Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
Author Message
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #21
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 06:37 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 07:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 04:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  How would division realignment or eliminating divisions increase the ACC's media revenue?

The deal for ESPN is this: ACC guarantees more Clemson-Miami, Clemson-VT, FSU-GT, and FSU-UNC games, fewer Clemson-Syracuse and FSU-BC games, more Miami vs. Syracuse and BC, and a conference championship game featuring, not the winners of 2 usually unequal divisions, but rather, the 2 best teams in the conference, period. Now, maybe toss in an agreement to play 10 P5 games per year as well (8 ACC + 2 P5 OOC, but might include some ACC-as-OOC on occasion)... find out how much extra $$$ the Mouse is willing to pay for those schedule upgrades (I'm thinking the previous guess of around $3M per school is close).

Clemson/SU is a pretty good game when Syracuse is good. Guess which was the top rated regular season tv game for the ACC in 2018 and I believe in 2017. I admit that it hasnt been very often that SU has been good since its been in the ACC.

So let those be occasional match-ups, or borrow from the NFL and schedule at least one game each year based on order of finish the previous year. There are things the ACC can do to make the schedule more appealing - but ESPN must be willing to pay for it (and, honestly, overpay given how much they've given to the SEC; the ACC wouldn't be underpaid if not for how much the SEC and Big Ten are getting paid - and that's on ESPN and Fox).
04-09-2021 07:51 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #22
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 07:51 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 06:37 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 07:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 04:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  How would division realignment or eliminating divisions increase the ACC's media revenue?

The deal for ESPN is this: ACC guarantees more Clemson-Miami, Clemson-VT, FSU-GT, and FSU-UNC games, fewer Clemson-Syracuse and FSU-BC games, more Miami vs. Syracuse and BC, and a conference championship game featuring, not the winners of 2 usually unequal divisions, but rather, the 2 best teams in the conference, period. Now, maybe toss in an agreement to play 10 P5 games per year as well (8 ACC + 2 P5 OOC, but might include some ACC-as-OOC on occasion)... find out how much extra $$$ the Mouse is willing to pay for those schedule upgrades (I'm thinking the previous guess of around $3M per school is close).

Clemson/SU is a pretty good game when Syracuse is good. Guess which was the top rated regular season tv game for the ACC in 2018 and I believe in 2017. I admit that it hasnt been very often that SU has been good since its been in the ACC.

So let those be occasional match-ups, or borrow from the NFL and schedule at least one game each year based on order of finish the previous year. There are things the ACC can do to make the schedule more appealing - but ESPN must be willing to pay for it (and, honestly, overpay given how much they've given to the SEC; the ACC wouldn't be underpaid if not for how much the SEC and Big Ten are getting paid - and that's on ESPN and Fox).

There isn't any reason to worry about things you can not control.
If ESPN wants the ACC to change divisions, I am sure the new commissioner would push for any alignment that ESPN wanted. This would provide match ups ESPN wanted to see, and would pay more to get. It's not something the conference will initiate, but something the conference would accommodate.
If we get the money, that's great...if we don't schools are either satisfied with what they have or we all cue up the lawyers.
Either way it is not something the conference can control.
04-09-2021 08:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
random asian guy Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,192
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 331
I Root For: VT, Georgetown
Location:
Post: #23
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-08-2021 10:50 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 04:17 PM)nole Wrote:  when it comes to revenue, divisions and # of conference games is simply rearranging chairs on the deck of the titanic.

Big Ten $54 Million a year per team
ACC $27 Million a year per team


How wide does the gap have to grow before folks see that adding a Wake Forest/ Duke football game for the 9th ACC game of the year doesn't put a dent in that?

New Commish better be thinking MUC bigger than that.

I don't think there's much more the ACC commissioner can do. The reason we haven't gone to 9 conference games before is it wasn't worth the $3 million per school that would replace what football schools get from a marquee OOC game.

The way VT is scheduling now, I'd welcome another ACC game. Our OOC football scheduling has been atrocious under Whit Babcock.

Yeah I would take an extra $3M and one additional ACC game. Some schools will not like this idea, though.
04-09-2021 10:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nole Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,883
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 210
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #24
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 10:50 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 10:50 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 04:17 PM)nole Wrote:  when it comes to revenue, divisions and # of conference games is simply rearranging chairs on the deck of the titanic.

