(07-10-2018 08:57 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 08:03 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 12:17 PM)nole Wrote:  It was OK.

Interesting Teel stated current revenue gaps would not be 'sustainable.' Basically, by his logic, the ACCN has to produce major revenue for the ACC.

Or what? Noles gonna walk? They can't. They're bound by their grant of rights and there's nowhere to walk to anyway. All this huffing and puffing is useless. The ACC network will generate the revenues it generates. We'll find out when we find out. Noles were at the table when all the decisions were made. I've never heard that the Noles dissented from any major decision.

There is a minority faction at FSU that wants to be in the SEC no matter what it costs them and no matter how far it knocks the program down. It's that simple. You have to placate that faction.


As it stands now, only Clemson has an equal or better program than FSU in the ACC. I would suggest that Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, and perhaps LSU have an equal or better program to FSU.


Other than Clemson, there are just a handful of ACC schools that give FSU trouble on the football field with any regularity - Miami and NC State and to a lesser degree Wake Forest has been a thorn.

HEY!!! .... Louisville has two in a row over Florida State, and if not for a furious comeback with Dalvin Cook and Jameis Winston at Cardinal Stadium in 2014, the Cards would have 4 out of 5 going with the Noles!

We're a thorn in their side too!!

(07-11-2018 06:29 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  Espn is vested to much in the ACC, I think they will find a way to equalize the money.

ESPN is vested in Disney's bottom line profit. Nothing more, nothing less.

Espn lost a lot with the Big ten network, I think they will do what they need to do to protect that. If that means the ACC and SEC going after Big 12 schools to increase viewership and profits it will happen.

(07-11-2018 07:40 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  Espn lost a lot with the Big ten network, I think they will do what they need to do to protect that. If that means the ACC and SEC going after Big 12 schools to increase viewership and profits it will happen.

ESPN's history has been to underwhelmingly reward the ACC and to a lesser extent the SEC for additions we have made at their behest. And then they add to the gap by letting FOX bid them up on the other half of the Big 10's bloated 6 year contract out of fear of losing a few games of note there per year.

I'd say the mother's have done us no favors and are screwing the ACC until 2037 but then that's just as much Swofford's fault as anyone else's. And quite frankly I don't trust them during the 2023-4 realignment window. I hope I'm wrong but they are getting more tightfisted at the wrong time to help us.

(07-11-2018 05:42 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The one trick pony is also the only pony that matters. For TV. For revenue. For conference organizational structures themselves. If being a non-one trick pony comes at the expense of ruling over an empire of dirt it isn't worth it.

Really? Then why was Big Ten basketball the catalyst for profitability. It is a known fact that without Big Ten basketball, the Big Ten network would not have flourish. Helluva lot more inventory in bball than there is in football. It's cyclical.

(07-11-2018 08:21 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 05:42 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The one trick pony is also the only pony that matters. For TV. For revenue. For conference organizational structures themselves. If being a non-one trick pony comes at the expense of ruling over an empire of dirt it isn't worth it.

Really? Then why was Big Ten basketball the catalyst for profitability. It is a known fact that without Big Ten basketball, the Big Ten network would not have flourish. Helluva lot more inventory in bball than there is in football. It's cyclical.

I would agree that basketball helped the BTN get carriage, but "the catalyst for profitability"? "...a known fact that without Big Ten basketball, the Big Ten network would not have flourish"? Really? that's going a bit too far, IMO.

(07-11-2018 04:59 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:58 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 10:19 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I know people often point out that there is a diminishing return on facilities about a certain amount of money - and I totally agree with that. However, what is often missed is that there are no caps on (a) recruiting budgets, or (b) coaches salaries. Therefore, a huge revenue gap over a long period of time likely results in some schools recruiting a larger area and hiring up all of the best coaches (and not just head coaches; Alabama has had former head coaches on their staff in the role of "advisors" - but it keeps lower revenue teams from hiring those guys all the same). These are the two biggest problems with the revenue gap, IMO: hiring assistant coaches and being able to recruit more players over a wider area effectively.

And, there is still zero correlation between winning it all and TV contract revenue. You do not have to look at the history of football national champions to name the champs. It is a repeating cycle that rarely include outsiders. For all of the money being received and spent by Texas A&M, they are no closer to winning a football national championship than VaTech or GaTech or NC State or Minnesota or Iowa, etc. The fact that you do not see different programs (in the Big Ten and SEC) jump up, challenge and win their conference championship as well as national titles speaks volumes about the effect these additional TV revenues are having.

