(06-07-2014 08:25 PM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 07:26 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  Let's see what did I miss today--

ACC fans gang busting on the Big 12, WVU and the poster known as Buckaineer....ACC fans accusing me of being someone else --because if you don't fly the ACC colors on these boards--you must be someone else I guess?.... and ACC fans celebrating having the lowest tv contract of the P5 (or whatever they go by now) conferences-and pretending its better than everyone else's. Yeah, I'd say that about covers it. Nothing new here.

It is interesting to note that Maryland stated the ACC would be paying out $20 million per member by 2014 for everything. Not surprising its right as expected to be. Based on the fact that has played out as it was reported--by 2017 the Big Ten will be about $19 to $20 million ahead of ACC payouts.

you've been busy today spinning the ACC contract haven't you "Buck"? lol. If you are not Buckaineer, you and the "dodge" poster argue just like Buck.

Let's recap the week.

• SEC and Big 12 release conference disbursements
  

This lead to two things. 1st we went into detail about the complex multimedia deals that teams have. Big 12 teams have TV in theirs, others do not. In the end, it was determined no advantage to anyone but Texas because teams from other leagues also make extra money outside of conference TV money on multimedia deals too. The TV portion of about 70% of the schools in the Big 12 was not substantial enough to separate them from other conferences that pool their tier 3 . That lead to the second big discussion. Team revenue from 2012-2013 were discussed and most detractors felt that due to all the money flowing into the Big 12, more teams should at least be Top 25-30 in revenue. That point was adverted and focus was directed at subsidies because certain teams that were looked down upon by B12 fans were right there with the Big 12 teams in terms of revenue.

• ACC finally releases disbursements
  

At first it was a running joke on the BGN Big 12 board they were hiding the info due to it being so low, etc.
Let's note that the Big 12 never has the most money distributed due to the low number of teams. They always lay claim to having the "highest payout per team" due to having "less mouths to feed". So the ACC releases their disbursement at $291 million or so divided among 14 teams, it averages out around $20.6 or 8 million dollars, right in the same level as the SEC.
At first, you could hear a rat pee on cotton over there but then here comes ole Buckaineer. LOL The conversation twists from sheer numbers to dealing in semantics on what a full share is. 8 teams getting $23 million and 2 getting $15 million is what you call not getting a full share. A team getting $19.6 million and one getting $18M and one $16.9M sounds like a full share but adjusted for travel and bowl game performance. Big Difference!

Now the focus from a certain poster seems to be on saying that the ACC is giving away Maryland's share and stealing from Notre Dame's share(how can you steal from Notre Dame when the eers always label them as greedy bloodsuckers?)

other than that, you haven't missed much

I just left that madhouse thread Buck created and you are absolutely correct.

Buck is trying to argue that the ACC full members got such a share only by stealing the shares of Maryland and Notre Dame.

(06-07-2014 09:07 PM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 08:42 PM)Maize Wrote:  2. Completely agree with the over zealous Conference pride thing...I am first a foremost with the University of Louisville...

It usually comes from the teams' fans that don't do as well. We know all too well from dealing with UK fans all of these years. I hope AAC teams and ACC teams do well but I hope our program never gets to the point of being "conference cheerleaders".

For us it is self serving...if they win they help the SoS for Louisville...but root for the Cardinals and really will not lose sleep about the others in the ACC.

(06-07-2014 08:25 PM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  [quote='Tbringer' pid='10816104' dateline='1402187166']

Let's recap the week.

• SEC and Big 12 release conference disbursements
  

This lead to two things. 1st we went into detail about the complex multimedia deals that teams have. Big 12 teams have TV in theirs, others do not. In the end, it was determined no advantage to anyone but Texas because teams from other leagues also make extra money outside of conference TV money on multimedia deals too. The TV portion of about 70% of the schools in the Big 12 was not substantial enough to separate them from other conferences that pool their tier 3 . That lead to the second big discussion. Team revenue from 2012-2013 were discussed and most detractors felt that due to all the money flowing into the Big 12, more teams should at least be Top 25-30 in revenue. That point was adverted and focus was directed at subsidies because certain teams that were looked down upon by B12 fans were right there with the Big 12 teams in terms of revenue.

Actually, some of you just ignored that the Big 12 schools are making money there that schools from other conferences don't (the SEC isn't starting next year). Now other than Texas, OU and Kansas, its not a huge figure, but it is something. On Texas Tech's case, around $3 million for their TV rights (on top of the typical Tier 3).

(06-07-2014 09:07 PM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 08:42 PM)Maize Wrote:  2. Completely agree with the over zealous Conference pride thing...I am first a foremost with the University of Louisville...

