80/20 is a P-5 average. With the ACC the value of basketball, as imbedded in the overall TV contract, is greater than 20% and it's simply because there is more intrinsic value than average in the ACC's basketball schools as compared to the football.

Only FSU is an A+ football product. Clemson, Miami, and VT follow, then comes Louisville, GT, UNC, NC State, Syracuse
However the ACC has 5 A+ basketball products - Duke, UNC, Louisville, Syracuse, and ND, with Pitt, UVa, NC State, Miami following

When you look at the SEC they have one A+ basketball product - KY - then they really trail off but have Florida, LSU, Arkansas
The SEC has 6+ football products - Bama, Florida, LSU, Georgia, TAMU, and Auburn, then comes Tennessee and Mizzou and Arkansas

The B10 and B12 are probably the only real 80/20 split
The SEC is probably closer to an 85/15
The ACC is at least an 75/25 value split

That's not to sale all values are translated into dollars, they aren't.


The problem is that these deals are not negotiated football, then basketball, they are negotiated as a lump. Teasing out the lump is like deconstructing a brownie.

The light bulb will go off for the NC ACC homers that the power center has moved. NC doesn't run the show, but you certainly have damn good players and coaches, except for you, UNC, you still suck.

All that basketball money becomes available when the P5 conferences totally split from the NCAA and hold its own Basketball Championship Tournament. We keep our money and quit supporting the leeches!

(03-10-2015 06:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  80/20 is a P-5 average. With the ACC the value of basketball, as imbedded in the overall TV contract, is greater than 20% and it's simply because there is more intrinsic value than average in the ACC's basketball schools as compared to the football.

Only FSU is an A+ football product. Clemson, Miami, and VT follow, then comes Louisville, GT, UNC, NC State, Syracuse
However the ACC has 5 A+ basketball products - Duke, UNC, Louisville, Syracuse, and ND, with Pitt, UVa, NC State, Miami following

When you look at the SEC they have one A+ basketball product - KY - then they really trail off but have Florida, LSU, Arkansas
The SEC has 6+ football products - Bama, Florida, LSU, Georgia, TAMU, and Auburn, then comes Tennessee and Mizzou and Arkansas

The B10 and B12 are probably the only real 80/20 split
The SEC is probably closer to an 85/15
The ACC is at least an 75/25 value split

That's not to sale all values are translated into dollars, they aren't.


The problem is that these deals are not negotiated football, then basketball, they are negotiated as a lump. Teasing out the lump is like deconstructing a brownie.

Delicious?

"The B10 and B12 are probably the only real 80/20 split
The SEC is probably closer to an 85/15
The ACC is at least an 75/25 value split"

Wouldn't disagree with that.


http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...story.html

"Swofford estimated that football drives 70-80 percent of rights fees and acknowledged that more national success in that sport would have meant additional revenue."


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/11917...rong-horse


"While people fawn over the tournament, they have to remember that cash is not going into the conferences pockets. The money is made off of regular season contests and, simply put, no one is watching regular season college basketball. At least not when compared to the droves of fans tuning into regular season college football contests.

As a conference the ACC backed the wrong horse and it is a little late to climb aboard the football train. "





The VERY first step for the ACC is to stop debating whether the VAST majority of money is in bball or football.......the debate is over. It is football. The ACC has to get past this and move on. Then it needs to start making some football first decisions.

I hope someday we see the ACC start to understand this. The Big East couldn't do it......the ACC still seems to struggle with it.

(03-10-2015 06:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  80/20 is a P-5 average. With the ACC the value of basketball, as imbedded in the overall TV contract, is greater than 20% and it's simply because there is more intrinsic value than average in the ACC's basketball schools as compared to the football.

