(06-05-2015 08:23 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If I were the ACC and ESPN wanted to buy my Digital rights, I'd either charge them an arm and a leg or keep them.

And what are you going to do with all of that content that ESPN didn't even want to put on ESPN3?

(06-05-2015 10:59 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 08:23 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If I were the ACC and ESPN wanted to buy my Digital rights, I'd either charge them an arm and a leg or keep them.

And what are you going to do with all of that content that ESPN didn't even want to put on ESPN3?

Exactly. Everyone who preaches the virtues of networks tends to ignore the fact that there is a significant cost to acquiring the content, opportunity or otherwise. Sure, the SEC got a pay bump, but they also A) invested in the conference, and B) implicitly invested in the conference again by passing up a pay increase from the TAMU/MIZZOU add.

Similarly, the BTN makes a lot of money, but they also spent a TON of money to make that happen, AND they air valuable content. Some of those games would fetch a substantial price if they were sold to Fox/ESPN. Yes, they are still keeping the network going, but that *could* very well be because it only makes financial sense if A) there is significant political pressure to have a network and its cheaper to capitulate than to fight (i.e. possibly the SECN and probably the PACN), the market is terribly undervalued due to asymmetric information and other market inefficiencies (i.e. BTN at launch), or if the start-up costs turn into sunk costs (i.e. BTN today). Theoretically, one could string together some kind of reasoning for vertical integration based on specific investments or more efficient management, but I have yet to hear it.

I get that the ACC makes less than the SEC/B1G, but we also don't have the same types of schools in the conference. The conference's #1 athletic department (FSU) isn't even the most valuable athletic department in its own state (UF>FSU in value). After that, there is no match for the (pick 3 of the 4) Wisconsins, Ohio States, Michigans, and Penn States of the world. The same goes for the Alabamas, LSUs, Auburns, Tennessees, Georgias (UF is intentionally excluded because the Gators were referenced earlier). Our #2 football brand is *maybe* a top 20 all time team in terms of prestige, that *might* have a top 15 stadium in terms of size and has no other athletic programs of note. Sure, our middle is very solid and has great upside, but our low end is very low. Yes, we have great basketball brands, but that will only take a conference so far. Even then, we don't lead the nation in attendance.

Unless Wake goes on an absolute tear and wins the next 10 straight NC's there are only so many people who are going to care about WF athletics, and that number isn't especially high. The same goes for NCSU, and to a lesser extent, Miami, BC, Pitt, GT, and any other city team that I'm forgetting that has to compete with pro sports.

Those of us who are convinced that an ACCN will solve all of the conference's problems are living a pipe dream. We might get a network, but if we do, then I'm pretty sure that it will 100% be to save Swofford's job. If the entire paradigm blows up (one way or the other), it is much less risky to do what everyone else does. In other words, if the market takes off, you aren't left behind, and it it bottoms out, you don't look any dumber than anyone else. That said, if the network made good business sense, the conference would have pulled the trigger on it, and it would have been launched with the SECN, along with ESPN/Disney's renegotiation. Why is that the case? It's the case because it would have likely made the overall package less price elastic, thereby likely creating value for all, which can be split up by all (including the ACCN) based on that entity's contribution to the whole. However, that didn't happen. Instead, the conference hesitated, and has thus far taken the ESPN consolation payout of an extra $2 million (or whatever it is this year). Assuming that the ACC leadership isn't completely lost, they would have only take the extra $2 mm if 50% of the profits less opportunity costs associated with the initial investment was less than $2 million. Therefore, unless someone has better information that I do, that's the value of an ACCN for the conference; less $2 million/school + the opportunity cost of the initial investment (i.e. buying back the media rights).

Regardless, I think that the ACC will stay together for reasons that go beyond TV money. Namely, the ACC is EXTREMELY Carolina/Duke/Virginia friendly and has the capacity to be EXTREMELY friendly to FSU (whether FSU fans want to admit it or not). After that, I don't think that the SEC wants Clemson, and GT is tied to the Carolina schools + UVA + Clemson + FSU (as is VT), and BC, Pitt, UL, and SU are generally happy where they are. The money is good enough, the academics are great, the southern exposure is great for athletics, and most importantly, there aren't any other attractive options in the NE now that the BIG EAST is dead (there's the B1G and the AAC).

I guess that's my of saying "everyone is wrong." The sky isn't falling, and there also aren't any castles up there, either. We're in the middle, along with the Pac and the Big XII. It isn't perfect, but it could be a lot worse. Anyway, TV money is only part of the equation. The B1G absolutely blew everyone else's finances out of the water for a solid decade, and what did they get in return? Despite having 2 of the top 5 football brands (OSU and UM) and several elite/very good basketball brands (IU, MSU, UM, and OSU), they got 1 NC in football and 0 in basketball. The ACC, SEC, and arguably the Big XII (depending on when you start counting) all matched or beat that.

(06-06-2015 02:45 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 10:59 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 08:23 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If I were the ACC and ESPN wanted to buy my Digital rights, I'd either charge them an arm and a leg or keep them.

And what are you going to do with all of that content that ESPN didn't even want to put on ESPN3?

Exactly. Everyone who preaches the virtues of networks tends to ignore the fact that there is a significant cost to acquiring the content, opportunity or otherwise. Sure, the SEC got a pay bump, but they also A) invested in the conference, and B) implicitly invested in the conference again by passing up a pay increase from the TAMU/MIZZOU add.

