(03-24-2015 09:02 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Marge you gotta start somewhere. Sadly Basketball subsidizes about 250 extra leech programs with the tournament.

Which is why football must be the focus in order to keep up revenue wise.

(03-24-2015 09:14 AM)nole Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 09:02 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Marge you gotta start somewhere. Sadly Basketball subsidizes about 250 extra leech programs with the tournament.

Which is why football must be the focus in order to keep up revenue wise.

Which is ALSO what we are doing.......,
but you have to "diversify your bonds!"

FLossY Out...

(03-24-2015 09:38 AM)HRFlossY Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 09:14 AM)nole Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 09:02 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Marge you gotta start somewhere. Sadly Basketball subsidizes about 250 extra leech programs with the tournament.

Which is why football must be the focus in order to keep up revenue wise.

Which is ALSO what we are doing.......,
but you have to "diversify your bonds!"

FLossY Out...

Wu Tang Clan ain't nothing to...

(03-23-2015 11:29 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 11:04 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 11:01 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 07:46 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  So is the old Big East still the greatest? IIRC, they'd normally get a lot of teams in and only a couple would make it past the 2nd round.

1985 Big East was and still is the standard bearer of the best all time

Actually, building off that point, the BIG EAST usually did statistically better than average (i.e. +50% survived the first round, +25% survived the 2nd round, etc.)

I was thinking from recent years... like the year you guys got 11 bids and then dropped like flies. Admittedly I don't know a lot about the Big East from the early - mid 80's other than what I can look up on the net.

I'm pretty sure that statistically speaking, the BIG EAST over-performed that year, too. The bar was just so high that it didn't seem like it.

Sadly, it subsidizes the leech NCAA. I don't have a big issue with the small time schools getting a piece of the pie.

And I'm not even trying to talk down about the ACC. I'm simply pointing out that despite the ACC having a great NCAAT run thus far, the amount of money we're actually talking about on a yearly, per-team basis is relatively small, and not a conference power shifting amount.

(03-24-2015 12:15 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Sadly, it subsidizes the leech NCAA. I don't have a big issue with the small time schools getting a piece of the pie.

And I'm not even trying to talk down about the ACC. I'm simply pointing out that despite the ACC having a great NCAAT run thus far, the amount of money we're actually talking about on a yearly, per-team basis is relatively small, and not a conference power shifting amount.

You are right on all counts regarding this post.

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

All I know is, since we have been in the ACC, the ACC has had a team in the CFP, won the Orange Bowl, has a winning record against the SEC in football, had 11 bowl teams, Produced the men's national champion in Soccer, and have 5 teams in the men's basketball sweet 16 (haven't checked the ladies).

I haven't been in this conference long enough to be sad and disgusted with it. All I see are winners and opportunity.

(03-24-2015 04:47 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 09:56 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

I think the Sweet 16 will happen pretty often for Duke, UNC, Cuse, UofL, and Virginia (they are young and TB is solid).

Sprinkle in NCST, ND and PITT (they will be back in NCAA next year) and 7 teams in the Tournament from the ACC would get you 5 teams in the Sweet 16 pretty often.

I know it didn't work out for other conferences this year, but the ACC is a different beast.

Syracuse WILL be back next year.

Now if the UNC crap prevents them from playing in the NCAA, that may hurt the ACC a bit but......I believe we are the only conference that can afford to lose a "blue-blood" for a year or two and still not miss a beat regarding the post season.

Not even close. The ACC will seldom get 5 teams to the Sweet Sixteen with only 7 NCAAT bids, let alone do it "pretty often".

Cuse, UNC, Duke and UL only make the Sweet Sixteen something like 60% of the time over the last decade. So in any given year that's just under 2.5 Sweet Sixteen participants. If NC State and UVA make it 50% of the time (2/2 for UVA last two years, and 2/4 for NC State last 4 years), that's up to almost 3.5 bids. Pitt has only made the Sweet Sixteen 25% of the time with Dixon and ND has only made 2 Sweet Sixteens in the last 25ish years. So let's just give them .5 of a bid. Now we're up to 4 bids from 8 NCAAT teams. You would likely need to get 10 or 11 teams in the NCAAT in order to get 5 teams to the Sweet Sixteen "pretty often" (which to me means significantly more than 50% of the time).

But all of that was ENTIRELY beside the premise of my prior comment. Even in a year when the ACC makes up close to 1/3 of the Sweet Sixteen field, the revenue from the units earned over the 6-year cycle will pale in comparison to the BTN and SECN revenues.

Again, bragging about a small battle while you're losing the revenue war.

Women have 5 in the sweet sixteen also

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(03-25-2015 01:12 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 04:47 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 09:56 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

I think the Sweet 16 will happen pretty often for Duke, UNC, Cuse, UofL, and Virginia (they are young and TB is solid).