Only FSU is an A+ football product. Clemson, Miami, and VT follow, then comes Louisville, GT, UNC, NC State, Syracuse
However the ACC has 5 A+ basketball products - Duke, UNC, Louisville, Syracuse, and ND, with Pitt, UVa, NC State, Miami following

When you look at the SEC they have one A+ basketball product - KY - then they really trail off but have Florida, LSU, Arkansas
The SEC has 6+ football products - Bama, Florida, LSU, Georgia, TAMU, and Auburn, then comes Tennessee and Mizzou and Arkansas

The B10 and B12 are probably the only real 80/20 split
The SEC is probably closer to an 85/15
The ACC is at least an 75/25 value split

That's not to sale all values are translated into dollars, they aren't.


The problem is that these deals are not negotiated football, then basketball, they are negotiated as a lump. Teasing out the lump is like deconstructing a brownie.

It's nitpicky, but I think you can move TAMU off that list of A+ football schools in the SEC. They are much closer to Tennessee/Arkansas level in my mind. Which is not a bad level by any means.

From USA Today: NCAA nearly topped $1 billion in revenue in 2014

Quote:The NCAA had total revenue of nearly $1 billion during its 2014 fiscal year, according to an audited financial statement the association released Wednesday.

The total resulted in a nearly $80.5 million surplus for the year – almost $20 million more than the surplus the NCAA had in 2013 and the fourth consecutive year in which the annual surplus has exceeded $60 million.

I think we found all that basketball money!

You are using nearly 3 year old articles to prove a point that The ACC began addressing in November 2012. If The ACC had not thought football first UConn would be a member of The ACC and not Louisville. If The ACC had not thought football first, as primarily Florida State and Clemson demanded, I doubt The ACC would have got a Grant of Rights signed but all its members.

I doubt The ACC has done enough to silence the expansion loons in the blogosphere , I doubt they ever do. With that being said, those without an agenda, recognize fundamental changes in The ACC decision making process that have begun taking place with more to come.
CJ

(03-11-2015 08:36 AM)nole Wrote:  "The B10 and B12 are probably the only real 80/20 split
The SEC is probably closer to an 85/15
The ACC is at least an 75/25 value split"

Wouldn't disagree with that.


http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...story.html

"Swofford estimated that football drives 70-80 percent of rights fees and acknowledged that more national success in that sport would have meant additional revenue."


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/11917...rong-horse


"While people fawn over the tournament, they have to remember that cash is not going into the conferences pockets. The money is made off of regular season contests and, simply put, no one is watching regular season college basketball. At least not when compared to the droves of fans tuning into regular season college football contests.

As a conference the ACC backed the wrong horse and it is a little late to climb aboard the football train. "





The VERY first step for the ACC is to stop debating whether the VAST majority of money is in bball or football.......the debate is over. It is football. The ACC has to get past this and move on. Then it needs to start making some football first decisions.

I hope someday we see the ACC start to understand this. The Big East couldn't do it......the ACC still seems to struggle with it.

(03-11-2015 06:54 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  You are using nearly 3 year old articles to prove a point that The ACC began addressing in November 2012. If The ACC had not thought football first UConn would be a member of The ACC and not Louisville. If The ACC had not thought football first, as primarily Florida State and Clemson demanded, I doubt The ACC would have got a Grant of Rights signed but all its members.

I doubt The ACC has done enough to silence the expansion loons in the blogosphere , I doubt they ever do. With that being said, those without an agenda, recognize fundamental changes in The ACC decision making process that have begun taking place with more to come.
CJ

(03-11-2015 08:36 AM)nole Wrote:  "The B10 and B12 are probably the only real 80/20 split
The SEC is probably closer to an 85/15
The ACC is at least an 75/25 value split"

Wouldn't disagree with that.


http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...story.html

"Swofford estimated that football drives 70-80 percent of rights fees and acknowledged that more national success in that sport would have meant additional revenue."


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/11917...rong-horse


"While people fawn over the tournament, they have to remember that cash is not going into the conferences pockets. The money is made off of regular season contests and, simply put, no one is watching regular season college basketball. At least not when compared to the droves of fans tuning into regular season college football contests.