Big Ten $54 Million a year per team
ACC $27 Million a year per team


How wide does the gap have to grow before folks see that adding a Wake Forest/ Duke football game for the 9th ACC game of the year doesn't put a dent in that?

New Commish better be thinking MUC bigger than that.

I don't think there's much more the ACC commissioner can do. The reason we haven't gone to 9 conference games before is it wasn't worth the $3 million per school that would replace what football schools get from a marquee OOC game.

The way VT is scheduling now, I'd welcome another ACC game. Our OOC football scheduling has been atrocious under Whit Babcock.

Yeah I would take an extra $3M and one additional ACC game. Some schools will not like this idea, though.


Is it nice...sure. Does it solve the ACC's revenue issue? Not even close.

Headed toward a P2 and a p3 with some exceptions (Texas, Notre Dame, Oregon) who are independently wealthy
04-09-2021 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #25
Exclamation RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 10:56 AM)nole Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 10:50 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 10:50 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 04:17 PM)nole Wrote:  when it comes to revenue, divisions and # of conference games is simply rearranging chairs on the deck of the titanic.

Big Ten $54 Million a year per team
ACC $27 Million a year per team


How wide does the gap have to grow before folks see that adding a Wake Forest/ Duke football game for the 9th ACC game of the year doesn't put a dent in that?

New Commish better be thinking MUC bigger than that.

I don't think there's much more the ACC commissioner can do. The reason we haven't gone to 9 conference games before is it wasn't worth the $3 million per school that would replace what football schools get from a marquee OOC game.

The way VT is scheduling now, I'd welcome another ACC game. Our OOC football scheduling has been atrocious under Whit Babcock.

Yeah I would take an extra $3M and one additional ACC game. Some schools will not like this idea, though.


Is it nice...sure. Does it solve the ACC's revenue issue? Not even close.

Headed toward a P2 and a p3 with some exceptions (Texas, Notre Dame, Oregon) who are independently wealthy

Agreed - none of these schemes are a quick fix. That said, when you're $20M to $30M behind, every $3M helps (and should be seriously considered).
04-09-2021 10:58 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,262
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 546
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #26
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 10:56 AM)nole Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 10:50 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 10:50 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 04:17 PM)nole Wrote:  when it comes to revenue, divisions and # of conference games is simply rearranging chairs on the deck of the titanic.

Big Ten $54 Million a year per team
ACC $27 Million a year per team


How wide does the gap have to grow before folks see that adding a Wake Forest/ Duke football game for the 9th ACC game of the year doesn't put a dent in that?

New Commish better be thinking MUC bigger than that.

I don't think there's much more the ACC commissioner can do. The reason we haven't gone to 9 conference games before is it wasn't worth the $3 million per school that would replace what football schools get from a marquee OOC game.

The way VT is scheduling now, I'd welcome another ACC game. Our OOC football scheduling has been atrocious under Whit Babcock.

Yeah I would take an extra $3M and one additional ACC game. Some schools will not like this idea, though.


Is it nice...sure. Does it solve the ACC's revenue issue? Not even close.

Headed toward a P2 and a p3 with some exceptions (Texas, Notre Dame, Oregon) who are independently wealthy

Nole,

Im not trying to be a jerk here but I always get the sense that you hate the ACC, similar to a former Clemson poster here. If you dont like the ACC, why do you care if the ACC goes away? FSU is going to wind up in a P5 conference no matter what. So why do you keep lamenting about the revenue differential?
04-09-2021 01:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,881
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 898
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Grayson Highlands
Post: #27
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 10:56 AM)nole Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 10:50 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 10:50 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 04:17 PM)nole Wrote:  when it comes to revenue, divisions and # of conference games is simply rearranging chairs on the deck of the titanic.

Big Ten $54 Million a year per team
ACC $27 Million a year per team


How wide does the gap have to grow before folks see that adding a Wake Forest/ Duke football game for the 9th ACC game of the year doesn't put a dent in that?

New Commish better be thinking MUC bigger than that.

I don't think there's much more the ACC commissioner can do. The reason we haven't gone to 9 conference games before is it wasn't worth the $3 million per school that would replace what football schools get from a marquee OOC game.