Except that Michigan, Alabama, Ohio State, U.S.C.w, Oklahoma, Texas, and historically Notre Dame have always earned more. Maybe that's not just TV revenue but they have always had more to spend. TV revenue in the SEC is roughly 1/4th of our total revenue historically. However, in recent years it has been increasing and as the TV revenue shoots up it will ultimately be a larger % of the revenue pie. So whether the Auburn's, Tennessee's, Florida's, L.S.U.'s, A&M's, Va Tech's, F.S.U.'s, Clemson's, Georgia Tech's or Miami's of the world want to compete will depend more and more upon that TV revenue and the gap is real and will have an impact. However if you are UNC and obviously don't give a hoot about anything but Hoops and Lacrosse then of course you would feel as you do. But at the schools named having the legitimate belief that you can compete is what drives the momentum for ticket sales and donations. So it will always be relevant to them.

You are correct that UNC obviously does not want to be a one trick pony like your Auburns, Bamas, UGas, etc, but our unfortunate inability to improve our middling program isn't do to not trying. You certainly made the case for me since SEC programs have won national championships prior to the influx of additional funds. FSU and Miami was head and shoulders above all SEC programs and they certainly won championships without the ticket sales, TV revenue, etc. It took the retiring of a legend at FSU and the probation & vilification of the U for UF to even sniff a national championship. Again, where is the correlation? Shouldn't the IU's, Vandy's, etc be eclipsing the lesser funded programs in the ACC?

Which legend retired at FSU in the mid 1990's when Florida played for a national title in 95 and won one in 96? How about 2006 and 2008 when they won the two under Meyer? Who retired then? Last time I checked Bowden didn't retire until AFTER the 2009 season.

(07-11-2018 11:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 04:59 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:58 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 10:19 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I know people often point out that there is a diminishing return on facilities about a certain amount of money - and I totally agree with that. However, what is often missed is that there are no caps on (a) recruiting budgets, or (b) coaches salaries. Therefore, a huge revenue gap over a long period of time likely results in some schools recruiting a larger area and hiring up all of the best coaches (and not just head coaches; Alabama has had former head coaches on their staff in the role of "advisors" - but it keeps lower revenue teams from hiring those guys all the same). These are the two biggest problems with the revenue gap, IMO: hiring assistant coaches and being able to recruit more players over a wider area effectively.

And, there is still zero correlation between winning it all and TV contract revenue. You do not have to look at the history of football national champions to name the champs. It is a repeating cycle that rarely include outsiders. For all of the money being received and spent by Texas A&M, they are no closer to winning a football national championship than VaTech or GaTech or NC State or Minnesota or Iowa, etc. The fact that you do not see different programs (in the Big Ten and SEC) jump up, challenge and win their conference championship as well as national titles speaks volumes about the effect these additional TV revenues are having.

Except that Michigan, Alabama, Ohio State, U.S.C.w, Oklahoma, Texas, and historically Notre Dame have always earned more. Maybe that's not just TV revenue but they have always had more to spend. TV revenue in the SEC is roughly 1/4th of our total revenue historically. However, in recent years it has been increasing and as the TV revenue shoots up it will ultimately be a larger % of the revenue pie. So whether the Auburn's, Tennessee's, Florida's, L.S.U.'s, A&M's, Va Tech's, F.S.U.'s, Clemson's, Georgia Tech's or Miami's of the world want to compete will depend more and more upon that TV revenue and the gap is real and will have an impact. However if you are UNC and obviously don't give a hoot about anything but Hoops and Lacrosse then of course you would feel as you do. But at the schools named having the legitimate belief that you can compete is what drives the momentum for ticket sales and donations. So it will always be relevant to them.

You are correct that UNC obviously does not want to be a one trick pony like your Auburns, Bamas, UGas, etc, but our unfortunate inability to improve our middling program isn't do to not trying. You certainly made the case for me since SEC programs have won national championships prior to the influx of additional funds. FSU and Miami was head and shoulders above all SEC programs and they certainly won championships without the ticket sales, TV revenue, etc. It took the retiring of a legend at FSU and the probation & vilification of the U for UF to even sniff a national championship. Again, where is the correlation? Shouldn't the IU's, Vandy's, etc be eclipsing the lesser funded programs in the ACC?

Which legend retired at FSU in the mid 1990's when Florida played for a national title in 95 and won one in 96? How about 2006 and 2008 when they won the two under Meyer? Who retired then? Last time I checked Bowden didn't retire until AFTER the 2009 season.

Well he missed on so many points. We had championships before and after the influx of cash but it's the number of schools who have won them that proves the point that it matters.