Similarly, the BTN makes a lot of money, but they also spent a TON of money to make that happen, AND they air valuable content. Some of those games would fetch a substantial price if they were sold to Fox/ESPN. Yes, they are still keeping the network going, but that *could* very well be because it only makes financial sense if A) there is significant political pressure to have a network and its cheaper to capitulate than to fight (i.e. possibly the SECN and probably the PACN), the market is terribly undervalued due to asymmetric information and other market inefficiencies (i.e. BTN at launch), or if the start-up costs turn into sunk costs (i.e. BTN today). Theoretically, one could string together some kind of reasoning for vertical integration based on specific investments or more efficient management, but I have yet to hear it.

I get that the ACC makes less than the SEC/B1G, but we also don't have the same types of schools in the conference. The conference's #1 athletic department (FSU) isn't even the most valuable athletic department in its own state (UF>FSU in value). After that, there is no match for the (pick 3 of the 4) Wisconsins, Ohio States, Michigans, and Penn States of the world. The same goes for the Alabamas, LSUs, Auburns, Tennessees, Georgias (UF is intentionally excluded because the Gators were referenced earlier). Our #2 football brand is *maybe* a top 20 all time team in terms of prestige, that *might* have a top 15 stadium in terms of size and has no other athletic programs of note. Sure, our middle is very solid and has great upside, but our low end is very low. Yes, we have great basketball brands, but that will only take a conference so far. Even then, we don't lead the nation in attendance.

Unless Wake goes on an absolute tear and wins the next 10 straight NC's there are only so many people who are going to care about WF athletics, and that number isn't especially high. The same goes for NCSU, and to a lesser extent, Miami, BC, Pitt, GT, and any other city team that I'm forgetting that has to compete with pro sports.

Those of us who are convinced that an ACCN will solve all of the conference's problems are living a pipe dream. We might get a network, but if we do, then I'm pretty sure that it will 100% be to save Swofford's job. If the entire paradigm blows up (one way or the other), it is much less risky to do what everyone else does. In other words, if the market takes off, you aren't left behind, and it it bottoms out, you don't look any dumber than anyone else. That said, if the network made good business sense, the conference would have pulled the trigger on it, and it would have been launched with the SECN, along with ESPN/Disney's renegotiation. Why is that the case? It's the case because it would have likely made the overall package less price elastic, thereby likely creating value for all, which can be split up by all (including the ACCN) based on that entity's contribution to the whole. However, that didn't happen. Instead, the conference hesitated, and has thus far taken the ESPN consolation payout of an extra $2 million (or whatever it is this year). Assuming that the ACC leadership isn't completely lost, they would have only take the extra $2 mm if 50% of the profits less opportunity costs associated with the initial investment was less than $2 million. Therefore, unless someone has better information that I do, that's the value of an ACCN for the conference; less $2 million/school + the opportunity cost of the initial investment (i.e. buying back the media rights).

Regardless, I think that the ACC will stay together for reasons that go beyond TV money. Namely, the ACC is EXTREMELY Carolina/Duke/Virginia friendly and has the capacity to be EXTREMELY friendly to FSU (whether FSU fans want to admit it or not). After that, I don't think that the SEC wants Clemson, and GT is tied to the Carolina schools + UVA + Clemson + FSU (as is VT), and BC, Pitt, UL, and SU are generally happy where they are. The money is good enough, the academics are great, the southern exposure is great for athletics, and most importantly, there aren't any other attractive options in the NE now that the BIG EAST is dead (there's the B1G and the AAC).

I guess that's my of saying "everyone is wrong." The sky isn't falling, and there also aren't any castles up there, either. We're in the middle, along with the Pac and the Big XII. It isn't perfect, but it could be a lot worse. Anyway, TV money is only part of the equation. The B1G absolutely blew everyone else's finances out of the water for a solid decade, and what did they get in return? Despite having 2 of the top 5 football brands (OSU and UM) and several elite/very good basketball brands (IU, MSU, UM, and OSU), they got 1 NC in football and 0 in basketball. The ACC, SEC, and arguably the Big XII (depending on when you start counting) all matched or beat that.

It has the capacity....what it lacks is the desire.

We all agree, the money has been good enough.....mark it down....next years revenue gaps are going to shock folks and a few schools will seriously wonder if the money is good enough anymore. The future for the ACC is RIGHT around the corner....horrible business moves can't be hidden much longer. I watched ESPN (not the SEC network) last night stick with a 18-2 SEC baseball game last night over a competitive ACC game. The ACC is being marginalized right now by it's own TV network....as the revenue gap goes to $10 million plus. This conference is going to be plucked apart.

I agree there was only so much Swofford could of done...the ACC was likely to be #3 in revenue at best......BUT if he achieved the ceiling the ACC had......the ACC would of likely survived. Instead the ACC stuck with Swofford, Raycom, his son's paycheck, and a refusal to accept basetball isn't #1. It will cost the ACC....and folks feel it....the ACC Network and it's inability to go anywhere is only the canary in the mineshaft.

(06-06-2015 05:52 AM)nole Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 02:45 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 10:59 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 08:23 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If I were the ACC and ESPN wanted to buy my Digital rights, I'd either charge them an arm and a leg or keep them.

And what are you going to do with all of that content that ESPN didn't even want to put on ESPN3?

Exactly. Everyone who preaches the virtues of networks tends to ignore the fact that there is a significant cost to acquiring the content, opportunity or otherwise. Sure, the SEC got a pay bump, but they also A) invested in the conference, and B) implicitly invested in the conference again by passing up a pay increase from the TAMU/MIZZOU add.

Similarly, the BTN makes a lot of money, but they also spent a TON of money to make that happen, AND they air valuable content. Some of those games would fetch a substantial price if they were sold to Fox/ESPN. Yes, they are still keeping the network going, but that *could* very well be because it only makes financial sense if A) there is significant political pressure to have a network and its cheaper to capitulate than to fight (i.e. possibly the SECN and probably the PACN), the market is terribly undervalued due to asymmetric information and other market inefficiencies (i.e. BTN at launch), or if the start-up costs turn into sunk costs (i.e. BTN today). Theoretically, one could string together some kind of reasoning for vertical integration based on specific investments or more efficient management, but I have yet to hear it.