As a conference the ACC backed the wrong horse and it is a little late to climb aboard the football train. "





The VERY first step for the ACC is to stop debating whether the VAST majority of money is in bball or football.......the debate is over. It is football. The ACC has to get past this and move on. Then it needs to start making some football first decisions.

I hope someday we see the ACC start to understand this. The Big East couldn't do it......the ACC still seems to struggle with it.

That was more of a case of weak leadership at Clemson and FSU than the ACC addressing the issues that put it in the situation it has been in for the past few years of being tail end Charlie among the P5. Had Clemson and FSU not had weak sister presidents I doubt we see the one sided deal with Notre Dame, and we definitely don't see a grant of rights without significant public measures and assurances from the perennially football negligent schools that dedication and improvements are forthcoming.

(03-11-2015 07:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:54 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  You are using nearly 3 year old articles to prove a point that The ACC began addressing in November 2012. If The ACC had not thought football first UConn would be a member of The ACC and not Louisville. If The ACC had not thought football first, as primarily Florida State and Clemson demanded, I doubt The ACC would have got a Grant of Rights signed but all its members.

I doubt The ACC has done enough to silence the expansion loons in the blogosphere , I doubt they ever do. With that being said, those without an agenda, recognize fundamental changes in The ACC decision making process that have begun taking place with more to come.
CJ

(03-11-2015 08:36 AM)nole Wrote:  "The B10 and B12 are probably the only real 80/20 split
The SEC is probably closer to an 85/15
The ACC is at least an 75/25 value split"

Wouldn't disagree with that.


http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...story.html

"Swofford estimated that football drives 70-80 percent of rights fees and acknowledged that more national success in that sport would have meant additional revenue."


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/11917...rong-horse


"While people fawn over the tournament, they have to remember that cash is not going into the conferences pockets. The money is made off of regular season contests and, simply put, no one is watching regular season college basketball. At least not when compared to the droves of fans tuning into regular season college football contests.

As a conference the ACC backed the wrong horse and it is a little late to climb aboard the football train. "





The VERY first step for the ACC is to stop debating whether the VAST majority of money is in bball or football.......the debate is over. It is football. The ACC has to get past this and move on. Then it needs to start making some football first decisions.

I hope someday we see the ACC start to understand this. The Big East couldn't do it......the ACC still seems to struggle with it.

That was more of a case of weak leadership at Clemson and FSU than the ACC addressing the issues that put it in the situation it has been in for the past few years of being tail end Charlie among the P5. Had Clemson and FSU not had weak sister presidents I doubt we see the one sided deal with Notre Dame, and we definitely don't see a grant of rights without significant public measures and assurances from the perennially football negligent schools that dedication and improvements are forthcoming.

That may be the case but I certainly don't believe the made up ramblings of WVU bloggers that Clemson and Florida State were ready to jump to The Big 12 at moments notice either. I do however think enough of The ACC leadership believed the rumors to have some basis that Clemson and Florida State had a huge bargaining chip, real or not. Don't know how else either could have played it short of actually changing conferences.

If The ACC Network becomes a reality, some say more of a matter of when then if, then I think we all ironically have our friends at WVU to thank for helping strengthen The ACC.
CJ

(03-11-2015 07:57 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 07:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:54 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  You are using nearly 3 year old articles to prove a point that The ACC began addressing in November 2012. If The ACC had not thought football first UConn would be a member of The ACC and not Louisville. If The ACC had not thought football first, as primarily Florida State and Clemson demanded, I doubt The ACC would have got a Grant of Rights signed but all its members.

I doubt The ACC has done enough to silence the expansion loons in the blogosphere , I doubt they ever do. With that being said, those without an agenda, recognize fundamental changes in The ACC decision making process that have begun taking place with more to come.
CJ

(03-11-2015 08:36 AM)nole Wrote:  "The B10 and B12 are probably the only real 80/20 split
The SEC is probably closer to an 85/15
The ACC is at least an 75/25 value split"

Wouldn't disagree with that.


http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...story.html

"Swofford estimated that football drives 70-80 percent of rights fees and acknowledged that more national success in that sport would have meant additional revenue."