The way VT is scheduling now, I'd welcome another ACC game. Our OOC football scheduling has been atrocious under Whit Babcock.

Yeah I would take an extra $3M and one additional ACC game. Some schools will not like this idea, though.


Is it nice...sure. Does it solve the ACC's revenue issue? Not even close.

Headed toward a P2 and a p3 with some exceptions (Texas, Notre Dame, Oregon) who are independently wealthy

Nole,

Im not trying to be a jerk here but I always get the sense that you hate the ACC, similar to a former Clemson poster here. If you dont like the ACC, why do you care if the ACC goes away? FSU is going to wind up in a P5 conference no matter what. So why do you keep lamenting about the revenue differential?


Especially since it is an intractable problem with no real solutions, as he notes.

(It would take both Texas and ND to join in full to make up the difference and that is not going to happen).

So, it seems inevitable that the ACC will face some rocky times in 2036 or thereabouts, no matter what anyone tries to do.
04-09-2021 01:24 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #28
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 12:01 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Not much too do really. Swoffy was a bad commissioner, who signed a awful contract until 2036.

Hope ESPN feels pity and throws more money at the ACC. But at least the Pac is in a crappy boat also due to horrible leadership.

So Swofford signed the contract that the ACC presidents had approved. What should he have done? Refuse to carry out his bosses' instructions?

Those presidents were making their decision in a climate in which the ACC's future existence was threatened by the possible defection of its strongest football programs to competing conferences. With 20/20 hindsight that appears to have been a bad decision, but we will never know what would have happened if they hadn't made it.

When it comes to football, the ACC has always been a less attractive property than the other power conferences, especially the B1G and SEC. That's why they are paid less - not because Swofford was a bad commissioner. That's as true today as it was when they signed that GoR.
04-09-2021 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
domer1978 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,469
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 367
I Root For: Notre Dame/Chaos
Location: California/Georgia
Post: #29
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 01:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 12:01 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Not much too do really. Swoffy was a bad commissioner, who signed a awful contract until 2036.

Hope ESPN feels pity and throws more money at the ACC. But at least the Pac is in a crappy boat also due to horrible leadership.

So Swofford signed the contract that the ACC presidents had approved. What should he have done? Refuse to carry out his bosses' instructions?

Those presidents were making their decision in a climate in which the ACC's future existence was threatened by the possible defection of its strongest football programs to competing conferences. With 20/20 hindsight that appears to have been a bad decision, but we will never know what would have happened if they hadn't made it.

When it comes to football, the ACC has always been a less attractive property than the other power conferences, especially the B1G and SEC. That's why they are paid less - not because Swofford was a bad commissioner. That's as true today as it was when they signed that GoR.
No, but real leadership is being able lead others when's options are not good. Swoffy went the easy route and did not challenge enough. He got paid alot to lead, and he failed.
04-09-2021 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nole Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,883
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 210
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #30
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 10:56 AM)nole Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 10:50 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 10:50 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 04:17 PM)nole Wrote:  when it comes to revenue, divisions and # of conference games is simply rearranging chairs on the deck of the titanic.

Big Ten $54 Million a year per team
ACC $27 Million a year per team


How wide does the gap have to grow before folks see that adding a Wake Forest/ Duke football game for the 9th ACC game of the year doesn't put a dent in that?

New Commish better be thinking MUC bigger than that.

I don't think there's much more the ACC commissioner can do. The reason we haven't gone to 9 conference games before is it wasn't worth the $3 million per school that would replace what football schools get from a marquee OOC game.

The way VT is scheduling now, I'd welcome another ACC game. Our OOC football scheduling has been atrocious under Whit Babcock.

Yeah I would take an extra $3M and one additional ACC game. Some schools will not like this idea, though.


Is it nice...sure. Does it solve the ACC's revenue issue? Not even close.

Headed toward a P2 and a p3 with some exceptions (Texas, Notre Dame, Oregon) who are independently wealthy

Nole,

Im not trying to be a jerk here but I always get the sense that you hate the ACC, similar to a former Clemson poster here. If you dont like the ACC, why do you care if the ACC goes away? FSU is going to wind up in a P5 conference no matter what. So why do you keep lamenting about the revenue differential?

Solid question honestly.