(07-11-2018 11:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 04:59 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:58 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  And, there is still zero correlation between winning it all and TV contract revenue. You do not have to look at the history of football national champions to name the champs. It is a repeating cycle that rarely include outsiders. For all of the money being received and spent by Texas A&M, they are no closer to winning a football national championship than VaTech or GaTech or NC State or Minnesota or Iowa, etc. The fact that you do not see different programs (in the Big Ten and SEC) jump up, challenge and win their conference championship as well as national titles speaks volumes about the effect these additional TV revenues are having.

Except that Michigan, Alabama, Ohio State, U.S.C.w, Oklahoma, Texas, and historically Notre Dame have always earned more. Maybe that's not just TV revenue but they have always had more to spend. TV revenue in the SEC is roughly 1/4th of our total revenue historically. However, in recent years it has been increasing and as the TV revenue shoots up it will ultimately be a larger % of the revenue pie. So whether the Auburn's, Tennessee's, Florida's, L.S.U.'s, A&M's, Va Tech's, F.S.U.'s, Clemson's, Georgia Tech's or Miami's of the world want to compete will depend more and more upon that TV revenue and the gap is real and will have an impact. However if you are UNC and obviously don't give a hoot about anything but Hoops and Lacrosse then of course you would feel as you do. But at the schools named having the legitimate belief that you can compete is what drives the momentum for ticket sales and donations. So it will always be relevant to them.

You are correct that UNC obviously does not want to be a one trick pony like your Auburns, Bamas, UGas, etc, but our unfortunate inability to improve our middling program isn't do to not trying. You certainly made the case for me since SEC programs have won national championships prior to the influx of additional funds. FSU and Miami was head and shoulders above all SEC programs and they certainly won championships without the ticket sales, TV revenue, etc. It took the retiring of a legend at FSU and the probation & vilification of the U for UF to even sniff a national championship. Again, where is the correlation? Shouldn't the IU's, Vandy's, etc be eclipsing the lesser funded programs in the ACC?

Which legend retired at FSU in the mid 1990's when Florida played for a national title in 95 and won one in 96? How about 2006 and 2008 when they won the two under Meyer? Who retired then? Last time I checked Bowden didn't retire until AFTER the 2009 season.

Well he missed on so many points. We had championships before and after the influx of cash but it's the number of schools who have won them that proves the point that it matters.

Heaven forbid we let anything like facts get in the way of a good rant.

(07-12-2018 12:34 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 04:59 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Except that Michigan, Alabama, Ohio State, U.S.C.w, Oklahoma, Texas, and historically Notre Dame have always earned more. Maybe that's not just TV revenue but they have always had more to spend. TV revenue in the SEC is roughly 1/4th of our total revenue historically. However, in recent years it has been increasing and as the TV revenue shoots up it will ultimately be a larger % of the revenue pie. So whether the Auburn's, Tennessee's, Florida's, L.S.U.'s, A&M's, Va Tech's, F.S.U.'s, Clemson's, Georgia Tech's or Miami's of the world want to compete will depend more and more upon that TV revenue and the gap is real and will have an impact. However if you are UNC and obviously don't give a hoot about anything but Hoops and Lacrosse then of course you would feel as you do. But at the schools named having the legitimate belief that you can compete is what drives the momentum for ticket sales and donations. So it will always be relevant to them.

You are correct that UNC obviously does not want to be a one trick pony like your Auburns, Bamas, UGas, etc, but our unfortunate inability to improve our middling program isn't do to not trying. You certainly made the case for me since SEC programs have won national championships prior to the influx of additional funds. FSU and Miami was head and shoulders above all SEC programs and they certainly won championships without the ticket sales, TV revenue, etc. It took the retiring of a legend at FSU and the probation & vilification of the U for UF to even sniff a national championship. Again, where is the correlation? Shouldn't the IU's, Vandy's, etc be eclipsing the lesser funded programs in the ACC?

Which legend retired at FSU in the mid 1990's when Florida played for a national title in 95 and won one in 96? How about 2006 and 2008 when they won the two under Meyer? Who retired then? Last time I checked Bowden didn't retire until AFTER the 2009 season.

Well he missed on so many points. We had championships before and after the influx of cash but it's the number of schools who have won them that proves the point that it matters.

Heaven forbid we let anything like facts get in the way of a good rant.

(07-11-2018 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 07:40 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  Espn lost a lot with the Big ten network, I think they will do what they need to do to protect that. If that means the ACC and SEC going after Big 12 schools to increase viewership and profits it will happen.

ESPN's history has been to underwhelmingly reward the ACC and to a lesser extent the SEC for additions we have made at their behest. And then they add to the gap by letting FOX bid them up on the other half of the Big 10's bloated 6 year contract out of fear of losing a few games of note there per year.