I get that the ACC makes less than the SEC/B1G, but we also don't have the same types of schools in the conference. The conference's #1 athletic department (FSU) isn't even the most valuable athletic department in its own state (UF>FSU in value). After that, there is no match for the (pick 3 of the 4) Wisconsins, Ohio States, Michigans, and Penn States of the world. The same goes for the Alabamas, LSUs, Auburns, Tennessees, Georgias (UF is intentionally excluded because the Gators were referenced earlier). Our #2 football brand is *maybe* a top 20 all time team in terms of prestige, that *might* have a top 15 stadium in terms of size and has no other athletic programs of note. Sure, our middle is very solid and has great upside, but our low end is very low. Yes, we have great basketball brands, but that will only take a conference so far. Even then, we don't lead the nation in attendance.

Unless Wake goes on an absolute tear and wins the next 10 straight NC's there are only so many people who are going to care about WF athletics, and that number isn't especially high. The same goes for NCSU, and to a lesser extent, Miami, BC, Pitt, GT, and any other city team that I'm forgetting that has to compete with pro sports.

Those of us who are convinced that an ACCN will solve all of the conference's problems are living a pipe dream. We might get a network, but if we do, then I'm pretty sure that it will 100% be to save Swofford's job. If the entire paradigm blows up (one way or the other), it is much less risky to do what everyone else does. In other words, if the market takes off, you aren't left behind, and it it bottoms out, you don't look any dumber than anyone else. That said, if the network made good business sense, the conference would have pulled the trigger on it, and it would have been launched with the SECN, along with ESPN/Disney's renegotiation. Why is that the case? It's the case because it would have likely made the overall package less price elastic, thereby likely creating value for all, which can be split up by all (including the ACCN) based on that entity's contribution to the whole. However, that didn't happen. Instead, the conference hesitated, and has thus far taken the ESPN consolation payout of an extra $2 million (or whatever it is this year). Assuming that the ACC leadership isn't completely lost, they would have only take the extra $2 mm if 50% of the profits less opportunity costs associated with the initial investment was less than $2 million. Therefore, unless someone has better information that I do, that's the value of an ACCN for the conference; less $2 million/school + the opportunity cost of the initial investment (i.e. buying back the media rights).

Regardless, I think that the ACC will stay together for reasons that go beyond TV money. Namely, the ACC is EXTREMELY Carolina/Duke/Virginia friendly and has the capacity to be EXTREMELY friendly to FSU (whether FSU fans want to admit it or not). After that, I don't think that the SEC wants Clemson, and GT is tied to the Carolina schools + UVA + Clemson + FSU (as is VT), and BC, Pitt, UL, and SU are generally happy where they are. The money is good enough, the academics are great, the southern exposure is great for athletics, and most importantly, there aren't any other attractive options in the NE now that the BIG EAST is dead (there's the B1G and the AAC).

I guess that's my of saying "everyone is wrong." The sky isn't falling, and there also aren't any castles up there, either. We're in the middle, along with the Pac and the Big XII. It isn't perfect, but it could be a lot worse. Anyway, TV money is only part of the equation. The B1G absolutely blew everyone else's finances out of the water for a solid decade, and what did they get in return? Despite having 2 of the top 5 football brands (OSU and UM) and several elite/very good basketball brands (IU, MSU, UM, and OSU), they got 1 NC in football and 0 in basketball. The ACC, SEC, and arguably the Big XII (depending on when you start counting) all matched or beat that.

It has the capacity....what it lacks is the desire.

We all agree, the money has been good enough.....mark it down....next years revenue gaps are going to shock folks and a few schools will seriously wonder if the money is good enough anymore. The future for the ACC is RIGHT around the corner....horrible business moves can't be hidden much longer. I watched ESPN (not the SEC network) last night stick with a 18-2 SEC baseball game last night over a competitive ACC game. The ACC is being marginalized right now by it's own TV network....as the revenue gap goes to $10 million plus. This conference is going to be plucked apart.

I agree there was only so much Swofford could of done...the ACC was likely to be #3 in revenue at best......BUT if he achieved the ceiling the ACC had......the ACC would of likely survived. Instead the ACC stuck with Swofford, Raycom, his son's paycheck, and a refusal to accept basetball isn't #1. It will cost the ACC....and folks feel it....the ACC Network and it's inability to go anywhere is only the canary in the mineshaft.

I am a little confused by your post.
You stated that the ACC is being marginalized by ESPN by the same company who owns all of the conference broadcast rights. What, realistically can be done to change that in the short term?
Based on your assertion because ESPN has marginalized ACC TV broadcasts, I would think if it weren't for the Raycom deal the ACC has, and the sub licenses to FOX Sports South we would never see ACC football and baseball games at all except when ESPN deemed necessary.
When the ACC TV rights were up for renewal the conference flirted with FOX before signing with ESPN. The result was a much higher contract than anyone on this board or it's predecessor (the old Big East board) ever expected possible. It was actually the beginning of the end for the old Big East. By today's standards the ACC has a bad contract, but the day it was signed NOBODY was unhappy.
We all find ourselves at a disadvantage. What specifically would have the ACC to do to rectify the situation in 2015-2016? Florida State has just as much say in how the conference is run as any other school in the league. What is the FSU agenda for making things better for every school in the league not just for the 'noles?
You can't change the past, you can only learn from it and move on. So where should we all go from here?

