(05-21-2021 10:54 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:04 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 11:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  the fact.

(If this were not fundamentally true, then why have we been having essentially the same discussions about ND on these boards for the last twenty years?)

It is more true today than it was twenty years ago. I believe we have hardened our stance with the inevitable expansion of the playoff we'll feel greater security.

The hardened stance against joining a conference is understandable.

People who lost their virginity often regret the decison.

So you're saying ND lost their fb independence virginity?
thats too much.

(05-20-2021 11:20 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 08:35 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  What if the ACC is the first conference to completely eliminate non P5 games from their schedules and just go all P5 games from now on? Sure, finish out your current contract with non P5 schools, but after August of 2021, ACC members will not be allowed to schedule non P5 games. Make allowances for the service academies, but that’s about it. I know it wouldn’t be popular with a lot of coaches and ADs, but if ESPN is willing to increase payout, well, time to put up or stop complaining about revenue.

That is certainly one of the bargaining chips Phillips can use - more P5 games - although there are some half-steps I'd like to see the ACC get paid for first. For example, how about a bump for no more FCS games? Then a bump for a 10th P5 game for each team? I'd do those 2 things first before negotiating away my last 2 buy games (which automatically drops every team from 7 home games to just 6 when you go all P5's).

Clemson makes about $8 million off a home game with a scrub. NC State makes about $3 million. Stadium size versus the actual freeboard in the stadium matters in this respect and Clemson and NC State have no freeboard capacity. Carolina got rid of their extra 13K seats. Now everyone else has significant free board FSU has about 13K, Duke has 20K, UVa has about 13K, GT has about 4-5K, VT has about 3-4K.

When I say freeboard I am using the term to in regard to elastic demand. If people pay money to see chumps and sell out the stadium you have no freeboard.

If you are going to ding those making money off a 7th game, then it needs to be worth their while and hold them harmless. On top of that where are those other 14 P-5 games coming from? They ain't coming from the Big 10 or the Pac 12. To play no P-5s means to play 10 conference games.

Article from the N&O

Revenue gap starts to close in ACC Network’s first year. Here’s what the numbers show.
BY LUKE DECOCK
MAY 21, 2021 05:55 PM
Play VideoDuration 0:52
ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips on his new ties

Listen to new ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips talk about the gifts his family gave him on Christmas to help make sure he didn't have any wardrobe miscues while visiting all the ACC schools. BY ETHAN HYMAN

Money from the ACC Network is starting to tumble into the ACC’s coffers, but the same questions that surrounded the launch of the network remain: Will it be enough? And is it too late?

The ACC’s tax filing from the 2019-20 academic year, provided by the conference on Friday, shows record revenue of $496.7 million for the conference, up from $455.4 million. For the first time, no full member received less than $30 million from the ACC. A good chunk of that comes from broadcast revenue, which jumped 15 percent to $332.8 million over the 10 months since the network’s launch.

That still leaves a large revenue gap with the Big Ten and SEC in particular, one that new commissioner Jim Phillips hopes the ACC can close not only as the network matures but by pushing harder to maximize football revenue.

TOP ARTICLES
“We all understand just the economics of football,” Phillips said last week after the ACC’s annual meetings. “I don’t see the economics changing at all at any time in the future, near or far, relative to the ability to generate resources for your schools and for the conference.”

Or, as he said in more detail in March: “It’s a significant revenue gap. How do we strengthen football in our conference?”


With the increased broadcasting revenue, the ACC managed to increase its average payout per school to $32.3 million -- not counting Notre Dame -- but still lags behind some of its Power 5 peers. Powered by the Big Ten Network, that conference paid its legacy members $54.3 million, according to USA Today.

The SEC hasn’t yet filed its 2019-20 tax form, but it paid its members entitled to a full share between $44.5 million and $47.4 million in 2018-19 and recently announced a one-time bonus payment of $23 million per school to help cover COVID shortfalls.

Big 12 payouts were between $37 million and $40.5 million and the Pac-12 paid its members $33.6 million.

The increased ACC revenue did mean payouts for area schools were up substantially despite the early impact of COVID: North Carolina received $32.3 million from the ACC, up from $28.5 million in 2018-19; Duke received $31.1 million, up from $28.9 million; and N.C. State received $31.0 million, up from $28.5 million.