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/11917...rong-horse


"While people fawn over the tournament, they have to remember that cash is not going into the conferences pockets. The money is made off of regular season contests and, simply put, no one is watching regular season college basketball. At least not when compared to the droves of fans tuning into regular season college football contests.

As a conference the ACC backed the wrong horse and it is a little late to climb aboard the football train. "





The VERY first step for the ACC is to stop debating whether the VAST majority of money is in bball or football.......the debate is over. It is football. The ACC has to get past this and move on. Then it needs to start making some football first decisions.

I hope someday we see the ACC start to understand this. The Big East couldn't do it......the ACC still seems to struggle with it.

That was more of a case of weak leadership at Clemson and FSU than the ACC addressing the issues that put it in the situation it has been in for the past few years of being tail end Charlie among the P5. Had Clemson and FSU not had weak sister presidents I doubt we see the one sided deal with Notre Dame, and we definitely don't see a grant of rights without significant public measures and assurances from the perennially football negligent schools that dedication and improvements are forthcoming.

That may be the case but I certainly don't believe the made up ramblings of WVU bloggers that Clemson and Florida State were ready to jump to The Big 12 at moments notice either. I do however think enough of The ACC leadership believed the rumors to have some basis that Clemson and Florida State had a huge bargaining chip, real or not. Don't know how else either could have played it short of actually changing conferences.

If The ACC Network becomes a reality, some say more of a matter of when then if, then I think we all ironically have our friends at WVU to thank for helping strengthen The ACC.
CJ

As I have said before had the ACC added UConn Clemson was gone. Even with the Chapel Hill sycophant Barker in charge Clemson knew that the conference couldn't stand another basketball addition like the one before it considering the situation the conference was in. I highly doubt that Clemson was leaving on it's own.

The biggest mistake Clemson and FSU made was agreeing to the GOR because it took away any leverage we had against the schools that simply don't care about football. Once we signed that we tied our buggies to a team of horses led by such football powers as UNC, UVA, and Syracuse and very likely sealed our fate as second class citizens in college football.

(03-11-2015 08:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 07:57 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 07:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:54 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  You are using nearly 3 year old articles to prove a point that The ACC began addressing in November 2012. If The ACC had not thought football first UConn would be a member of The ACC and not Louisville. If The ACC had not thought football first, as primarily Florida State and Clemson demanded, I doubt The ACC would have got a Grant of Rights signed but all its members.

I doubt The ACC has done enough to silence the expansion loons in the blogosphere , I doubt they ever do. With that being said, those without an agenda, recognize fundamental changes in The ACC decision making process that have begun taking place with more to come.
CJ

(03-11-2015 08:36 AM)nole Wrote:  "The B10 and B12 are probably the only real 80/20 split
The SEC is probably closer to an 85/15
The ACC is at least an 75/25 value split"

Wouldn't disagree with that.


http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...story.html

"Swofford estimated that football drives 70-80 percent of rights fees and acknowledged that more national success in that sport would have meant additional revenue."


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/11917...rong-horse


"While people fawn over the tournament, they have to remember that cash is not going into the conferences pockets. The money is made off of regular season contests and, simply put, no one is watching regular season college basketball. At least not when compared to the droves of fans tuning into regular season college football contests.

As a conference the ACC backed the wrong horse and it is a little late to climb aboard the football train. "





The VERY first step for the ACC is to stop debating whether the VAST majority of money is in bball or football.......the debate is over. It is football. The ACC has to get past this and move on. Then it needs to start making some football first decisions.

I hope someday we see the ACC start to understand this. The Big East couldn't do it......the ACC still seems to struggle with it.