(06-06-2015 05:52 AM)nole Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 02:45 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 10:59 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 08:23 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If I were the ACC and ESPN wanted to buy my Digital rights, I'd either charge them an arm and a leg or keep them.

And what are you going to do with all of that content that ESPN didn't even want to put on ESPN3?

Exactly. Everyone who preaches the virtues of networks tends to ignore the fact that there is a significant cost to acquiring the content, opportunity or otherwise. Sure, the SEC got a pay bump, but they also A) invested in the conference, and B) implicitly invested in the conference again by passing up a pay increase from the TAMU/MIZZOU add.

Similarly, the BTN makes a lot of money, but they also spent a TON of money to make that happen, AND they air valuable content. Some of those games would fetch a substantial price if they were sold to Fox/ESPN. Yes, they are still keeping the network going, but that *could* very well be because it only makes financial sense if A) there is significant political pressure to have a network and its cheaper to capitulate than to fight (i.e. possibly the SECN and probably the PACN), the market is terribly undervalued due to asymmetric information and other market inefficiencies (i.e. BTN at launch), or if the start-up costs turn into sunk costs (i.e. BTN today). Theoretically, one could string together some kind of reasoning for vertical integration based on specific investments or more efficient management, but I have yet to hear it.

I get that the ACC makes less than the SEC/B1G, but we also don't have the same types of schools in the conference. The conference's #1 athletic department (FSU) isn't even the most valuable athletic department in its own state (UF>FSU in value). After that, there is no match for the (pick 3 of the 4) Wisconsins, Ohio States, Michigans, and Penn States of the world. The same goes for the Alabamas, LSUs, Auburns, Tennessees, Georgias (UF is intentionally excluded because the Gators were referenced earlier). Our #2 football brand is *maybe* a top 20 all time team in terms of prestige, that *might* have a top 15 stadium in terms of size and has no other athletic programs of note. Sure, our middle is very solid and has great upside, but our low end is very low. Yes, we have great basketball brands, but that will only take a conference so far. Even then, we don't lead the nation in attendance.

Unless Wake goes on an absolute tear and wins the next 10 straight NC's there are only so many people who are going to care about WF athletics, and that number isn't especially high. The same goes for NCSU, and to a lesser extent, Miami, BC, Pitt, GT, and any other city team that I'm forgetting that has to compete with pro sports.

Those of us who are convinced that an ACCN will solve all of the conference's problems are living a pipe dream. We might get a network, but if we do, then I'm pretty sure that it will 100% be to save Swofford's job. If the entire paradigm blows up (one way or the other), it is much less risky to do what everyone else does. In other words, if the market takes off, you aren't left behind, and it it bottoms out, you don't look any dumber than anyone else. That said, if the network made good business sense, the conference would have pulled the trigger on it, and it would have been launched with the SECN, along with ESPN/Disney's renegotiation. Why is that the case? It's the case because it would have likely made the overall package less price elastic, thereby likely creating value for all, which can be split up by all (including the ACCN) based on that entity's contribution to the whole. However, that didn't happen. Instead, the conference hesitated, and has thus far taken the ESPN consolation payout of an extra $2 million (or whatever it is this year). Assuming that the ACC leadership isn't completely lost, they would have only take the extra $2 mm if 50% of the profits less opportunity costs associated with the initial investment was less than $2 million. Therefore, unless someone has better information that I do, that's the value of an ACCN for the conference; less $2 million/school + the opportunity cost of the initial investment (i.e. buying back the media rights).

Regardless, I think that the ACC will stay together for reasons that go beyond TV money. Namely, the ACC is EXTREMELY Carolina/Duke/Virginia friendly and has the capacity to be EXTREMELY friendly to FSU (whether FSU fans want to admit it or not). After that, I don't think that the SEC wants Clemson, and GT is tied to the Carolina schools + UVA + Clemson + FSU (as is VT), and BC, Pitt, UL, and SU are generally happy where they are. The money is good enough, the academics are great, the southern exposure is great for athletics, and most importantly, there aren't any other attractive options in the NE now that the BIG EAST is dead (there's the B1G and the AAC).

I guess that's my of saying "everyone is wrong." The sky isn't falling, and there also aren't any castles up there, either. We're in the middle, along with the Pac and the Big XII. It isn't perfect, but it could be a lot worse. Anyway, TV money is only part of the equation. The B1G absolutely blew everyone else's finances out of the water for a solid decade, and what did they get in return? Despite having 2 of the top 5 football brands (OSU and UM) and several elite/very good basketball brands (IU, MSU, UM, and OSU), they got 1 NC in football and 0 in basketball. The ACC, SEC, and arguably the Big XII (depending on when you start counting) all matched or beat that.

It has the capacity....what it lacks is the desire.

We all agree, the money has been good enough.....mark it down....next years revenue gaps are going to shock folks and a few schools will seriously wonder if the money is good enough anymore. The future for the ACC is RIGHT around the corner....horrible business moves can't be hidden much longer. I watched ESPN (not the SEC network) last night stick with a 18-2 SEC baseball game last night over a competitive ACC game. The ACC is being marginalized right now by it's own TV network....as the revenue gap goes to $10 million plus. This conference is going to be plucked apart.

I agree there was only so much Swofford could of done...the ACC was likely to be #3 in revenue at best......BUT if he achieved the ceiling the ACC had......the ACC would of likely survived. Instead the ACC stuck with Swofford, Raycom, his son's paycheck, and a refusal to accept basetball isn't #1. It will cost the ACC....and folks feel it....the ACC Network and it's inability to go anywhere is only the canary in the mineshaft.

The money comment is in reference to SU, BC, Pitt, and UL. We've been 10+ mm behind the B1G since '07 (until we joined the ACC). The money isn't ideal, but virtually any UL fan can tell you that conference payouts are only one part of the equation.