Those payouts are expected to continue to increase as the ACC Network continues to grow and mature, although next year’s numbers will be skewed dramatically by the pandemic and Notre Dame’s one-year cameo as a full football member. Not until May 2022 will there be a good sense of where the network is taking the ACC.

$2 for 2 months
Subscribe for unlimited access to our website, app, eEdition and more.

CLAIM OFFER

“I’d just remind everybody we’re still in the infancy stage,” Phillips said. “I know the history of the Big Ten Network quite well, quite intimately. They had over a decade jump on us and you can see the success of that particular network. We’re bullish on our future as well and feel very strongly we’re headed in a similar kind of direction.”

A separate $46.5 million increase from 2018-19 was expected as the Orange Bowl was not part of the College Football Playoff, as it had been the previous year. But payments from the NCAA dropped $37.4 million due to COVID, and conference tournament revenue was also down slightly because of the cancellation of the 2020 ACC tournament in Greensboro.

For the first time, the ACC disclosed $301,553 in lobbying expenses regarding “issues related to potential legislation regarding student-athletes licensing their name, image and likeness for compensation.” John Swofford made $4 million in his final full year as commissioner.



That's a 9% jump with COVID cutting into 3 months of the year and no Comcast.

(05-21-2021 07:59 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Article from the N&O

Revenue gap starts to close in ACC Network’s first year. Here’s what the numbers show.
BY LUKE DECOCK
MAY 21, 2021 05:55 PM
Play VideoDuration 0:52
ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips on his new ties

Listen to new ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips talk about the gifts his family gave him on Christmas to help make sure he didn't have any wardrobe miscues while visiting all the ACC schools. BY ETHAN HYMAN

Money from the ACC Network is starting to tumble into the ACC’s coffers, but the same questions that surrounded the launch of the network remain: Will it be enough? And is it too late?

The ACC’s tax filing from the 2019-20 academic year, provided by the conference on Friday, shows record revenue of $496.7 million for the conference, up from $455.4 million. For the first time, no full member received less than $30 million from the ACC. A good chunk of that comes from broadcast revenue, which jumped 15 percent to $332.8 million over the 10 months since the network’s launch.

That still leaves a large revenue gap with the Big Ten and SEC in particular, one that new commissioner Jim Phillips hopes the ACC can close not only as the network matures but by pushing harder to maximize football revenue.

TOP ARTICLES
“We all understand just the economics of football,” Phillips said last week after the ACC’s annual meetings. “I don’t see the economics changing at all at any time in the future, near or far, relative to the ability to generate resources for your schools and for the conference.”

Or, as he said in more detail in March: “It’s a significant revenue gap. How do we strengthen football in our conference?”


With the increased broadcasting revenue, the ACC managed to increase its average payout per school to $32.3 million -- not counting Notre Dame -- but still lags behind some of its Power 5 peers. Powered by the Big Ten Network, that conference paid its legacy members $54.3 million, according to USA Today.

The SEC hasn’t yet filed its 2019-20 tax form, but it paid its members entitled to a full share between $44.5 million and $47.4 million in 2018-19 and recently announced a one-time bonus payment of $23 million per school to help cover COVID shortfalls.

Big 12 payouts were between $37 million and $40.5 million and the Pac-12 paid its members $33.6 million.

The increased ACC revenue did mean payouts for area schools were up substantially despite the early impact of COVID: North Carolina received $32.3 million from the ACC, up from $28.5 million in 2018-19; Duke received $31.1 million, up from $28.9 million; and N.C. State received $31.0 million, up from $28.5 million.

Those payouts are expected to continue to increase as the ACC Network continues to grow and mature, although next year’s numbers will be skewed dramatically by the pandemic and Notre Dame’s one-year cameo as a full football member. Not until May 2022 will there be a good sense of where the network is taking the ACC.

$2 for 2 months
Subscribe for unlimited access to our website, app, eEdition and more.

CLAIM OFFER

“I’d just remind everybody we’re still in the infancy stage,” Phillips said. “I know the history of the Big Ten Network quite well, quite intimately. They had over a decade jump on us and you can see the success of that particular network. We’re bullish on our future as well and feel very strongly we’re headed in a similar kind of direction.”