I'd say the mother's have done us no favors and are screwing the ACC until 2037 but then that's just as much Swofford's fault as anyone else's. And quite frankly I don't trust them during the 2023-4 realignment window. I hope I'm wrong but they are getting more tightfisted at the wrong time to help us.

There's no doubt in my mind that the SEC and ACC were both extremely underpaid by ESPN. Both have ended up locked into decades-long agreements. The ACC is worst by absolute value for sure, I'm not sure the SEC hasn't been just as bad or worse by relative value.

Money will be made for sure, but at the end of the day, both conferences are looking at not being able to take their product to market over decades (other than the ESPN CBS package), and there's no doubt that results in less than max payments.

Of course...there are some returns for that...in a volatile industry, being locked in has some advantages. They've also guaranteed themselves hitched to to the flagship machine of college football coverage.

(07-16-2018 10:23 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 07:40 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  Espn lost a lot with the Big ten network, I think they will do what they need to do to protect that. If that means the ACC and SEC going after Big 12 schools to increase viewership and profits it will happen.

ESPN's history has been to underwhelmingly reward the ACC and to a lesser extent the SEC for additions we have made at their behest. And then they add to the gap by letting FOX bid them up on the other half of the Big 10's bloated 6 year contract out of fear of losing a few games of note there per year.

I'd say the mother's have done us no favors and are screwing the ACC until 2037 but then that's just as much Swofford's fault as anyone else's. And quite frankly I don't trust them during the 2023-4 realignment window. I hope I'm wrong but they are getting more tightfisted at the wrong time to help us.

There's no doubt in my mind that the SEC and ACC were both extremely underpaid by ESPN. Both have ended up locked into decades-long agreements. The ACC is worst by absolute value for sure, I'm not sure the SEC hasn't been just as bad or worse by relative value.

Money will be made for sure, but at the end of the day, both conferences are looking at not being able to take their product to market over decades (other than the ESPN CBS package), and there's no doubt that results in less than max payments.

Of course...there are some returns for that...in a volatile industry, being locked in has some advantages. They've also guaranteed themselves hitched to to the flagship machine of college football coverage.

College Presidents love stability, and guaranteed cash flow.

(07-11-2018 06:54 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 08:57 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 08:03 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 12:17 PM)nole Wrote:  It was OK.

Interesting Teel stated current revenue gaps would not be 'sustainable.' Basically, by his logic, the ACCN has to produce major revenue for the ACC.

Or what? Noles gonna walk? They can't. They're bound by their grant of rights and there's nowhere to walk to anyway. All this huffing and puffing is useless. The ACC network will generate the revenues it generates. We'll find out when we find out. Noles were at the table when all the decisions were made. I've never heard that the Noles dissented from any major decision.

There is a minority faction at FSU that wants to be in the SEC no matter what it costs them and no matter how far it knocks the program down. It's that simple. You have to placate that faction.


As it stands now, only Clemson has an equal or better program than FSU in the ACC. I would suggest that Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, and perhaps LSU have an equal or better program to FSU.


Other than Clemson, there are just a handful of ACC schools that give FSU trouble on the football field with any regularity - Miami and NC State and to a lesser degree Wake Forest has been a thorn.

HEY!!! .... Louisville has two in a row over Florida State, and if not for a furious comeback with Dalvin Cook and Jameis Winston at Cardinal Stadium in 2014, the Cards would have 4 out of 5 going with the Noles!

We're a thorn in their side too!!

The old ACC will be changed very soon. Go Cards!

(07-11-2018 11:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 04:59 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:58 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 10:19 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I know people often point out that there is a diminishing return on facilities about a certain amount of money - and I totally agree with that. However, what is often missed is that there are no caps on (a) recruiting budgets, or (b) coaches salaries. Therefore, a huge revenue gap over a long period of time likely results in some schools recruiting a larger area and hiring up all of the best coaches (and not just head coaches; Alabama has had former head coaches on their staff in the role of "advisors" - but it keeps lower revenue teams from hiring those guys all the same). These are the two biggest problems with the revenue gap, IMO: hiring assistant coaches and being able to recruit more players over a wider area effectively.

And, there is still zero correlation between winning it all and TV contract revenue. You do not have to look at the history of football national champions to name the champs. It is a repeating cycle that rarely include outsiders. For all of the money being received and spent by Texas A&M, they are no closer to winning a football national championship than VaTech or GaTech or NC State or Minnesota or Iowa, etc. The fact that you do not see different programs (in the Big Ten and SEC) jump up, challenge and win their conference championship as well as national titles speaks volumes about the effect these additional TV revenues are having.