That was more of a case of weak leadership at Clemson and FSU than the ACC addressing the issues that put it in the situation it has been in for the past few years of being tail end Charlie among the P5. Had Clemson and FSU not had weak sister presidents I doubt we see the one sided deal with Notre Dame, and we definitely don't see a grant of rights without significant public measures and assurances from the perennially football negligent schools that dedication and improvements are forthcoming.

That may be the case but I certainly don't believe the made up ramblings of WVU bloggers that Clemson and Florida State were ready to jump to The Big 12 at moments notice either. I do however think enough of The ACC leadership believed the rumors to have some basis that Clemson and Florida State had a huge bargaining chip, real or not. Don't know how else either could have played it short of actually changing conferences.

If The ACC Network becomes a reality, some say more of a matter of when then if, then I think we all ironically have our friends at WVU to thank for helping strengthen The ACC.
CJ

As I have said before had the ACC added UConn Clemson was gone. Even with the Chapel Hill sycophant Barker in charge Clemson knew that the conference couldn't stand another basketball addition like the one before it considering the situation the conference was in. I highly doubt that Clemson was leaving on it's own.

The biggest mistake Clemson and FSU made was agreeing to the GOR because it took away any leverage we had against the schools that simply don't care about football. Once we signed that we tied our buggies to a team of horses led by such football powers as UNC, UVA, and Syracuse and very likely sealed our fate as second class citizens in college football.

Gone Where?

(03-11-2015 09:04 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 08:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 07:57 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 07:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:54 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  You are using nearly 3 year old articles to prove a point that The ACC began addressing in November 2012. If The ACC had not thought football first UConn would be a member of The ACC and not Louisville. If The ACC had not thought football first, as primarily Florida State and Clemson demanded, I doubt The ACC would have got a Grant of Rights signed but all its members.

I doubt The ACC has done enough to silence the expansion loons in the blogosphere , I doubt they ever do. With that being said, those without an agenda, recognize fundamental changes in The ACC decision making process that have begun taking place with more to come.
CJ

That was more of a case of weak leadership at Clemson and FSU than the ACC addressing the issues that put it in the situation it has been in for the past few years of being tail end Charlie among the P5. Had Clemson and FSU not had weak sister presidents I doubt we see the one sided deal with Notre Dame, and we definitely don't see a grant of rights without significant public measures and assurances from the perennially football negligent schools that dedication and improvements are forthcoming.

That may be the case but I certainly don't believe the made up ramblings of WVU bloggers that Clemson and Florida State were ready to jump to The Big 12 at moments notice either. I do however think enough of The ACC leadership believed the rumors to have some basis that Clemson and Florida State had a huge bargaining chip, real or not. Don't know how else either could have played it short of actually changing conferences.

If The ACC Network becomes a reality, some say more of a matter of when then if, then I think we all ironically have our friends at WVU to thank for helping strengthen The ACC.
CJ

As I have said before had the ACC added UConn Clemson was gone. Even with the Chapel Hill sycophant Barker in charge Clemson knew that the conference couldn't stand another basketball addition like the one before it considering the situation the conference was in. I highly doubt that Clemson was leaving on it's own.

The biggest mistake Clemson and FSU made was agreeing to the GOR because it took away any leverage we had against the schools that simply don't care about football. Once we signed that we tied our buggies to a team of horses led by such football powers as UNC, UVA, and Syracuse and very likely sealed our fate as second class citizens in college football.

Gone Where?

Big XII probably, but the ACC adding another weak football program in UConn after adding Syracuse, especially since it would result in all three NE programs being in our division, was untenable to a program that takes football serious.

(03-11-2015 09:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 09:04 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 08:54 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 07:57 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 07:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  That was more of a case of weak leadership at Clemson and FSU than the ACC addressing the issues that put it in the situation it has been in for the past few years of being tail end Charlie among the P5. Had Clemson and FSU not had weak sister presidents I doubt we see the one sided deal with Notre Dame, and we definitely don't see a grant of rights without significant public measures and assurances from the perennially football negligent schools that dedication and improvements are forthcoming.