I don't hate the ACC. I just don't think FSU fits in the ACC. I think FSU changed itself to try and fit and the end result is 4 straight years of budget cuts, a sub.500 football program for years on end, and a program that lost who forgot who it is.

Most importantly, I don't think FSU can remain nationally relevant in football in the ACC anymore. We are surrounded by competitors that have a $20 million a year head start in revenue and that is about to jump to $30-$40 million a year head start.

I don't know I agree with you in a few areas:

*There will be a P5 moving forward. I don't believe this. Dead weight will be cut. You MIGHT have a P2-3. Tops eventually. Some in the ACC might maybe they all die a slow death.

*FSU will find a home in a power conference? Maybe...as I noted above. I think the current strategy will be killing off a great number of "power conference" teams. Not certain at all FSU will find a home. Just as likely, or more so, that it's left out in the could.

Lastly, every year with revenue gaps this large is not insignificant. Take say 10 SEC schools in the southeast near FSU. If they are at $40 million a year revenue gap for say 10 years compared to FSU....that is $400 million.

Lamenting the revenue gap is acknowleding that reality....it has permanent impact....not temporary. It isn't just an annual blimp on the budget report....it will have permanent impact.
04-09-2021 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #31
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
Over the last 15 years this is the combined conference record of ACC teams in the Championship:

14-2 (2020)
14-2
14-2
14-2
16-0
14-2
15-1
14-2
13-3
14-2
13-3
10-6 (2008)
13-3
13-3
13-3 (2005)

Importantly the ACC had piss poor results from 2005-2009. This is the metric upon which the current contract was based. Not having a top 10 school for 5 years hurt badly. We are paying for that now.
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2021 03:51 PM by Statefan.)
04-09-2021 03:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YouPeople Offline
Banned

Posts: 127
Joined: Jan 2020
I Root For: NC State
Location:
Post: #32
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 02:45 PM)nole Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 10:56 AM)nole Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 10:50 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(04-08-2021 10:50 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I don't think there's much more the ACC commissioner can do. The reason we haven't gone to 9 conference games before is it wasn't worth the $3 million per school that would replace what football schools get from a marquee OOC game.

The way VT is scheduling now, I'd welcome another ACC game. Our OOC football scheduling has been atrocious under Whit Babcock.

Yeah I would take an extra $3M and one additional ACC game. Some schools will not like this idea, though.


Is it nice...sure. Does it solve the ACC's revenue issue? Not even close.

Headed toward a P2 and a p3 with some exceptions (Texas, Notre Dame, Oregon) who are independently wealthy

Nole,

Im not trying to be a jerk here but I always get the sense that you hate the ACC, similar to a former Clemson poster here. If you dont like the ACC, why do you care if the ACC goes away? FSU is going to wind up in a P5 conference no matter what. So why do you keep lamenting about the revenue differential?

Solid question honestly.

I don't hate the ACC. I just don't think FSU fits in the ACC. I think FSU changed itself to try and fit and the end result is 4 straight years of budget cuts, a sub.500 football program for years on end, and a program that lost who forgot who it is.

Most importantly, I don't think FSU can remain nationally relevant in football in the ACC anymore. We are surrounded by competitors that have a $20 million a year head start in revenue and that is about to jump to $30-$40 million a year head start.

I don't know I agree with you in a few areas:

*There will be a P5 moving forward. I don't believe this. Dead weight will be cut. You MIGHT have a P2-3. Tops eventually. Some in the ACC might maybe they all die a slow death.

*FSU will find a home in a power conference? Maybe...as I noted above. I think the current strategy will be killing off a great number of "power conference" teams. Not certain at all FSU will find a home. Just as likely, or more so, that it's left out in the could.

Lastly, every year with revenue gaps this large is not insignificant. Take say 10 SEC schools in the southeast near FSU. If they are at $40 million a year revenue gap for say 10 years compared to FSU....that is $400 million.

Lamenting the revenue gap is acknowleding that reality....it has permanent impact....not temporary. It isn't just an annual blimp on the budget report....it will have permanent impact.

I agree that the money is an issue.....but with regard to FSU.....you guys have a ton of football issues at the present but I'm not sure they are all because of money. Hopefully for your sake Norvell can change the culture down there.