It usually comes from the teams' fans that don't do as well. We know all too well from dealing with UK fans all of these years. I hope AAC teams and ACC teams do well but I hope our program never gets to the point of being "conference cheerleaders".

You'll want to avoid the ACC section of this message board then because your fellow Cardinal fans have been in full ball-cupping mode for the ACC for some time now. Not as bad as the Syracuse and Pitt fans, but enough to be embarrassing.

(06-06-2014 09:41 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:08 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Yes, the ACC pays UVA more money for going 0-8 in football than national title-winning Florida State. It's true.

UVA gets reimbursed for travel to more conference championship events because they play so many sports.

The original notion is completely false.

It was completely true.

(06-07-2014 02:29 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I would imagine that the $20.8 figure will escalate nicely once ND and UofL start actually playing ACC teams.

And your reasoning for that is what, exactly? The tv payouts are pre-determined, so which teams playing which won't affect that. The ACC's payouts will increase though, not because of ND or UL, but because of the playoffs.

(06-07-2014 11:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 09:07 PM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 08:42 PM)Maize Wrote:  2. Completely agree with the over zealous Conference pride thing...I am first a foremost with the University of Louisville...

It usually comes from the teams' fans that don't do as well. We know all too well from dealing with UK fans all of these years. I hope AAC teams and ACC teams do well but I hope our program never gets to the point of being "conference cheerleaders".

You'll want to avoid the ACC section of this message board then because your fellow Cardinal fans have been in full ball-cupping mode for the ACC for some time now. Not as bad as the Syracuse and Pitt fans, but enough to be embarrassing.

Overall it's easily been equally as bad.

(06-07-2014 10:26 PM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 09:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  On Texas Tech's case, around $3 million for their TV rights (on top of the typical Tier 3).

We were not saying they didn't earn anything at all but the deals that were published like WVU's included everything else that others get and for around the same amount. That was the point. Remember this all stems from conference payout discussions and w/o fail, some Big 12 fan always says "but this doesn't even include our tier 3 money, we actually made $XXX". Someone provided a story of published deals and it showed Big 12 teams are not the only ones get x-amount of dollars from the Learfields and IMGs of the world. I know the TV money is supposed to be over and above that but unless the Big 12 starts reporting tier 3 TV MONEY only and separately, we are just going to have to include all multimedia deals in these discussions because when the fans quote, they don't quote $1-$3 million dollars, they quote the entire deal from $5-$8M.

1- Outside of UT and OU and KU the lower amount I have heard were BU and Tech which were between 1.5 and 2mm and 3mm respectively. That's enough to get at least a ballpark estimate that is a fair comparison with the leagues that package tier 3 tv rights collectively in their league distributions.

OU was reported at 7-7.5 million and doesn't include the football game they sell that would easily get them over 8mm.

2- Asking to shut down any discussion of tier 3 tv rights unless the league press conferences for rights the schools own is
A- Ignoring a relevant part of the discussion. To get apples to apples on tv revenue needs to account for all of it.

B- Waiting on something that isn't going to happen. No league is holding some press conference on how much an individual school makes on their rights the league doesn't own.

I get your frustration that fans mistakenly quote bad figures but lets be fair here. It's a discussion of league money and tv rights revenues. When other leagues pool those last tv rights its quicker to just tack on an appropriate estimate of t3 tv to the B12 schools as comparing entire t3 deals gets into a bunch of rights that most leagues have no bearing on. No matter what league they are in you'd see a school sell radio rights on their own. Not so with tv and therefore its the exception in this comparison.

All of the TBringer/ACC stuff been moved here: http://csnbbs.com/thread-691780.html

Keep it there.

(06-08-2014 01:55 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 10:26 PM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 09:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  On Texas Tech's case, around $3 million for their TV rights (on top of the typical Tier 3).

We were not saying they didn't earn anything at all but the deals that were published like WVU's included everything else that others get and for around the same amount. That was the point. Remember this all stems from conference payout discussions and w/o fail, some Big 12 fan always says "but this doesn't even include our tier 3 money, we actually made $XXX". Someone provided a story of published deals and it showed Big 12 teams are not the only ones get x-amount of dollars from the Learfields and IMGs of the world. I know the TV money is supposed to be over and above that but unless the Big 12 starts reporting tier 3 TV MONEY only and separately, we are just going to have to include all multimedia deals in these discussions because when the fans quote, they don't quote $1-$3 million dollars, they quote the entire deal from $5-$8M.