And yeah, Swofford screwed up with the sweet-heart ESPN/Raycom deal, and he screwed up big time with the Orange Bowl. The ESPN deal was 100% nepotism, and we're paying for it. The OB was old fashioned incompetence, and we're paying for that as well. That said, the sky isn't falling. There are bright points in our current situation, and I can see growth opportunities moving forward.

It will be interesting to see how Texas shakes out. I don't think that their minimum payments from the LHN are inflation-adjusted. That means there will come a day where their profits from the network will primarily/heavily float with the network's success. When that day comes, scheduling flexibility in football, membership in a conference with strong Olympic sports, and increased TV inventory will be at a premium. Those factors, along with the ACC's academic reputation, east coast exposure, and excellence in pretty much everything but football will make a ND-type deal with Texas extremely attractive. As such, Texas and the ACC will be in a position where UTex either takes the deal and both parties benefit, or UTex uses the credible threat of jumping to the ACC as leverage in the Big XII (the more likely outcome), and Texas benefits and the B1G XII takes a major hit (indirectly benefiting the ACC vis-a-vis the Big XII).

It will also be interesting to see if there is any urgency in the ACC brass to improve football. It wasn't that long ago that the Pac was arguably the weakest (and poorest) P6 conference (or at least 2nd poorest). However, the Pac went nuts hiring good coaches and suddenly, one can credibly argue that the Pac is the best football conference. The ACC could very easily do what the Pac did (and then some) if the situation were ever dire enough. Admittedly, I'm not sure how dire the situation would have to be to get action (which I believe is the topic of many of your posts, nole), but the potential is there and history has shown that said potential will be used (see Baylor, TCU, OSU, and all the other schools in the Big XII that might not have a seat at the table if the conference were to falter).

Going back to my first post, structurally speaking, we cannot compete with the B1G/SEC's finances and win. Referencing this post, we can, however, beat the PAC and the Big XII on an extremely consistent basis (financially), we can improve our situation through careful management (i.e. no more stupid blunders and nepotism), and we can win on the field on a consistent basis against anyone, even SEC/B1G teams. The sky isn't falling, but there aren't any castles in it either. Like most things in life, we're stuck in the middle.

**Also, I would argue that the ACC is MUCH better for FSU than most fans initially give it credit for, and FSU's options, SEC included, aren't as great as they initially seem. Much of what makes FSU special is the school's ability to win almost all the time. FSU wouldn't be able to do that if it faced a SEC schedule. I get that FSU is elite on the field. You are. But, so is Alabama, Auburn, UF, LSU, and UGA, TAMU, Arkansas, USC, and Tennessee all have the potential to consistently be very good, and schools like Mizzou, MSU, and 'Ole Miss have the potential to have some very good years once in a while. The same existence of major downsides goes for joining the B1G. Sure, the money is good, but one can argue that the B1G was out performed in the last decade by the ACC ... during a "lost decade." Combine that with the challenge of convincing Florida kids that they want to play in Minnesota during November in outdoor stadiums so that they can impress a bunch of Midwestern farmers by hanging 50 on the Gophers, and I think that the virtues of the B1G look a little less bright.**

I said the following earlier in this thread, but I do think that it's worth repeating:

*Linking post season revenue to post season appearance is OK, but it's only half of the equation. That incentivizes scheduling cupcakes like crazy, which kills TV value. As such, ACC doesn't want those incentives. Instead, the ACC wants ACC schools to consistently beat the best possible teams that they can, which maximizes bowl revenue without sacrificing TV revenue. Sometimes the best team a school can beat is a cupcake, but other times it isn't. Therefore, there needs to be an incentive for the member schools to actively improve their teams (instead of just dumbing down their schedules). If the ACC fielded more competitive teams, ticket/merch sales would combine with a reduced risk of not being bowl eligible and create an incentive to schedule higher quality (i.e. non-cupcake) winnable games. That would maximize bowl revenue, league perception,a nd TV value. The ACC could build such an incentive by standardizing and auditing accounting, penalizing schools that have non-scholarship expenses below a standard deviation below conference averages, and then rewarding those schools with non-scholarship expenses above a standard deviation above league averages with the penalty money. That would create an incentive for the bottom to spend more on athletics and it would create an incentive for the schools at the top to keep investing in their program or invest a little more to push it into upper echelon status. In other words, the bottom would constantly improve and the top would constantly improve. That would dramatically increase the conference's equity, and since each school could spend the money as they see best fit given their individual situations, the money would be spent as efficiently as possible.

(06-06-2015 10:37 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I said the following earlier in this thread, but I do think that it's worth repeating:

*Linking post season revenue to post season appearance is OK, but it's only half of the equation. That incentivizes scheduling cupcakes like crazy, which kills TV value. As such, ACC doesn't want those incentives. Instead, the ACC wants ACC schools to consistently beat the best possible teams that they can, which maximizes bowl revenue without sacrificing TV revenue. Sometimes the best team a school can beat is a cupcake, but other times it isn't. Therefore, there needs to be an incentive for the member schools to actively improve their teams (instead of just dumbing down their schedules). If the ACC fielded more competitive teams, ticket/merch sales would combine with a reduced risk of not being bowl eligible and create an incentive to schedule higher quality (i.e. non-cupcake) winnable games. That would maximize bowl revenue, league perception,a nd TV value. The ACC could build such an incentive by standardizing and auditing accounting, penalizing schools that have non-scholarship expenses below a standard deviation below conference averages, and then rewarding those schools with non-scholarship expenses above a standard deviation above league averages with the penalty money. That would create an incentive for the bottom to spend more on athletics and it would create an incentive for the schools at the top to keep investing in their program or invest a little more to push it into upper echelon status. In other words, the bottom would constantly improve and the top would constantly improve. That would dramatically increase the conference's equity, and since each school could spend the money as they see best fit given their individual situations, the money would be spent as efficiently as possible.