Clemson seems to be doing just fine with the money the are making at the moment.
04-09-2021 03:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #33
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 03:47 PM)YouPeople Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 02:45 PM)nole Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 10:56 AM)nole Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 10:50 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  Yeah I would take an extra $3M and one additional ACC game. Some schools will not like this idea, though.


Is it nice...sure. Does it solve the ACC's revenue issue? Not even close.

Headed toward a P2 and a p3 with some exceptions (Texas, Notre Dame, Oregon) who are independently wealthy

Nole,

Im not trying to be a jerk here but I always get the sense that you hate the ACC, similar to a former Clemson poster here. If you dont like the ACC, why do you care if the ACC goes away? FSU is going to wind up in a P5 conference no matter what. So why do you keep lamenting about the revenue differential?

Solid question honestly.

I don't hate the ACC. I just don't think FSU fits in the ACC. I think FSU changed itself to try and fit and the end result is 4 straight years of budget cuts, a sub.500 football program for years on end, and a program that lost who forgot who it is.

Most importantly, I don't think FSU can remain nationally relevant in football in the ACC anymore. We are surrounded by competitors that have a $20 million a year head start in revenue and that is about to jump to $30-$40 million a year head start.

I don't know I agree with you in a few areas:

*There will be a P5 moving forward. I don't believe this. Dead weight will be cut. You MIGHT have a P2-3. Tops eventually. Some in the ACC might maybe they all die a slow death.

*FSU will find a home in a power conference? Maybe...as I noted above. I think the current strategy will be killing off a great number of "power conference" teams. Not certain at all FSU will find a home. Just as likely, or more so, that it's left out in the could.

Lastly, every year with revenue gaps this large is not insignificant. Take say 10 SEC schools in the southeast near FSU. If they are at $40 million a year revenue gap for say 10 years compared to FSU....that is $400 million.

Lamenting the revenue gap is acknowleding that reality....it has permanent impact....not temporary. It isn't just an annual blimp on the budget report....it will have permanent impact.

I agree that the money is an issue.....but with regard to FSU.....you guys have a ton of football issues at the present but I'm not sure they are all because of money. Hopefully for your sake Norvell can change the culture down there.

Clemson seems to be doing just fine with the money the are making at the moment.

Hiring the wrong coaches or allowing the right coach to stay way past his prime will do that to you much more than your association with the ACC. You need to figure out how to beat Clemson once in a while and NC State all the time before you worry about the money Auburn, Bama, and Florida make.

FSU never seems to be grateful or takes into account being able to compete in a conference where the cost of competition is so much lower that competition against the money that is generated by Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, TAMU, Bama, LSU, Tennessee, Penn State, etc.

The win-loss difference of FSU in the SEC is at least 1 more loss and 1 less win per season - no ifs ands or buts. That means missed major bowls and perhaps lost NC opportunities because you had to play 3-4 top 15 schools instead of 2 each year.
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2021 04:08 PM by Statefan.)
04-09-2021 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #34
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 03:55 PM)Statefan Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 03:47 PM)YouPeople Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 02:45 PM)nole Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 10:56 AM)nole Wrote:  Is it nice...sure. Does it solve the ACC's revenue issue? Not even close.

Headed toward a P2 and a p3 with some exceptions (Texas, Notre Dame, Oregon) who are independently wealthy

Nole,

Im not trying to be a jerk here but I always get the sense that you hate the ACC, similar to a former Clemson poster here. If you dont like the ACC, why do you care if the ACC goes away? FSU is going to wind up in a P5 conference no matter what. So why do you keep lamenting about the revenue differential?

Solid question honestly.

I don't hate the ACC. I just don't think FSU fits in the ACC. I think FSU changed itself to try and fit and the end result is 4 straight years of budget cuts, a sub.500 football program for years on end, and a program that lost who forgot who it is.

Most importantly, I don't think FSU can remain nationally relevant in football in the ACC anymore. We are surrounded by competitors that have a $20 million a year head start in revenue and that is about to jump to $30-$40 million a year head start.

I don't know I agree with you in a few areas:

*There will be a P5 moving forward. I don't believe this. Dead weight will be cut. You MIGHT have a P2-3. Tops eventually. Some in the ACC might maybe they all die a slow death.

*FSU will find a home in a power conference? Maybe...as I noted above. I think the current strategy will be killing off a great number of "power conference" teams. Not certain at all FSU will find a home. Just as likely, or more so, that it's left out in the could.