A separate $46.5 million increase from 2018-19 was expected as the Orange Bowl was not part of the College Football Playoff, as it had been the previous year. But payments from the NCAA dropped $37.4 million due to COVID, and conference tournament revenue was also down slightly because of the cancellation of the 2020 ACC tournament in Greensboro.

For the first time, the ACC disclosed $301,553 in lobbying expenses regarding “issues related to potential legislation regarding student-athletes licensing their name, image and likeness for compensation.” John Swofford made $4 million in his final full year as commissioner.



That's a 9% jump with COVID cutting into 3 months of the year and no Comcast.

Great info. Thanks.

Thoughts:

*John Swofford was a criminal collecting that paycheck. He was a ninja but not for the reason the moronic ACC media thinks.

*Article didn't prove the revenue gap 'closed'.....from what I see it grew. ESPECIALLY with the extra $23 million the SEC conference gave each school. Bizarre headline. ACC doesn't need PR it's needs substance.

*Everyone had the COVID issue, so this variable can be removed

*With the failures of the ACC Network to actually attract viewers, have decent programming, and ESPN overall position of treating it as a joke network, I don't expect massive revenue increases. That network is waiting to die. The low income commercials and non stop coverage of sports like lacross is a sure fire sign.

*The revenue gap will take a major jump in the next 3-4 years as SEC and B1G have new contracts. ACC can't do anything until 2036. Comcast won't save the ACC here.

*I do like the new commish. Sadly the failed leadership of the ACC tied his hands for about 15-20 years.

(05-21-2021 09:05 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-21-2021 07:59 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Article from the N&O

Revenue gap starts to close in ACC Network’s first year. Here’s what the numbers show.
BY LUKE DECOCK
MAY 21, 2021 05:55 PM
Play VideoDuration 0:52
ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips on his new ties

Listen to new ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips talk about the gifts his family gave him on Christmas to help make sure he didn't have any wardrobe miscues while visiting all the ACC schools. BY ETHAN HYMAN

Money from the ACC Network is starting to tumble into the ACC’s coffers, but the same questions that surrounded the launch of the network remain: Will it be enough? And is it too late?

The ACC’s tax filing from the 2019-20 academic year, provided by the conference on Friday, shows record revenue of $496.7 million for the conference, up from $455.4 million. For the first time, no full member received less than $30 million from the ACC. A good chunk of that comes from broadcast revenue, which jumped 15 percent to $332.8 million over the 10 months since the network’s launch.

That still leaves a large revenue gap with the Big Ten and SEC in particular, one that new commissioner Jim Phillips hopes the ACC can close not only as the network matures but by pushing harder to maximize football revenue.

TOP ARTICLES
“We all understand just the economics of football,” Phillips said last week after the ACC’s annual meetings. “I don’t see the economics changing at all at any time in the future, near or far, relative to the ability to generate resources for your schools and for the conference.”

Or, as he said in more detail in March: “It’s a significant revenue gap. How do we strengthen football in our conference?”


With the increased broadcasting revenue, the ACC managed to increase its average payout per school to $32.3 million -- not counting Notre Dame -- but still lags behind some of its Power 5 peers. Powered by the Big Ten Network, that conference paid its legacy members $54.3 million, according to USA Today.

The SEC hasn’t yet filed its 2019-20 tax form, but it paid its members entitled to a full share between $44.5 million and $47.4 million in 2018-19 and recently announced a one-time bonus payment of $23 million per school to help cover COVID shortfalls.

Big 12 payouts were between $37 million and $40.5 million and the Pac-12 paid its members $33.6 million.

The increased ACC revenue did mean payouts for area schools were up substantially despite the early impact of COVID: North Carolina received $32.3 million from the ACC, up from $28.5 million in 2018-19; Duke received $31.1 million, up from $28.9 million; and N.C. State received $31.0 million, up from $28.5 million.

Those payouts are expected to continue to increase as the ACC Network continues to grow and mature, although next year’s numbers will be skewed dramatically by the pandemic and Notre Dame’s one-year cameo as a full football member. Not until May 2022 will there be a good sense of where the network is taking the ACC.

$2 for 2 months
Subscribe for unlimited access to our website, app, eEdition and more.

CLAIM OFFER

“I’d just remind everybody we’re still in the infancy stage,” Phillips said. “I know the history of the Big Ten Network quite well, quite intimately. They had over a decade jump on us and you can see the success of that particular network. We’re bullish on our future as well and feel very strongly we’re headed in a similar kind of direction.”