Except that Michigan, Alabama, Ohio State, U.S.C.w, Oklahoma, Texas, and historically Notre Dame have always earned more. Maybe that's not just TV revenue but they have always had more to spend. TV revenue in the SEC is roughly 1/4th of our total revenue historically. However, in recent years it has been increasing and as the TV revenue shoots up it will ultimately be a larger % of the revenue pie. So whether the Auburn's, Tennessee's, Florida's, L.S.U.'s, A&M's, Va Tech's, F.S.U.'s, Clemson's, Georgia Tech's or Miami's of the world want to compete will depend more and more upon that TV revenue and the gap is real and will have an impact. However if you are UNC and obviously don't give a hoot about anything but Hoops and Lacrosse then of course you would feel as you do. But at the schools named having the legitimate belief that you can compete is what drives the momentum for ticket sales and donations. So it will always be relevant to them.

You are correct that UNC obviously does not want to be a one trick pony like your Auburns, Bamas, UGas, etc, but our unfortunate inability to improve our middling program isn't do to not trying. You certainly made the case for me since SEC programs have won national championships prior to the influx of additional funds. FSU and Miami was head and shoulders above all SEC programs and they certainly won championships without the ticket sales, TV revenue, etc. It took the retiring of a legend at FSU and the probation & vilification of the U for UF to even sniff a national championship. Again, where is the correlation? Shouldn't the IU's, Vandy's, etc be eclipsing the lesser funded programs in the ACC?

Which legend retired at FSU in the mid 1990's when Florida played for a national title in 95 and won one in 96? How about 2006 and 2008 when they won the two under Meyer? Who retired then? Last time I checked Bowden didn't retire until AFTER the 2009 season.

Love how you convenient didn't mention the U and the 1995 probation. 1995: On probation for three years, banned from playing in a bowl for one season, stripped of 31 scholarships over three years and publicly reprimanded and censured for proving improper financial aid to players, for players receiving cash awards for game performance and for players being allowed to compete without being subjected to the required disciplinary measures in the drug-testing program. The NCAA charged the school with “lack of institutional control.”

UF certainly benefited from the issues that was present at the U. They certainly were not a top program in Larry Coker's last season going 7-6 (3-5 in the ACC) and then 7-6 (4-4 in the ACC) in Randy Shannon 2nd season. They were losing South Florida talent left and right. South Florida talent were headed else where.

As far as FSU, the slow death walk FSU went through started in in 2005 with a 8-5 season and the wheels fell off a program as Bowden couldn't call it quits. No coincidence that the two most decorated football programs in Florida were on downward spirals.

JR.... the fact that SEC teams won national championships prior to the influx of cash from TV revenue further strengthen the fact that the correlation between TV revenue and on the field success is specious at best. You guys love ignoring the fact that
1. The college football national champions club is an extremely small group of programs. Neb., USC, UO, OSU, UF, Bama, Penn State, Michigan, ND, FSU, Clemson, Auburn, UW, UT, Texas, the U. May have missed some but there isn't many and the athletic budgets are very diverse.
2. The influx of money should mean UK, Purdue, Iowa, UI, IU, Vandy should be blowing less funded opponents out of the water.

Please explain why we are not seeing that success since you crow about the success and influx of money. In an earlier post you mentioned the money from boosters and tickets and that SEC always had money. That is why they succeeded in the past. If that were true, Michigan wouldn't be chasing a football championship, Tenn certainly would have one since 1998. Texas would have been shut out for so long. Thank God for Vince Young and Mack Brown huh? FSU and Miami shouldn't have been able to compete nor win championships. Please explain.

As far Kap.... Kap gets a pass since he waited for 30+ years to be happy. Really rooting for him to not have to wait another 30+ years. Clemson may not be a one trick pony (they did win national championships in golf and soccer) but that 0-58 in Chapel Hill cracks me up. Rant over.

(07-16-2018 08:44 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 04:59 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:58 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  And, there is still zero correlation between winning it all and TV contract revenue. You do not have to look at the history of football national champions to name the champs. It is a repeating cycle that rarely include outsiders. For all of the money being received and spent by Texas A&M, they are no closer to winning a football national championship than VaTech or GaTech or NC State or Minnesota or Iowa, etc. The fact that you do not see different programs (in the Big Ten and SEC) jump up, challenge and win their conference championship as well as national titles speaks volumes about the effect these additional TV revenues are having.