That may be the case but I certainly don't believe the made up ramblings of WVU bloggers that Clemson and Florida State were ready to jump to The Big 12 at moments notice either. I do however think enough of The ACC leadership believed the rumors to have some basis that Clemson and Florida State had a huge bargaining chip, real or not. Don't know how else either could have played it short of actually changing conferences.

If The ACC Network becomes a reality, some say more of a matter of when then if, then I think we all ironically have our friends at WVU to thank for helping strengthen The ACC.
CJ

As I have said before had the ACC added UConn Clemson was gone. Even with the Chapel Hill sycophant Barker in charge Clemson knew that the conference couldn't stand another basketball addition like the one before it considering the situation the conference was in. I highly doubt that Clemson was leaving on it's own.

The biggest mistake Clemson and FSU made was agreeing to the GOR because it took away any leverage we had against the schools that simply don't care about football. Once we signed that we tied our buggies to a team of horses led by such football powers as UNC, UVA, and Syracuse and very likely sealed our fate as second class citizens in college football.

Gone Where?

Big XII probably, but the ACC adding another weak football program in UConn after adding Syracuse, especially since it would result in all three NE programs being in our division, was untenable to a program that takes football serious.

Clemson in the B12 is dumber than WV in the Big 12. I wish you guys would just go already so we can all witness you come crawling back to the Acc. You never know how good you got it til you don't have it anymore.

As I said, we wouldn't have gone alone. Not so dumb when you are part of an eastern wing of a conference where football is the priority of all but one member.

(03-11-2015 09:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As I said, we wouldn't have gone alone. Not so dumb when you are part of an eastern wing of a conference where football is the priority of all but one member.

This is all alternate history, but if the ACC had added UConn instead of Louisville after Maryland announced they were leaving, I certainly hope Duke would have seriously considered the offer from the SEC (with UNC) and any offer from the Big Twelve (as part of a group including UNC, Virginia and Georgia Tech).

(03-11-2015 09:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As I said, we wouldn't have gone alone. Not so dumb when you are part of an eastern wing of a conference where football is the priority of all but one member.

Go to the Big XII and being lead by whims of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas..Good Luck...also the Faculty at Clemson would snapped going to the Big XII over the ACC...Seriously...lol...

(03-11-2015 11:45 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 09:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As I said, we wouldn't have gone alone. Not so dumb when you are part of an eastern wing of a conference where football is the priority of all but one member.

Go to the Big XII and being lead by whims of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas..Good Luck...lol...

As opposed to being in a conference who has historically been led by the whims of UNC and Duke? You damn right. At least Texas and Oklahoma (not sure where you are getting Kansas from since they have zero power) make decisions based upon football.

(03-11-2015 11:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 11:45 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 09:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As I said, we wouldn't have gone alone. Not so dumb when you are part of an eastern wing of a conference where football is the priority of all but one member.

Go to the Big XII and being lead by whims of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas..Good Luck...lol...

As opposed to being in a conference who has historically been led by the whims of UNC and Duke? You damn right. At least Texas and Oklahoma (not sure where you are getting Kansas from since they have zero power) make decisions based upon football.

This is the thanks we get for ensuring that Virginia Tech got in over Syracuse? Duke cares as much about football as Clemson.

(03-12-2015 12:01 AM)opossum Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 11:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 11:45 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 09:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As I said, we wouldn't have gone alone. Not so dumb when you are part of an eastern wing of a conference where football is the priority of all but one member.

Go to the Big XII and being lead by whims of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas..Good Luck...lol...

As opposed to being in a conference who has historically been led by the whims of UNC and Duke? You damn right. At least Texas and Oklahoma (not sure where you are getting Kansas from since they have zero power) make decisions based upon football.

This is the thanks we get for ensuring that Virginia Tech got in over Syracuse? Duke cares as much about football as Clemson.

I'm getting popcorn.