Lastly, every year with revenue gaps this large is not insignificant. Take say 10 SEC schools in the southeast near FSU. If they are at $40 million a year revenue gap for say 10 years compared to FSU....that is $400 million.

Lamenting the revenue gap is acknowleding that reality....it has permanent impact....not temporary. It isn't just an annual blimp on the budget report....it will have permanent impact.

I agree that the money is an issue.....but with regard to FSU.....you guys have a ton of football issues at the present but I'm not sure they are all because of money. Hopefully for your sake Norvell can change the culture down there.

Clemson seems to be doing just fine with the money the are making at the moment.

Hiring the wrong coaches or allowing the right coach to stay way past his prime will do that to you much more than your association with the ACC. You need to figure out how to beat Clemson once in a while and NC State all the time before you worry about the money Auburn, Bama, and Florida make.

FSU never seems to be grateful or takes into account being able to compete in a conference where the cost of competition is so much lower that competition against the money that is generated by Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, TAMU, Bama, LSU, Tennessee, Penn State, etc.

The win-loss difference of FSU in the SEC is at least 1 more loss and 1 less win per season - no ifs ands or buts. That means missed major bowls and perhaps lost NC opportunities because you had to play 3-4 top 15 schools instead of 2 each year.

Correct, more money and a different conference means much higher expenses and greater competition.
You pays your money and take your chances.
04-09-2021 05:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,418
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 486
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #35
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 01:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 12:01 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Not much too do really. Swoffy was a bad commissioner, who signed a awful contract until 2036.

Hope ESPN feels pity and throws more money at the ACC. But at least the Pac is in a crappy boat also due to horrible leadership.

So Swofford signed the contract that the ACC presidents had approved. What should he have done? Refuse to carry out his bosses' instructions?

Those presidents were making their decision in a climate in which the ACC's future existence was threatened by the possible defection of its strongest football programs to competing conferences. With 20/20 hindsight that appears to have been a bad decision, but we will never know what would have happened if they hadn't made it.

When it comes to football, the ACC has always been a less attractive property than the other power conferences, especially the B1G and SEC. That's why they are paid less - not because Swofford was a bad commissioner. That's as true today as it was when they signed that GoR.

The GOR through 2036 was necessary in order to get the ACCN running. Swofford’s mistake was signing the T1/2 rights for an extended time-frame when the ACC was in a down cycle (compared to other P5 conferences)...and then further extending the flawed contract. Swofford was incompetent in leading and managing conference media rights.

Regardless of Swofford’s past malpractice, the current issue is how to get greater media payouts in this look-in window. Phillips should have insights on the BIG’s position relative to division-less scheduling and conference-champion selection to the CFP. Getting rid of divisions should be valued by ESPN.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2021 12:20 PM by Wahoowa84.)
04-09-2021 05:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #36
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 05:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 01:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 12:01 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Not much too do really. Swoffy was a bad commissioner, who signed a awful contract until 2036.

Hope ESPN feels pity and throws more money at the ACC. But at least the Pac is in a crappy boat also due to horrible leadership.

So Swofford signed the contract that the ACC presidents had approved. What should he have done? Refuse to carry out his bosses' instructions?

Those presidents were making their decision in a climate in which the ACC's future existence was threatened by the possible defection of its strongest football programs to competing conferences. With 20/20 hindsight that appears to have been a bad decision, but we will never know what would have happened if they hadn't made it.

When it comes to football, the ACC has always been a less attractive property than the other power conferences, especially the B1G and SEC. That's why they are paid less - not because Swofford was a bad commissioner. That's as true today as it was when they signed that GoR.

The GOR through 2036 was necessary in order to get the ACCN running. Swafford’s mistake was signing the T1/2 rights for an extended time-frame when the ACC was in a down cycle (compared to other P5 conferences)...and then further extending the flawed contract. Swafford was incompetent in leading and managing conference media rights.

Regardless of Swafford’s past malpractice, the current issue is how to get greater media payouts in this look-in window. Phillips should have insights on the BIG’s position relative to division-less scheduling and conference-champion selection to the CFP. Getting rid of divisions should be valued by ESPN.