You are overthinking it IMHO.

The college playoff committee does all that.....so if you make it in...and bring in the revenue. The ACC shouldn't give a darn how....just that you did.

Same thing with the Orange Bowl or other BCS games.


Don't complicate it.....if you bring the ACC the check, you get a percent cut first.

It is one of the few things the ACC can do IMHO to improve football. I don't think it will because it isn't interested in that and we have too many schools that want to invest as little as possible while collecting an easy check someone else earned. Other conferences don't have this issue near as much as the ACC.....so the ACC has to act a bit differently (and the SEC does incentivize football a bit already).

(06-06-2015 01:49 PM)nole Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 10:37 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I said the following earlier in this thread, but I do think that it's worth repeating:

*Linking post season revenue to post season appearance is OK, but it's only half of the equation. That incentivizes scheduling cupcakes like crazy, which kills TV value. As such, ACC doesn't want those incentives. Instead, the ACC wants ACC schools to consistently beat the best possible teams that they can, which maximizes bowl revenue without sacrificing TV revenue. Sometimes the best team a school can beat is a cupcake, but other times it isn't. Therefore, there needs to be an incentive for the member schools to actively improve their teams (instead of just dumbing down their schedules). If the ACC fielded more competitive teams, ticket/merch sales would combine with a reduced risk of not being bowl eligible and create an incentive to schedule higher quality (i.e. non-cupcake) winnable games. That would maximize bowl revenue, league perception,a nd TV value. The ACC could build such an incentive by standardizing and auditing accounting, penalizing schools that have non-scholarship expenses below a standard deviation below conference averages, and then rewarding those schools with non-scholarship expenses above a standard deviation above league averages with the penalty money. That would create an incentive for the bottom to spend more on athletics and it would create an incentive for the schools at the top to keep investing in their program or invest a little more to push it into upper echelon status. In other words, the bottom would constantly improve and the top would constantly improve. That would dramatically increase the conference's equity, and since each school could spend the money as they see best fit given their individual situations, the money would be spent as efficiently as possible.

You are overthinking it IMHO.

The college playoff committee does all that.....so if you make it in...and bring in the revenue. The ACC shouldn't give a darn how....just that you did.

Same thing with the Orange Bowl or other BCS games.


Don't complicate it.....if you bring the ACC the check, you get a percent cut first.

It is one of the few things the ACC can do IMHO to improve football. I don't think it will because it isn't interested in that and we have too many schools that want to invest as little as possible while collecting an easy check someone else earned. Other conferences don't have this issue near as much as the ACC.....so the ACC has to act a bit differently (and the SEC does incentivize football a bit already).

Here's the problem. When SU plays PSU, the ACC creates millions in TV value which theoretically will be reflected during the next TV negotiations (albeit indirectly). When SU wins OOC games and plays in a bowl, the ACC makes hundreds of thousands (that's the usual marginal bowl payout). When SU plays (insert cupcake here), the ACC creates hundreds of thousands in TV money which will theoretically impact the next round of TV negotiations.

If the ACC ever wants to increase its media payout (and/or total payout), it needs ACC teams playing decent other teams. However, if ACC teams play those games and get demolished, it kills league perception and bowl revenue. You can't just look at one part of the problem and find a solution. You have to look at the entire problem and all the root causes. The SEC can get away playing east north west south Alaskan state technical college of Hawai'i, because everyone already thinks that they're good and their large stadiums and passionate fan bases buy tickets which offset "would be" TV money. We can't. We need to win (we agree there), but we need to start winning against at least average teams. In fact, *beating* average+ teams will amplify the side benefit of media hype leading into conference play. In other words, if SU were to get to the point where we could consistently knock off average/good teams, then beating UMD, RU, and PSU would have the side advantage of building up SU v FSU more than if SU ran the tables against EMU, WMU, and UConn. So, the marginal gain from scheduling (and winning) real teams exceeds
those specific games. It also spills into making the rest of the season more valuable.

As such, incentivizing teams to just make bowls by scheduling like NCSU would cost the conference tons of money. Incentivizing teams to build programs like UL creates equity for the conference.

Agreed. And it's not just smart scheduling. It's smart investing as well. Just because a program throws $$$ at football, doesn't mean it will succeed. They have to invest smartly as well.

Posters want to talk about the gap that is developing between the SEC and the ACC, but that gap doesn't just exist in terms of overall money or in media rights or in football revenue. Take a look at the revenue generated by individual SEC basketball teams (not named Kentucky and Tennessee) in a conference where basketball is an after thought overall and compare it to the basketball revenue of ACC teams (not named Louisville, Syracuse, North Carolina, and Duke) in a conference where basketball supposedly reigns supreme.

Right now FSU invests more than $10 million more in football than the rest of the ACC average. Does it truly need to invest that much more to maintain their current level of football revenue and on the field the success? What if they invested only $8 million more and put the other $2 million in basketball? How much more revenue could they generate in basketball in this supposedly basketball-centric conference to help close the gap in that way between themselves and SEC teams?

On the other hand, the reverse is true of North Carolina. How does an institution that ranks 5th overall in terms of athletic expenses rank dead last in the conference in football expenditures? This makes no sense to me.

And back to investing smartly, how does SU rank 4th in terms of football expenditures in the ACC but produce such poor quality on the field results? This is an example of perhaps not investing smartly as well as not scheduling smartly.