Except that Michigan, Alabama, Ohio State, U.S.C.w, Oklahoma, Texas, and historically Notre Dame have always earned more. Maybe that's not just TV revenue but they have always had more to spend. TV revenue in the SEC is roughly 1/4th of our total revenue historically. However, in recent years it has been increasing and as the TV revenue shoots up it will ultimately be a larger % of the revenue pie. So whether the Auburn's, Tennessee's, Florida's, L.S.U.'s, A&M's, Va Tech's, F.S.U.'s, Clemson's, Georgia Tech's or Miami's of the world want to compete will depend more and more upon that TV revenue and the gap is real and will have an impact. However if you are UNC and obviously don't give a hoot about anything but Hoops and Lacrosse then of course you would feel as you do. But at the schools named having the legitimate belief that you can compete is what drives the momentum for ticket sales and donations. So it will always be relevant to them.

You are correct that UNC obviously does not want to be a one trick pony like your Auburns, Bamas, UGas, etc, but our unfortunate inability to improve our middling program isn't do to not trying. You certainly made the case for me since SEC programs have won national championships prior to the influx of additional funds. FSU and Miami was head and shoulders above all SEC programs and they certainly won championships without the ticket sales, TV revenue, etc. It took the retiring of a legend at FSU and the probation & vilification of the U for UF to even sniff a national championship. Again, where is the correlation? Shouldn't the IU's, Vandy's, etc be eclipsing the lesser funded programs in the ACC?

Which legend retired at FSU in the mid 1990's when Florida played for a national title in 95 and won one in 96? How about 2006 and 2008 when they won the two under Meyer? Who retired then? Last time I checked Bowden didn't retire until AFTER the 2009 season.

Love how you convenient didn't mention the U and the 1995 probation. 1995: On probation for three years, banned from playing in a bowl for one season, stripped of 31 scholarships over three years and publicly reprimanded and censured for proving improper financial aid to players, for players receiving cash awards for game performance and for players being allowed to compete without being subjected to the required disciplinary measures in the drug-testing program. The NCAA charged the school with “lack of institutional control.”

UF certainly benefited from the issues that was present at the U. They certainly were not a top program in Larry Coker's last season going 7-6 (3-5 in the ACC) and then 7-6 (4-4 in the ACC) in Randy Shannon 2nd season. They were losing South Florida talent left and right. South Florida talent were headed else where.

As far as FSU, the slow death walk FSU went through started in in 2005 with a 8-5 season and the wheels fell off a program as Bowden couldn't call it quits. No coincidence that the two most decorated football programs in Florida were on downward spirals.

JR.... the fact that SEC teams won national championships prior to the influx of cash from TV revenue further strengthen the fact that the correlation between TV revenue and on the field success is specious at best. You guys love ignoring the fact that
1. The college football national champions club is an extremely small group of programs. Neb., USC, UO, OSU, UF, Bama, Penn State, Michigan, ND, FSU, Clemson, Auburn, UW, UT, Texas, the U. May have missed some but there isn't many and the athletic budgets are very diverse.
2. The influx of money should mean UK, Purdue, Iowa, UI, IU, Vandy should be blowing less funded opponents out of the water.

Please explain why we are not seeing that success since you crow about the success and influx of money. In an earlier post you mentioned the money from boosters and tickets and that SEC always had money. That is why they succeeded in the past. If that were true, Michigan wouldn't be chasing a football championship, Tenn certainly would have one since 1998. Texas would have been shut out for so long. Thank God for Vince Young and Mack Brown huh? FSU and Miami shouldn't have been able to compete nor win championships. Please explain.

As far Kap.... Kap gets a pass since he waited for 30+ years to be happy. Really rooting for him to not have to wait another 30+ years. Clemson may not be a one trick pony (they did win national championships in golf and soccer) but that 0-58 in Chapel Hill cracks me up. Rant over.

LOL You make a stupid statement based in fantasy and not only refuse to admit it, you dig in your heels.

Florida had become a fixture in the Top 15 before Miami was busted for cheating, and was well on their way to playing for the national title in 1995 BEFORE Miami was punished. That's what happens when you go undefeated in the regular season. The effects from Miami's probation in 1995 would have been absolutely negligible, and the effects in 1996 would have been only ever so slightly more.

If you don't like getting called out you should try to make statements based in actual fact.

(07-16-2018 09:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 08:44 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 04:59 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Except that Michigan, Alabama, Ohio State, U.S.C.w, Oklahoma, Texas, and historically Notre Dame have always earned more. Maybe that's not just TV revenue but they have always had more to spend. TV revenue in the SEC is roughly 1/4th of our total revenue historically. However, in recent years it has been increasing and as the TV revenue shoots up it will ultimately be a larger % of the revenue pie. So whether the Auburn's, Tennessee's, Florida's, L.S.U.'s, A&M's, Va Tech's, F.S.U.'s, Clemson's, Georgia Tech's or Miami's of the world want to compete will depend more and more upon that TV revenue and the gap is real and will have an impact. However if you are UNC and obviously don't give a hoot about anything but Hoops and Lacrosse then of course you would feel as you do. But at the schools named having the legitimate belief that you can compete is what drives the momentum for ticket sales and donations. So it will always be relevant to them.