I'm sure Mr. Swofford would appreciate your learning how to spell his name.
04-09-2021 08:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bear Catlett Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,700
Joined: Jan 2020
Reputation: 1497
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #37
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
Might I suggest bake sales and split the pot raffles. .
04-09-2021 10:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #38
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
I think if you break ACC schools down based on football value to the conference you can get the following 5 tiers:

1 - Worth 3X to conference inventory Clemson, Florida State, ND

2 - Worth 1.5X to conference inventory Miami, UNC, VT, GT, Louisville

3 - Pays for themselves NC State, Syracuse, Pitt

4 - Slight drain perhaps .75X Virginia, Wake Forest, BC

5 - Huge drain zero value Duke

I think the fastest way for the ACC to get to $40-42 million per school is to have Duke, UVa, WF, and BC stop playing conference football. That would leave Syracuse, Pitt, VT, UNC, NC State, Clemson, Louisville, GT, FSU, and Miami and the conferences football programs. The other four could opt out of the image or employment payments that are down the road in football and perhaps partner with Army and Navy to account for 5 games. WF and NC State and Duke/UVa and UNC will still play - just not for conference standings. Finding who wants to drop back on football is the key thing I think.
04-09-2021 11:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #39
Exclamation RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-09-2021 11:03 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I think if you break ACC schools down based on football value to the conference you can get the following 5 tiers:

1 - Worth 3X to conference inventory Clemson, Florida State, ND

2 - Worth 1.5X to conference inventory Miami, UNC, VT, GT, Louisville

3 - Pays for themselves NC State, Syracuse, Pitt

4 - Slight drain perhaps .75X Virginia, Wake Forest, BC

5 - Huge drain zero value Duke

I think the fastest way for the ACC to get to $40-42 million per school is to have Duke, UVa, WF, and BC stop playing conference football. That would leave Syracuse, Pitt, VT, UNC, NC State, Clemson, Louisville, GT, FSU, and Miami and the conferences football programs. The other four could opt out of the image or employment payments that are down the road in football and perhaps partner with Army and Navy to account for 5 games. WF and NC State and Duke/UVa and UNC will still play - just not for conference standings. Finding who wants to drop back on football is the key thing I think.

Perhaps the ACC should institute minimum spending and attendance numbers for football. No full football member shall average less than 30,000 fans - else they have to drop to non-football status. Eventually raise that to 40,000.

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...nimum.html
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2021 07:10 AM by Hokie Mark.)
04-10-2021 07:10 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,418
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 486
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #40
RE: ACC commisioner looking to increase the revenue
(04-10-2021 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-09-2021 11:03 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I think if you break ACC schools down based on football value to the conference you can get the following 5 tiers:

1 - Worth 3X to conference inventory Clemson, Florida State, ND

2 - Worth 1.5X to conference inventory Miami, UNC, VT, GT, Louisville

3 - Pays for themselves NC State, Syracuse, Pitt

4 - Slight drain perhaps .75X Virginia, Wake Forest, BC

5 - Huge drain zero value Duke

I think the fastest way for the ACC to get to $40-42 million per school is to have Duke, UVa, WF, and BC stop playing conference football. That would leave Syracuse, Pitt, VT, UNC, NC State, Clemson, Louisville, GT, FSU, and Miami and the conferences football programs. The other four could opt out of the image or employment payments that are down the road in football and perhaps partner with Army and Navy to account for 5 games. WF and NC State and Duke/UVa and UNC will still play - just not for conference standings. Finding who wants to drop back on football is the key thing I think.

Perhaps the ACC should institute minimum spending and attendance numbers for football. No full football member shall average less than 30,000 fans - else they have to drop to non-football status. Eventually raise that to 40,000.

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...nimum.html

Currently, no university will voluntarily step-down from the brand equity derived from P5 football. In addition, it’s hard to imagine that university presidents will allow an arbitrary structure for distributions of media payouts. Yet, the conference does need a means to have schools invest more on football.

Other conferences have effectively used peer pressure to get football-laggards to publicly commit to investing in football. In the B12, Kansas made a major commitment to upgrade their football infrastructure about 5 years ago (no dividends yet). Vanderbilt seems to have made a similar commitment this year to the SEC.

I like the suggestion of attendance targets as a proxy for football commitment. It’s simple, objective and aligns with the financial needs.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2021 08:29 AM by Wahoowa84.)
04-10-2021 08:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.