I don't know the answer to these questions. I am just putting them out there as food for thought.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-06-2015 02:55 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Agreed. And it's not just smart scheduling. It's smart investing as well. Just because a program throws $$$ at football, doesn't mean it will succeed. They have to invest smartly as well.

Posters want to talk about the gap that is developing between the SEC and the ACC, but that gap doesn't just exist in terms of overall money or in media rights or in football revenue. Take a look at the revenue generated by individual SEC basketball teams (not named Kentucky and Tennessee) in a conference where basketball is an after thought overall and compare it to the basketball revenue of ACC teams (not named Louisville, Syracuse, North Carolina, and Duke) in a conference where basketball supposedly reigns supreme.

Right now FSU invests more than $10 million more in football than the rest of the ACC average. Does it truly need to invest that much more to maintain their current level of football revenue and on the field the success? What if they invested only $8 million more and put the other $2 million in basketball? How much more revenue could they generate in basketball in this supposedly basketball-centric conference to help close the gap in that way between themselves and SEC teams?

On the other hand, the reverse is true of North Carolina. How does an institution that ranks 5th overall in terms of athletic expenses rank dead last in the conference in football expenditures? This makes no sense to me.

And back to investing smartly, how does SU rank 4th in terms of football expenditures in the ACC but produce such poor quality on the field results? This is an example of perhaps not investing smartly as well as not scheduling smartly.

I don't know the answer to these questions. I am just putting them out there as food for thought.

Cheers,
Neil

There is SOOOOO much wrong with the bold......I fear it is the mindset of the ACC and it's leadership overall.


I read that.....and just sigh.


FSU isn't competing with the ACC in football....it is competing with any school competing for national titles.


Don't compare the ACC with each other....compare it with the SEC/B1G.


Also, remember when it comes to investing......invest where the money is. THat is football.. .....the end....period....end of story.


But the ACC will NEVER accept that last part.....they can't.....we ARE the Big East and we will destroy this conference holding onto basketball and a refusal that accept it is a football world.


Only the ACC can't seem to move on here.

(06-06-2015 04:29 PM)nole Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 02:55 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Agreed. And it's not just smart scheduling. It's smart investing as well. Just because a program throws $$$ at football, doesn't mean it will succeed. They have to invest smartly as well.

Posters want to talk about the gap that is developing between the SEC and the ACC, but that gap doesn't just exist in terms of overall money or in media rights or in football revenue. Take a look at the revenue generated by individual SEC basketball teams (not named Kentucky and Tennessee) in a conference where basketball is an after thought overall and compare it to the basketball revenue of ACC teams (not named Louisville, Syracuse, North Carolina, and Duke) in a conference where basketball supposedly reigns supreme.

Right now FSU invests more than $10 million more in football than the rest of the ACC average. Does it truly need to invest that much more to maintain their current level of football revenue and on the field the success? What if they invested only $8 million more and put the other $2 million in basketball? How much more revenue could they generate in basketball in this supposedly basketball-centric conference to help close the gap in that way between themselves and SEC teams?

On the other hand, the reverse is true of North Carolina. How does an institution that ranks 5th overall in terms of athletic expenses rank dead last in the conference in football expenditures? This makes no sense to me.

And back to investing smartly, how does SU rank 4th in terms of football expenditures in the ACC but produce such poor quality on the field results? This is an example of perhaps not investing smartly as well as not scheduling smartly.

I don't know the answer to these questions. I am just putting them out there as food for thought.

Cheers,
Neil

There is SOOOOO much wrong with the bold......I fear it is the mindset of the ACC and it's leadership overall.


I read that.....and just sigh.


FSU isn't competing with the ACC in football....it is competing with any school competing for national titles.


Don't compare the ACC with each other....compare it with the SEC/B1G.


Also, remember when it comes to investing......invest where the money is. THat is football.. .....the end....period....end of story.


But the ACC will NEVER accept that last part.....they can't.....we ARE the Big East and we will destroy this conference holding onto basketball and a refusal that accept it is a football world.


Only the ACC can't seem to move on here.

I predicted that would be your response. You focused only on the FSU part and totally ignored what I said about UNC and SU.

Do you think the gap money will be spent on more football in the SEC? I don't. Other than the cost of living stipends, I think they are basically maxing out on what can be spent on football as it is prior to the newest windfalls. I think they will spend the extra money on other sports to increase their revenues there. Why? Because they are smarter.

Are you aware that the majority of SEC teams not named Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mizzou make anywhere from $3 million to $5 million more than FSU from basketball revenue in a conference not noted for basketball? And outside those four name brand bb schools in the SEC, FSU is probably as good or better than the rest, even Florida since I think their success was tied to Donovan. If FSU is looking to close the revenue gap, internally they might want to consider starting there. Take advantage of the strength of the conference while, as XLance indicated in a post above, working toward having others in the conference and the conference commissioner's office help elevate the conference where weak.

And btw, in case you weren't aware, according to the 2013-14 information, FSU already invests over $9 million more than Florida and over $5 million more than Georgia in football. So again, is FSU's 2013-14 reported expenditure of $32 plus million on football fluky or is this the norm? And if the norm and they want to decrease the revenue gap then they may want to consider looking for other ways to increase revenue if the assumption is football revenue is basically maxed out due to the nature of the ACC.

Cheers,
Neil

Or maybe FSU needs to improve basketbal AND the acc STILL needs to reward the schools that are actually bringing in the revenue...

FSU just renovated the interior of the arena. It's already well into the planning stage to completely reinvent the basketball arena "area". That includes more than doubling the practice facility size, building academic buildings on the adjacent property, as well as a hotel, conference center, and potentially mixed use dorm/retail on site as well.