You are correct that UNC obviously does not want to be a one trick pony like your Auburns, Bamas, UGas, etc, but our unfortunate inability to improve our middling program isn't do to not trying. You certainly made the case for me since SEC programs have won national championships prior to the influx of additional funds. FSU and Miami was head and shoulders above all SEC programs and they certainly won championships without the ticket sales, TV revenue, etc. It took the retiring of a legend at FSU and the probation & vilification of the U for UF to even sniff a national championship. Again, where is the correlation? Shouldn't the IU's, Vandy's, etc be eclipsing the lesser funded programs in the ACC?

Which legend retired at FSU in the mid 1990's when Florida played for a national title in 95 and won one in 96? How about 2006 and 2008 when they won the two under Meyer? Who retired then? Last time I checked Bowden didn't retire until AFTER the 2009 season.

Love how you convenient didn't mention the U and the 1995 probation. 1995: On probation for three years, banned from playing in a bowl for one season, stripped of 31 scholarships over three years and publicly reprimanded and censured for proving improper financial aid to players, for players receiving cash awards for game performance and for players being allowed to compete without being subjected to the required disciplinary measures in the drug-testing program. The NCAA charged the school with “lack of institutional control.”

UF certainly benefited from the issues that was present at the U. They certainly were not a top program in Larry Coker's last season going 7-6 (3-5 in the ACC) and then 7-6 (4-4 in the ACC) in Randy Shannon 2nd season. They were losing South Florida talent left and right. South Florida talent were headed else where.

As far as FSU, the slow death walk FSU went through started in in 2005 with a 8-5 season and the wheels fell off a program as Bowden couldn't call it quits. No coincidence that the two most decorated football programs in Florida were on downward spirals.

JR.... the fact that SEC teams won national championships prior to the influx of cash from TV revenue further strengthen the fact that the correlation between TV revenue and on the field success is specious at best. You guys love ignoring the fact that
1. The college football national champions club is an extremely small group of programs. Neb., USC, UO, OSU, UF, Bama, Penn State, Michigan, ND, FSU, Clemson, Auburn, UW, UT, Texas, the U. May have missed some but there isn't many and the athletic budgets are very diverse.
2. The influx of money should mean UK, Purdue, Iowa, UI, IU, Vandy should be blowing less funded opponents out of the water.

Please explain why we are not seeing that success since you crow about the success and influx of money. In an earlier post you mentioned the money from boosters and tickets and that SEC always had money. That is why they succeeded in the past. If that were true, Michigan wouldn't be chasing a football championship, Tenn certainly would have one since 1998. Texas would have been shut out for so long. Thank God for Vince Young and Mack Brown huh? FSU and Miami shouldn't have been able to compete nor win championships. Please explain.

As far Kap.... Kap gets a pass since he waited for 30+ years to be happy. Really rooting for him to not have to wait another 30+ years. Clemson may not be a one trick pony (they did win national championships in golf and soccer) but that 0-58 in Chapel Hill cracks me up. Rant over.

LOL You make a stupid statement based in fantasy and not only refuse to admit it, you dig in your heels.

Florida had become a fixture in the Top 15 before Miami was busted for cheating, and was well on their way to playing for the national title in 1995 BEFORE Miami was punished. That's what happens when you go undefeated in the regular season. The effects from Miami's probation in 1995 would have been absolutely negligible, and the effects in 1996 would have been only ever so slightly more.

If you don't like getting called out you should try to make statements based in actual fact.

You should heed your own advice. Now, back to showing the correlation between on the field success and TV revenue? Correlation please?

(07-17-2018 11:00 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  [quote='Kaplony' pid='15387169' dateline='1531795198']
[quote='Indytarheel' pid='15387102' dateline='1531791887']
...back to showing the correlation between on the field success and TV revenue...

This is the only part of this thread I'm personally interested in anyway...

It's nearly impossible to show direct evidence of cause and effect; there are too many other variables besides TV revenue (or, in fact, even total revenue).

However, it's pretty easy to show correlation - especially if you consider ALL of FBS. The only teams to win a national championship in the last 50 years or so are all near the top in terms of revenue - not saying there aren't a few top revenue teams without a trophy (see Virginia Tech Hokies and Texas A&M Aggies for 2 examples) - but what I am saying is that NOBODY below a certain cutoff can win it all.