A separate $46.5 million increase from 2018-19 was expected as the Orange Bowl was not part of the College Football Playoff, as it had been the previous year. But payments from the NCAA dropped $37.4 million due to COVID, and conference tournament revenue was also down slightly because of the cancellation of the 2020 ACC tournament in Greensboro.

For the first time, the ACC disclosed $301,553 in lobbying expenses regarding “issues related to potential legislation regarding student-athletes licensing their name, image and likeness for compensation.” John Swofford made $4 million in his final full year as commissioner.



That's a 9% jump with COVID cutting into 3 months of the year and no Comcast.

Great info. Thanks.

Thoughts:

*John Swofford was a criminal collecting that paycheck. He was a ninja but not for the reason the moronic ACC media thinks.

*Article didn't prove the revenue gap 'closed'.....from what I see it grew. ESPECIALLY with the extra $23 million the SEC conference gave each school. Bizarre headline. ACC doesn't need PR it's needs substance.

*Everyone had the COVID issue, so this variable can be removed

*With the failures of the ACC Network to actually attract viewers, have decent programming, and ESPN overall position of treating it as a joke network, I don't expect massive revenue increases. That network is waiting to die. The low income commercials and non stop coverage of sports like lacross is a sure fire sign.

*The revenue gap will take a major jump in the next 3-4 years as SEC and B1G have new contracts. ACC can't do anything until 2036. Comcast won't save the ACC here.

*I do like the new commish. Sadly the failed leadership of the ACC tied his hands for about 15-20 years.

I think the ACC will compete for #3 for the next few years.

But, like you and many people on this board, I am concerned of the ACC getting behind again for the period from 2025 through 2037.

Maybe we should try to cut it short instead of extending the contract...

Indications suggest Comcast will sign on late August/early September...that should help a bit

(05-23-2021 03:00 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Indications suggest Comcast will sign on late August/early September...that should help a bit

It's plausible that, if managed properly, the ACC can exceed $50M per year by the end of the contract in 2036. By that time it's expected that the SEC and B1G will both be north of $70M, however.

I would argue that a $20M difference when you're making $50M is not as bad as a $20M difference when you're making $30M, but in terms of pure dollar gap, I don't see the ACC closing in at all until their 1st tier contract hits the open market - the best I can foresee is to keep it from growing any bigger than $20M.

That said, I'm no prophet - in fact, none of us know what the future holds to that level of detail. The whole socio-economic system could collapse before 2036, at which point the gap would be zero ($0 - $0 = $0)

(05-23-2021 04:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 03:00 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Indications suggest Comcast will sign on late August/early September...that should help a bit

It's plausible that, if managed properly, the ACC can exceed $50M per year by the end of the contract in 2036. By that time it's expected that the SEC and B1G will both be north of $70M, however.

I would argue that a $20M difference when you're making $50M is not as bad as a $20M difference when you're making $30M, but in terms of pure dollar gap, I don't see the ACC closing in at all until their 1st tier contract hits the open market - the best I can foresee is to keep it from growing any bigger than $20M.

That said, I'm no prophet - in fact, none of us know what the future holds to that level of detail. The whole socio-economic system could collapse before 2036, at which point the gap would be zero ($0 - $0 = $0)

I think it's been pointed out in this forum recently that the SEC will receive a guaranteed boost of $18M per team beginning within two years. I think that takes the SEC average to $69M in two years. So it would seem they will reach well beyond $70M by 2036.

(05-24-2021 10:20 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 04:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 03:00 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Indications suggest Comcast will sign on late August/early September...that should help a bit

It's plausible that, if managed properly, the ACC can exceed $50M per year by the end of the contract in 2036. By that time it's expected that the SEC and B1G will both be north of $70M, however.

I would argue that a $20M difference when you're making $50M is not as bad as a $20M difference when you're making $30M, but in terms of pure dollar gap, I don't see the ACC closing in at all until their 1st tier contract hits the open market - the best I can foresee is to keep it from growing any bigger than $20M.

That said, I'm no prophet - in fact, none of us know what the future holds to that level of detail. The whole socio-economic system could collapse before 2036, at which point the gap would be zero ($0 - $0 = $0)

I think it's been pointed out in this forum recently that the SEC will receive a guaranteed boost of $18M per team beginning within two years. I think that takes the SEC average to $69M in two years. So it would seem they will reach well beyond $70M by 2036.