Sprinkle in NCST, ND and PITT (they will be back in NCAA next year) and 7 teams in the Tournament from the ACC would get you 5 teams in the Sweet 16 pretty often.

I know it didn't work out for other conferences this year, but the ACC is a different beast.

Syracuse WILL be back next year.

Now if the UNC crap prevents them from playing in the NCAA, that may hurt the ACC a bit but......I believe we are the only conference that can afford to lose a "blue-blood" for a year or two and still not miss a beat regarding the post season.

Not even close. The ACC will seldom get 5 teams to the Sweet Sixteen with only 7 NCAAT bids, let alone do it "pretty often".

Cuse, UNC, Duke and UL only make the Sweet Sixteen something like 60% of the time over the last decade. So in any given year that's just under 2.5 Sweet Sixteen participants. If NC State and UVA make it 50% of the time (2/2 for UVA last two years, and 2/4 for NC State last 4 years), that's up to almost 3.5 bids. Pitt has only made the Sweet Sixteen 25% of the time with Dixon and ND has only made 2 Sweet Sixteens in the last 25ish years. So let's just give them .5 of a bid. Now we're up to 4 bids from 8 NCAAT teams. You would likely need to get 10 or 11 teams in the NCAAT in order to get 5 teams to the Sweet Sixteen "pretty often" (which to me means significantly more than 50% of the time).

But all of that was ENTIRELY beside the premise of my prior comment. Even in a year when the ACC makes up close to 1/3 of the Sweet Sixteen field, the revenue from the units earned over the 6-year cycle will pale in comparison to the BTN and SECN revenues.

Again, bragging about a small battle while you're losing the revenue war.

Women have 5 in the sweet sixteen also

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Cool fact.

How much does that pay the ACC?

Two sports really matter: football and men's basketball. Of those, football matters a lot more.

Yeah, it's nice to have good women's sports, good baseball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. but those sports do not matter in the big picture (at least, not now).

(03-25-2015 08:00 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Two sports really matter: football and men's basketball. Of those, football matters a lot more.

Yeah, it's nice to have good women's sports, good baseball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. but those sports do not matter in the big picture (at least, not now).

Agreed they don't generate much income however that could change with the ACC Network. You need high quality live action filler or you'll get infomercials and other trash like that.

(03-25-2015 08:09 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 08:00 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Two sports really matter: football and men's basketball. Of those, football matters a lot more.

Yeah, it's nice to have good women's sports, good baseball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. but those sports do not matter in the big picture (at least, not now).

Agreed they don't generate much income however that could change with the ACC Network. You need high quality live action filler or you'll get infomercials and other trash like that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3lrhPeK6gU

(03-25-2015 08:00 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Two sports really matter: football and men's basketball. Of those, football matters a lot more.

Yeah, it's nice to have good women's sports, good baseball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. but those sports do not matter in the big picture (at least, not now).

IS this the strongest year the ACC has had in both basketball and football?

Swofford says "YES"


Great article btw.

I love this quote:

Quote:Swofford said six tourney berths should not be considered acceptable for a 15-team league. For comparison's sake, the old Big East earned at least eight berths six times from 2006-13.
"I don't think we've reached our standard in that regard," he said. "It's going to be difficult, because we don't schedule in a way that favors the strong teams and getting the most teams in the tournament. We try to be as equitable as possible from year to year. But at the same time, the competitive level is so high and will continue to be high, so you better be pretty good.
"...I've used the adjective 'brutal' to describe the competitive level, and I think that has bore itself out."

(03-25-2015 03:21 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 08:00 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Two sports really matter: football and men's basketball. Of those, football matters a lot more.

Yeah, it's nice to have good women's sports, good baseball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. but those sports do not matter in the big picture (at least, not now).

IS this the strongest year the ACC has had in both basketball and football?

Swofford says "YES"


Great article btw.

I love this quote:

Quote:Swofford said six tourney berths should not be considered acceptable for a 15-team league. For comparison's sake, the old Big East earned at least eight berths six times from 2006-13.
"I don't think we've reached our standard in that regard," he said. "It's going to be difficult, because we don't schedule in a way that favors the strong teams and getting the most teams in the tournament. We try to be as equitable as possible from year to year. But at the same time, the competitive level is so high and will continue to be high, so you better be pretty good.
"...I've used the adjective 'brutal' to describe the competitive level, and I think that has bore itself out."

After this year's performance, every marginal ACC team is going to get the benefit of the doubt next year.

(03-24-2015 06:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

All I know is, since we have been in the ACC, the ACC has had a team in the CFP, won the Orange Bowl, has a winning record against the SEC in football, had 11 bowl teams, Produced the men's national champion in Soccer, and have 5 teams in the men's basketball sweet 16 (haven't checked the ladies).