That "minimum" revenue cut-off may be higher now than it's ever been, thanks to such things as escalating coaches salaries, nationwide recruiting, and expensive facilities, training equipment and even special diets for athletes.

I think the reason FSU and Clemson fans in particular are concerned about ACC TV revenue is because they don't want their teams falling below the "no shot at a title" revenue line. As a VT fan, I'd really like the Hokies to stay in the running, too...

(07-17-2018 01:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 11:00 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  [quote='Kaplony' pid='15387169' dateline='1531795198']
[quote='Indytarheel' pid='15387102' dateline='1531791887']
...back to showing the correlation between on the field success and TV revenue...

This is the only part of this thread I'm personally interested in anyway...

It's nearly impossible to show direct evidence of cause and effect; there are too many other variables besides TV revenue (or, in fact, even total revenue).

However, it's pretty easy to show correlation - especially if you consider ALL of FBS. The only teams to win a national championship in the last 50 years or so are all near the top in terms of revenue - not saying there aren't a few top revenue teams without a trophy (see Virginia Tech Hokies and Texas A&M Aggies for 2 examples) - but what I am saying is that NOBODY below a certain cutoff can win it all.

That "minimum" revenue cut-off may be higher now than it's ever been, thanks to such things as escalating coaches salaries, nationwide recruiting, and expensive facilities, training equipment and even special diets for athletes.

I think the reason FSU and Clemson fans in particular are concerned about ACC TV revenue is because they don't want their teams falling below the "no shot at a title" revenue line. As a VT fan, I'd really like the Hokies to stay in the running, too...

I'd say the competitive line is now 90 million gross total revenue and the winning line is probably 40 million higher on average at 130 million (Clemson's was on the low end of that average and Ohio State's on the high end) and that's a estimate that applies to the past as it could be as high as 140 million moving forward. But clearly the two on the lowest end of the spectrum have been Florida State and Clemson. It's hard to pin down because of the rapid escalation in gross total revenue over the past 6 years.

(07-17-2018 01:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 11:00 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  [quote='Kaplony' pid='15387169' dateline='1531795198']
[quote='Indytarheel' pid='15387102' dateline='1531791887']
...back to showing the correlation between on the field success and TV revenue...

This is the only part of this thread I'm personally interested in anyway...

It's nearly impossible to show direct evidence of cause and effect; there are too many other variables besides TV revenue (or, in fact, even total revenue).

However, it's pretty easy to show correlation - especially if you consider ALL of FBS. The only teams to win a national championship in the last 50 years or so are all near the top in terms of revenue - not saying there aren't a few top revenue teams without a trophy (see Virginia Tech Hokies and Texas A&M Aggies for 2 examples) - but what I am saying is that NOBODY below a certain cutoff can win it all.

That "minimum" revenue cut-off may be higher now than it's ever been, thanks to such things as escalating coaches salaries, nationwide recruiting, and expensive facilities, training equipment and even special diets for athletes.

I think the reason FSU and Clemson fans in particular are concerned about ACC TV revenue is because they don't want their teams falling below the "no shot at a title" revenue line. As a VT fan, I'd really like the Hokies to stay in the running, too...

I totally understand the "fear" of falling behind. I get that. But what seems to be a disconnect is the fact that programs won national championships prior to the influx. Per JR it was ticket sales, donor money etc that gave those programs the edge to be national championship caliber. Well, if that were true, why you don't see a ton of Texas national championships? Why the U as a small private university have done better than UF when it comes to football titles? FSU's success is amazing when you consider the fact that their alumni base and ticket sales couldn't compare to UF, BAMA, etc. FSU has always been behind the 8 ball in comparison to these FSU programs yet, there are very few programs that had the run that FSU accomplished. And, i am not talking about the NC hardware. So, I get coaches salary, staff, advisers, recruiting budget, etc. But the return on those dollars certainly haven't generated a slew of programs competing for national championships. For all the money Texas brings in, 1 national championship in 24 years is not a great return. Same for Texas A&M, Michigan, Tennessee, Penn State. Hell, Ohio State took 32 years to win their first NC since 1970. They certainly had the advantage of high ticket sales, alumni base, fan base and donor dollars. All of those programs also have/had the benefit of being ranked high due to past reputation. Anyway, just a discussion.

Are we confusing cause and effect? It's clear that schools that do well in football derive big revenues from football. It's not at all clear that big revenues cause schools to do well in football, however. See Texas, University of. For that matter, see Clemson, University of.