20 million, and details are yet to be released but it's looking like it could be 23 million, which matches what Disney's advertising company exec indicated a year ago. We know the T1 deal was over the 307 million CBS offered. Thompson stated a year ago it was likely to finalize just over 350 million. Reports that came out in January and February of 2020 simply state over 300 million because of the declined CBS offer. We are all waiting on final details. But the payout for COVID of 23 million is supposed to reflect 1 years revenue increase for each school given early to offset lost gate. So Thompson is likely correct.

(05-23-2021 01:12 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I think the ACC will compete for #3 for the next few years.

But, like you and many people on this board, I am concerned of the ACC getting behind again for the period from 2025 through 2037.

Maybe we should try to cut it short instead of extending the contract...

If Texas/Oklahoma are in the Big 12 or the Pac-12/14/16, that conference will be #3. If Texas/Oklahoma are in the SEC or Big Ten or are split up, then it will be a battle between the ACC and Pac 12 for #3.

(05-24-2021 01:18 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 01:12 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I think the ACC will compete for #3 for the next few years.

But, like you and many people on this board, I am concerned of the ACC getting behind again for the period from 2025 through 2037.

Maybe we should try to cut it short instead of extending the contract...

If Texas/Oklahoma are in the Big 12 or the Pac-12/14/16, that conference will be #3. If Texas/Oklahoma are in the SEC or Big Ten or are split up, then it will be a battle between the ACC and Pac 12 for #3.

Yes, you are probably right.

I am not a media expert but this is my thought (and everyone else is probably thinking the same)

For 19-20: the ACC gets $32.3 million per team. That’s about $6-7M behind the Big 12.
For 20-21: the ACC will get a much larger check thanks to ND. It’s possible that the ACC would overtake the Big 12.
From 2021 through 2025: the ACCN payout would increase sufficiently by then and the ACC would be very competitve compared to the Big 12.
From 2025 through 2037: every conference other than the ACC will get a new media deal during this period and an increased payout, and the ACC will be behind again unless the ACC is able to reopen the contract maybe by acquiring a high profile team.

Not the brightest outlook. But who knows? The US economy may collapse in 2024 and everyone else will get a significantly lower payout, making the ACC #1.

Since this thread had much discussion about the possibility of ND football joining the ACC, and to provide some objective evidence of ND fans' stance/opinions on that subject, here is a survey question answered by 1,500 Notre Dame fans who subscribe to The Athletic:


"Did Notre Dame playing in the ACC last season make you feel more positively about the idea of the football program joining a conference?

Yes: 29.2 percent

No: 70.8 percent

It’s hard to look at Notre Dame’s single season in the ACC and not think it was a success. The Irish did in one season what Michigan has never managed, appearing in a conference championship game. Notre Dame got a marquee home night game against Clemson that turned into an iconic moment.

It all ended with a blowout loss to Clemson in the rematch for the conference title in Charlotte, but the ACC treated the Irish well in terms of scheduling and COVID-19 accommodations, scrapping a rescheduled game at Wake Forest to give the Irish an idle week before the ACC championship game in the sake of fairness because Clemson also had one.

Maybe there is a way to move the needle on ACC full membership with fans if USC was a guaranteed nonconference opponent, with a chance to rotate marquee opponents like Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Alabama, etc.

But for now, even after last season’s run to the College Football Playoff, Notre Dame is unchanged on the prospect of conference membership. They’ll pass."


https://theathletic.com/2619075/2021/05/...directed=1

(05-28-2021 04:54 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Since this thread had much discussion about the possibility of ND football joining the ACC, and to provide some objective evidence of ND fans' stance/opinions on that subject, here is a survey question answered by 1,500 Notre Dame fans who subscribe to The Athletic:


"Did Notre Dame playing in the ACC last season make you feel more positively about the idea of the football program joining a conference?

Yes: 29.2 percent

No: 70.8 percent

It’s hard to look at Notre Dame’s single season in the ACC and not think it was a success. The Irish did in one season what Michigan has never managed, appearing in a conference championship game. Notre Dame got a marquee home night game against Clemson that turned into an iconic moment.