Our current AD has been anything but impressive, but it was said he was brought on board to help with the basketball program. If he can just get the program to a point where it's ranked at some point in the season the majority of the time, I'd consider his tenure fairly successful. Hopefully that translates to higher attendance and increased basketball sales and contributions.

We just signed a top 5ish class and look to land another highly ranked class in 2016, something we were unable to do the last few years despite making 4 straight ncaat and a sweet sixteen.

With basketball, we kind if find ourselves with a coach who isn't a good x and o's guy but is a pretty solid recruiter and built the program back up to respectability after current unc assistant Steve Robinson literally cratered the program. It's not a stretch to say we were the 9th best (aka the worst) team in the conference during the late 90s/early 00s before her took over. He's kind of too good to fire, given our history, but too bad to really energize the fan base. I can only hope we hire some hot shot young coach in a few years once Hamilton eventually retires and see if we can catch lightning in a bottle. And yes, FSU must have competitive facilities and offer a competitive salary in order to hire a quality going coach liked that. Hopefully that's what we're doing, getting things on place for that future hire.

Again, FSU knows it can and must improve from within, and it's making the attempt and investment. And I have never said the acc needs to improve school specific factors like basketball, ticket sales and booster contributions. But my question is what is the acc doing to improve itself and remain competitive and viable into the future?

(06-06-2015 07:44 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Or maybe FSU needs to improve basketbal AND the acc STILL needs to reward the schools that are actually bringing in the revenue...

...what is the acc doing to improve itself and remain competitive and viable into the future?

THIS. (I think OmniOrange agrees). FSU can probably make a couple to three million more per year on basketball, while maintaining football. The question is, can other ACC teams improve football by the same $2-$3 million/year while maintaining basketball? If every team could increase revenue by $3 million in their "2nd" sport, things might start to look up..

(06-06-2015 07:44 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  But my question is what is the acc doing to improve itself and remain competitive and viable into the future?

Simple as this.


So much concern about what FSU is doing or what it should do to be better. Where are the weak links in the ACC? If your first thought is FSU.....you are living on another planet.



For those interested....here is the website that addresses the basketball district FSU has started on. It began with purchasing the arena a year or so again.

http://arenadistrict.fsu.edu/

No. What is the conference itself - the actual entity that is the acc, not its component schools - doing to remain a viable conference for schools like FSU?

I don't trust most of the schools to actually do anything because it's 2015 and most the conference is mediocre or bad at football...still. Enough of the "if's". That has been the slogan for years: if xyz can do abc this confidence will be unstoppable. Tick. Tock. We are still waiting.

(06-06-2015 08:22 PM)nole Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 07:44 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  But my question is what is the acc doing to improve itself and remain competitive and viable into the future?

Simple as this.


So much concern about what FSU is doing or what it should do to be better. Where are the weak links in the ACC? If your first thought is FSU.....you are living on another planet.



For those interested....here is the website that addresses the basketball district FSU has started on. It began with purchasing the arena a year or so again.

http://arenadistrict.fsu.edu/

It's FSU's fault the acc tv contract and conference payouts are low. That's what some stupid people on this board routinely say.

I also think that the ACC should drop almost all recruiting/academic limitations to the NCAA minimum.* SU and BC should be allowed to participate in camps in Maryland and New Jersey, Pitt and UL should be allowed to participate in camps in Ohio, and Clemson should be allowed to participate in camps in Louisiana (I know was targeting LA several years ago).

Finally, the ACC needs to start defending schools from the NCAA (this point should resonate with Clemson fans). SEC schools almost overtly pay players and PSU almost literally got away with murder, but SU gets annihilated over about $4,000-$5,000 and an isolated instance of a secretary writing a paper for a kid (who got benched almost immediately thereafter).

*I can understand a restriction against participating in a non-home state that's a home state of another ACC member school, but a blanket restriction is too strong.

(06-06-2015 08:30 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  No. What is the conference itself - the actual entity that is the acc, not its component schools - doing to remain a viable conference for schools like FSU?

I don't trust most of the schools to actually do anything because it's 2015 and most the conference is mediocre or bad at football...still. Enough of the "if's". That has been the slogan for years: if xyz can do abc this confidence will be unstoppable. Tick. Tock. We are still waiting.

There is not a single school in the conference that has made investments in athletics on the scale of Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, Penn State, and Florida (aka the competition). Obviously some are better than others, but this isn't a "most v some" issue. It's a conference-wide issue. The *entire* conference needs to be incentivized to invest in athletics on an institutional level. That kind of incentive would have to take the form of increased budgets and the autonomy to spend the money in a way that will maximize RoI for that school's specific position/situation.

(06-06-2015 08:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I also think that the ACC should drop almost all recruiting/academic limitations to the NCAA minimum.* SU and BC should be allowed to participate in camps in Maryland and New Jersey, Pitt and UL should be allowed to participate in camps in Ohio, and Clemson should be allowed to participate in camps in Louisiana (I know LA was a recruiting target of their several years ago).

Finally, the ACC needs to start defending schools from the NCAA (this point should resonate with Clemson fans). SEC schools almost overtly pay players and PSU almost literally got away with murder, but SU gets annihilated over about $4,000-$5,000 and an isolated instance of a secretary writing a paper for a kid (who got benched almost immediately thereafter).

*I can understand a restriction against participating in a non-home state that's a home state of another ACC member school, but a blanket restriction is too strong.

I agree with you.

The fact the bold even needs to be said illustrates decades of dysfunction in the ACC. The same people are running things.

UNC, Duke, UVa, Wake Forest, NC State = 5 votes (assuming a block)
FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, Louisville, VT, Pitt, Cuse, BC, Notre Dame = 10 votes
10/15 = 67% = 2/3
How are the same guys running things anymore?