underestimating the value of schools like UNC and Duke.

But then you would have statements that would be measurable now or down the road. General fluff works much better here.

"According to the ACC’s research, which did not include Maryland among its member institutions but did include incoming member Louisville, the league ranks first among the five major conference in average U.S. News and World Report ranking from 2012 at 55.7. The Big Ten (58.6) narrowly ranks second, with the Pac-12 (81.8), Big 12 (113.1) and SEC (120.8) far behind."

I'm curious if anyone has checked this. This looks like the 2012 numbers for the Pac 12 and Big 12, but the SEC I show as being around a 99 average. And of course, they use USNWR which they would disparage if you asked them. They don't use ARWU or the World University Rankings which would show them close to the SEC and Big 12 and not anywhere near the Big 10 and Pac 12.

(04-24-2014 02:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I was REALLY REALLY REALLY unimpressed by that ACC document. It was a complete puff piece with irrelevant information

That's what the ACC does best. All hype with no substance.

(04-24-2014 02:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Page 29 of the PDF makes a couple of interesting points:

1) the ACC TV contract pays $19.2M per school per year

2) the ACC is 2nd overall in payout on a per school basis (trailing only the Pac-12, and NOT including conference network payouts).

So, when you factor in conference networks, it's still possible that the Big Ten, Pac-12 and now the SEC are all ahead of the ACC in TV money... but according to this they'd still be ahead of the Big XII in terms of TV revenue.

It's quite a disingenuous statement from the ACC - "WE HAVE SO MUCH HIGHER TV CONTRACT NUMBERS (as long as you ignore the existence of conference networks)". I was REALLY REALLY REALLY unimpressed by that ACC document. It was a complete puff piece with irrelevant information (i.e. just showing total TV households instead of whether the conference actually penetrated those markets, showing recruiting Rivals ratings as evidence of football "prowess", trying to pull a fast one by saying the Big Ten was 5th in TV revenue by excluding conference network money, etc.). I was actually hoping to see some substantive info like how Florida State can be leveraged in its home state or that the national media has been underestimating the value of schools like UNC and Duke. Instead, we got the equivalent of a bunch of Bleacher Report slides.

If the ACC is so good at recruiting great players, why does it still suck at football? They get good players on the front end, they put lots of players in the NFL, yet they still rank dead last in the P5 when it comes to on field performance in between the coming and the going. That's not something I'd tout.

“If an entrepreneur wanted to start a new conference as a business,” the introductory section says, “the ACC geographic footprint is the most viable market in the country.” It later references the Big 12 and West Virginia, which it calls a geographic “outlier” because “WVU travel issues are requiring discussion after just one year,” and adds that the ACC has no such outlier.

This is fun also. Miami to BC or Syracuse is probably further than anything WVU has to do. There's probably more distance from FSU to its closest opponent and Miami to its closest opponent than anyone in the Big 12 but WVU and Texas Tech. They brag about their geographic footprint and talk about outliers, when they are extremely spread out themselves excluding the core 6 + VT.

(04-24-2014 03:03 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I was actually hoping to see some substantive info like how Florida State can be leveraged in its home state or that the national media has been underestimating the value of schools like UNC and Duke.

But then you would have statements that would be measurable now or down the road. General fluff works much better here.

So general, it fails to address what the relative value of having Maryland in the conference versus Louisville in the conference. The SEC would be OK if it traded Alabama for Alabama-Birmingham, but it wouldn't be better off.

(04-24-2014 02:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Page 29 of the PDF makes a couple of interesting points:

1) the ACC TV contract pays $19.2M per school per year

2) the ACC is 2nd overall in payout on a per school basis (trailing only the Pac-12, and NOT including conference network payouts).

So, when you factor in conference networks, it's still possible that the Big Ten, Pac-12 and now the SEC are all ahead of the ACC in TV money... but according to this they'd still be ahead of the Big XII in terms of TV revenue.

It's a fluff piece. As for your point on the Big 12:

1- It REALLY depends on which year the data referenced. In addition to omitting the tier 3 tv values that teams in the Big 12 sell themselves or leagues like the B1G, PAC, and SEC pool together, remember that the ACC's newest deal was signed earlier than the Big 12's newest deal took effect. Clarification on the data is needed here. Which calendar years were referenced will matter here.

2- If the ACC is still somehow ahead on tv money (I am very skeptical given other reports) total league distributions will trail the Big 12 with the difference between the Sugar Bowl payments vs Orange Bowl payments and the fact the ACC is dividing their playoff and bowl money 14 ways instead of 10.

3- Ignores that the SEC and B1G are getting adjustments to their payouts soon with renegotiation and the SECN on the horizon.

This piece as Frank said is highly misleading.

(04-24-2014 03:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I was REALLY REALLY REALLY unimpressed by that ACC document. It was a complete puff piece with irrelevant information

That's what the ACC does best. All hype with no substance.

It's irrelevant because this document is a year old. We've been getting fed pieces of this over the past 12 months so there's nothing new.

(04-24-2014 03:03 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I was actually hoping to see some substantive info like how Florida State can be leveraged in its home state or that the national media has been underestimating the value of schools like UNC and Duke.

But then you would have statements that would be measurable now or down the road. General fluff works much better here.

That's fine if this was supposed to be a public press release (in which case fluff is all that you'd expect), but this document was being posited as some type of confidential market analysis that (presumably) would be reviewed by people that would want/need some real substance. This looks like something being put out by the ACC PR office as opposed to a legitimate market analysis. University presidents don't need to read about how schools did on the Rivals recruiting rankings and a bunch of population totals that they could have looked up on Wikipedia. Why was this piece of crap ever confidential in the first place?

This document basically reads like a marketing brochure to its own members telling them "It's pretty good here. Please don't leave." I guess it worked because everyone decided to stick around.

(04-24-2014 03:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:03 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I was actually hoping to see some substantive info like how Florida State can be leveraged in its home state or that the national media has been underestimating the value of schools like UNC and Duke.

But then you would have statements that would be measurable now or down the road. General fluff works much better here.

That's fine if this was supposed to be a public press release (in which case fluff is all that you'd expect), but this document was being posited as some type of confidential market analysis that (presumably) would be reviewed by people that would want/need some real substance. This looks like something being put out by the ACC PR office as opposed to a legitimate market analysis. University presidents don't need to read about how schools did on the Rivals recruiting rankings and a bunch of population totals that they could have looked up on Wikipedia. Why was this piece of crap ever confidential in the first place?

Which goes to the question I asked on the related thread in the ACC forum. Exactly who was the intended audience for this? It comes across as if it were some kid's senior thesis project (where he was astute enough to realize his professor was an ACC "homer").