It all ended with a blowout loss to Clemson in the rematch for the conference title in Charlotte, but the ACC treated the Irish well in terms of scheduling and COVID-19 accommodations, scrapping a rescheduled game at Wake Forest to give the Irish an idle week before the ACC championship game in the sake of fairness because Clemson also had one.

Maybe there is a way to move the needle on ACC full membership with fans if USC was a guaranteed nonconference opponent, with a chance to rotate marquee opponents like Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Alabama, etc.

But for now, even after last season’s run to the College Football Playoff, Notre Dame is unchanged on the prospect of conference membership. They’ll pass."


https://theathletic.com/2619075/2021/05/...directed=1

IOW, the ACC should evaluate this relationship like it's strictly...
...a 5-games/year scheduling agreement (half of them under the ACC TV contract)
...full membership in all other sports
...costing 20% T1 share, full ACCN share, and access to minor bowls

It's either an equitable arrangement or it isn't, but there is no promise of eventual full membership. (Now, if it turns out it isn't equitable, the disadvantaged side should negotiate better).

(05-28-2021 08:19 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-28-2021 04:54 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Since this thread had much discussion about the possibility of ND football joining the ACC, and to provide some objective evidence of ND fans' stance/opinions on that subject, here is a survey question answered by 1,500 Notre Dame fans who subscribe to The Athletic:


"Did Notre Dame playing in the ACC last season make you feel more positively about the idea of the football program joining a conference?

Yes: 29.2 percent

No: 70.8 percent

It’s hard to look at Notre Dame’s single season in the ACC and not think it was a success. The Irish did in one season what Michigan has never managed, appearing in a conference championship game. Notre Dame got a marquee home night game against Clemson that turned into an iconic moment.

It all ended with a blowout loss to Clemson in the rematch for the conference title in Charlotte, but the ACC treated the Irish well in terms of scheduling and COVID-19 accommodations, scrapping a rescheduled game at Wake Forest to give the Irish an idle week before the ACC championship game in the sake of fairness because Clemson also had one.

Maybe there is a way to move the needle on ACC full membership with fans if USC was a guaranteed nonconference opponent, with a chance to rotate marquee opponents like Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Alabama, etc.

But for now, even after last season’s run to the College Football Playoff, Notre Dame is unchanged on the prospect of conference membership. They’ll pass."


https://theathletic.com/2619075/2021/05/...directed=1

IOW, the ACC should evaluate this relationship like it's strictly...
...a 5-games/year scheduling agreement (half of them under the ACC TV contract)
...full membership in all other sports
...costing 20% T1 share, full ACCN share, and access to minor bowls

It's either an equitable arrangement or it isn't, but there is no promise of eventual full membership. (Now, if it turns out it isn't equitable, the disadvantaged side should negotiate better).

That has always been the deal. ND told the ACC straight up during negotiations in 2012 that football would not be included.

John Swofford and the ACC brass understood this. I think that fans are the only ones who didn't take ND at its word.

Overall having this is more positive than not, but alot of it is perception. They only slightly help with the ancillary bowls and having them didn't get Comcast early.
Frankly, if they'd go all in, I still wouldn't expect it to propel the ACC up into the top level.

(05-21-2021 09:05 PM)nole Wrote:  *I do like the new commish. Sadly the failed leadership of the ACC tied his hands for about 15-20 years.

What kind of media deal would the ACC have gotten if Clemson and Florida State had refused to agree to that long term GoR and contract? And if they would only agree to a deal that was expiring this year, how does anyone know how much the league would command in the open market? Would they be more valuable today relative to the B1G and SEC? Somehow, I doubt it.

(05-29-2021 08:35 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-21-2021 09:05 PM)nole Wrote:  *I do like the new commish. Sadly the failed leadership of the ACC tied his hands for about 15-20 years.

What kind of media deal would the ACC have gotten if Clemson and Florida State had refused to agree to that long term GoR and contract? And if they would only agree to a deal that was expiring this year, how does anyone know how much the league would command in the open market? Would they be more valuable today relative to the B1G and SEC? Somehow, I doubt it.

The ACC has gotten fair market rate (at the time) for every contract they've ever signed. The problem is, they were receiving fair 2010 value for games played in 2019. So the mistake always was the LENGTH of the contract. There's a reason the Big Ten insisted on a 6-year contract last time around: they knew what they were doing.