I haven't been in this conference long enough to be sad and disgusted with it. All I see are winners and opportunity.

So that was a nice little diversion. Can we get back to discussing conference revenue and ncaat monies?

(03-25-2015 06:21 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 06:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

All I know is, since we have been in the ACC, the ACC has had a team in the CFP, won the Orange Bowl, has a winning record against the SEC in football, had 11 bowl teams, Produced the men's national champion in Soccer, and have 5 teams in the men's basketball sweet 16 (haven't checked the ladies).

I haven't been in this conference long enough to be sad and disgusted with it. All I see are winners and opportunity.

So that was a nice little diversion. Can we get back to discussing conference revenue and ncaat monies?

It's not as high as any of us wish it was. We got screwed in the OB deal and Swofford gave his kid a sweetheart TV deal (although I think that TV revenues are probably fine - they're pretty much in line with everyone else). What else is there to say?

(03-25-2015 06:21 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 06:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

All I know is, since we have been in the ACC, the ACC has had a team in the CFP, won the Orange Bowl, has a winning record against the SEC in football, had 11 bowl teams, Produced the men's national champion in Soccer, and have 5 teams in the men's basketball sweet 16 (haven't checked the ladies).

I haven't been in this conference long enough to be sad and disgusted with it. All I see are winners and opportunity.

So that was a nice little diversion. Can we get back to discussing conference revenue and ncaat monies?

Well for this Academic/Sports Year with the bump from ESPN/ABC, the Revenue Earned from the CFP & Orange Bowl along with the Current NCAA Basketball Revenue the ACC isn't lacking in $$$...

(03-25-2015 06:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 06:21 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 06:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

All I know is, since we have been in the ACC, the ACC has had a team in the CFP, won the Orange Bowl, has a winning record against the SEC in football, had 11 bowl teams, Produced the men's national champion in Soccer, and have 5 teams in the men's basketball sweet 16 (haven't checked the ladies).

I haven't been in this conference long enough to be sad and disgusted with it. All I see are winners and opportunity.

So that was a nice little diversion. Can we get back to discussing conference revenue and ncaat monies?

It's not as high as any of us wish it was. We got screwed in the OB deal and Swofford gave his kid a sweetheart TV deal (although I think that TV revenues are probably fine - they're pretty much in line with everyone else). What else is there to say?

The Orange Bowl was a huge issue. It was decided at a time when the ACC was in turmoil with all the rumors flying. It is going to be hard to fix that.

(03-26-2015 07:02 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 06:21 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 06:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

All I know is, since we have been in the ACC, the ACC has had a team in the CFP, won the Orange Bowl, has a winning record against the SEC in football, had 11 bowl teams, Produced the men's national champion in Soccer, and have 5 teams in the men's basketball sweet 16 (haven't checked the ladies).

I haven't been in this conference long enough to be sad and disgusted with it. All I see are winners and opportunity.

So that was a nice little diversion. Can we get back to discussing conference revenue and ncaat monies?

Well for this Academic/Sports Year with the bump from ESPN/ABC, the Revenue Earned from the CFP & Orange Bowl along with the Current NCAA Basketball Revenue the ACC isn't lacking in $$$...

Ok, what about once SECN revenue kicks in (right now)? Or when the Big Ten's tier 1 deal is renegotiated?

Is the ACC closing the gap? Is it maintaining the gap? Is it widening? Pretty valid questions and pertinent to all this "ACC is awesome and flush with NCAAT cash" talk.

(03-26-2015 10:58 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 07:02 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 06:21 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 06:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

All I know is, since we have been in the ACC, the ACC has had a team in the CFP, won the Orange Bowl, has a winning record against the SEC in football, had 11 bowl teams, Produced the men's national champion in Soccer, and have 5 teams in the men's basketball sweet 16 (haven't checked the ladies).

I haven't been in this conference long enough to be sad and disgusted with it. All I see are winners and opportunity.

So that was a nice little diversion. Can we get back to discussing conference revenue and ncaat monies?

Well for this Academic/Sports Year with the bump from ESPN/ABC, the Revenue Earned from the CFP & Orange Bowl along with the Current NCAA Basketball Revenue the ACC isn't lacking in $$$...

Ok, what about once SECN revenue kicks in (right now)? Or when the Big Ten's tier 1 deal is renegotiated?

Is the ACC closing the gap? Is it maintaining the gap? Is it widening? Pretty valid questions and pertinent to all this "ACC is awesome and flush with NCAAT cash" talk.

What "exactly" is the B1G buying with the extra TV $ they are making? What do the individual schools have planned for the windfall they are getting ready to receive?