1- Outside of UT and OU and KU the lower amount I have heard were BU and Tech which were between 1.5 and 2mm and 3mm respectively. That's enough to get at least a ballpark estimate that is a fair comparison with the leagues that package tier 3 tv rights collectively in their league distributions.

OU was reported at 7-7.5 million and doesn't include the football game they sell that would easily get them over 8mm.

2- Asking to shut down any discussion of tier 3 tv rights unless the league press conferences for rights the schools own is
A- Ignoring a relevant part of the discussion. To get apples to apples on tv revenue needs to account for all of it.

B- Waiting on something that isn't going to happen. No league is holding some press conference on how much an individual school makes on their rights the league doesn't own.

I get your frustration that fans mistakenly quote bad figures but lets be fair here. It's a discussion of league money and tv rights revenues. When other leagues pool those last tv rights its quicker to just tack on an appropriate estimate of t3 tv to the B12 schools as comparing entire t3 deals gets into a bunch of rights that most leagues have no bearing on. No matter what league they are in you'd see a school sell radio rights on their own. Not so with tv and therefore its the exception in this comparison.

Agree with this. When comparing the Big 12 revenue for TV, I think you can add 2-3 million for the most schools other than UT, OU and KU. IIRC, the other 7 negotiated similar deals with FCS for the one football and handful of men's b-ball that mainly comprise the third tier TV rights. I also agree it is confusing because of how some schools have reported such revenue, lumping in with the "tier 3" radio and branding IMG type deals that all school get.

This is a couple years old but well respected poster Matt Sarz had this explanatory blog piece about third tier rights ( this was before the SEC network was announced):

http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2012/...-they.html

The ACC, Big 10, PAC 12 and now the SEC have pooled their third tier rights. The Big 12s are still controlled by the schools.

Here is the announcement of TCU selling its third tier rights to Fox Sports Southwest a couple years ago: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/13/...-with.html

Financial amounts was not disclosed and to my knowledge never have been officially released, although I have heard the 2 million number unofficially. Intuitively, I wouldn't expect much more than that.

(06-08-2014 01:19 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:41 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:08 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Yes, the ACC pays UVA more money for going 0-8 in football than national title-winning Florida State. It's true.

UVA gets reimbursed for travel to more conference championship events because they play so many sports.

The original notion is completely false.

It was completely true.

2012-13 ACC payout per filed IRS tax return:
$19.5 million for FSU
$16.8 million for UVA.

In 2012, FSU won the ACC Championship game and the Orange Bowl, while UVA went 2-6. FSU was +$2.7 million largely due to bowl and championship game reimbursements.

I want to be crystal clear: this time next year when the IRS forms are released for 2013-14, FSU's BCS championship season, you expect UVA to have received more money than FSU from the ACC?

(06-08-2014 12:30 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:19 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:41 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:08 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Yes, the ACC pays UVA more money for going 0-8 in football than national title-winning Florida State. It's true.

UVA gets reimbursed for travel to more conference championship events because they play so many sports.

The original notion is completely false.

It was completely true.

2012-13 ACC payout per filed IRS tax return:
$19.5 million for FSU
$16.8 million for UVA.

In 2012, FSU won the ACC Championship game and the Orange Bowl, while UVA went 2-6. FSU was +$2.7 million largely due to bowl and championship game reimbursements.

I want to be crystal clear: this time next year when the IRS forms are released for 2013-14, FSU's BCS championship season, you expect UVA to have received more money than FSU from the ACC?

Do you have a link for the 2012-3? I hadn't seen that yet.

(06-08-2014 12:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 12:30 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:19 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:41 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:08 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  UVA gets reimbursed for travel to more conference championship events because they play so many sports.

The original notion is completely false.

It was completely true.

2012-13 ACC payout per filed IRS tax return:
$19.5 million for FSU
$16.8 million for UVA.

In 2012, FSU won the ACC Championship game and the Orange Bowl, while UVA went 2-6. FSU was +$2.7 million largely due to bowl and championship game reimbursements.

I want to be crystal clear: this time next year when the IRS forms are released for 2013-14, FSU's BCS championship season, you expect UVA to have received more money than FSU from the ACC?

Do you have a link for the 2012-3? I hadn't seen that yet.

I posted it earlier in this thread. Yesterday, David Teel tweeted the disbursements provided to some of the schools yesterday after he received a copy of the conference's 2012-13 tax filings.

For 2012-13, the only schools that I saw that he tweeted were...

FSU $19.5m
Clemson $18.5m
VT $18.3m
Duke $18.2m
NCSU $18.1m
UNC $16.9m
UVA $16.8m
Wake $16.6m