(05-29-2021 02:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-29-2021 08:35 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-21-2021 09:05 PM)nole Wrote:  *I do like the new commish. Sadly the failed leadership of the ACC tied his hands for about 15-20 years.

What kind of media deal would the ACC have gotten if Clemson and Florida State had refused to agree to that long term GoR and contract? And if they would only agree to a deal that was expiring this year, how does anyone know how much the league would command in the open market? Would they be more valuable today relative to the B1G and SEC? Somehow, I doubt it.

The ACC has gotten fair market rate (at the time) for every contract they've ever signed. The problem is, they were receiving fair 2010 value for games played in 2019. So the mistake always was the LENGTH of the contract. There's a reason the Big Ten insisted on a 6-year contract last time around: they knew what they were doing.

Mark, you have to be mindful of demographic shifts and adjust the duration of contracts accordingly. ESPN wanted the long contract at low valuation knowing that the last 15 years of Boomer influence would be golden. So they cashed in. Next time it's the countdown on X'ers. The transition from Boomer to Xer influences will likely lead to declines of football and basketball revenue of a gradual decline of 25% over the decade between 2035 and 45. So locking in a 10 year contract based upon 2035 data may be the smarter course for the future.

Where most people, commissioners and college presidents included, get taken is in failing to look at demographics, whether in sports contracts looking forward, or in stocks where most economic models look backwards at past trends instead of at what the majority of people are doing.

Boomers, and to a lesser extent X'ers due to smaller numbers and less inheritance, drove the college sports cost inflation due to their personal interests and demand. The reason Swofford deserves his castigation is because he was obtuse to the obvious escalation in demand that Boomer's would drive in their retirement years with regard to college sports prices. By 2035, statistically the demand for all of that starts its inevitable decline. Now that will be mitigated a little bit by the need for live event advertising, but once streaming is the norm then only the # of views will matter. Generations subsequent to X'ers didn't play football, basketball, or baseball in nearly the numbers of their parents and grandparents and have much less interest in watching it, let alone buying tickets to a live event.

The great sports culture of the United States is dying and 2035 will be the first of two legs down. If we are still viable as a world economic power in 2050 then you will see a major and likely generational downturn in team sports. If we are no longer a viable world economic power it won't matter as people will spend their days trying to keep enough to live. With big tech and hand held devices we have been, and are, experiencing a major breakdown in social skills and the desire to be a role playing part of a larger team effort as opposed to individual recognition is waning rapidly. Look for an even larger emphasis in individual sports and activities in the future. MMA is a more extreme precursor of this shift to individual games. Golf and Tennis will likely be okay but aren't exactly things the masses will view. Masses will want quick action, hence MMA.

(05-29-2021 08:35 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-21-2021 09:05 PM)nole Wrote:  *I do like the new commish. Sadly the failed leadership of the ACC tied his hands for about 15-20 years.

What kind of media deal would the ACC have gotten if Clemson and Florida State had refused to agree to that long term GoR and contract? And if they would only agree to a deal that was expiring this year, how does anyone know how much the league would command in the open market? Would they be more valuable today relative to the B1G and SEC? Somehow, I doubt it.

You need to separate the decisions of the GoR versus the media contract extension.

IMO, the GoR was essential for the ACC’s survival. The 2008 media contract had been financially disastrous, and the subsequent additions of Pitt/Cuse/partial-ND did help boost immediate payouts. Nevertheless, Maryland leaving exposed the lack of long-term consensus amongst the schools. Florida State (and other football schools) boosters started vetting the B12; Virginia (and possibly Georgia Tech) were rumored to be talking with the BIG; UNC (and possibly Duke) were initiating feelers to the SEC; and Notre Dame had no real investment in the future ACC. The GoR forced all 15 members to commit to a joint future. Creating a dedicated conference network required upfront investment that neither ESPN nor the schools would risk without the GoR. BIG schools needed the GoR to start their BTN; and the ACC does not have the SEC’s football prowess that ensured its viability.

On the other hand, extending the length of the T1 & 2 contracts appears to have been a short-sighted gamble that is hurting the current value of schools. The ACC exchanged an increase in immediate cash for ESPN’s long term commitment. Given the horrible starting point (the once adjusted 2008 contract) and subsequent growth in sports media rights, the contract now appears very one-sided in favor of ESPN. Without the extension, the ACC members would likely be earning less today. Yet they could renegotiate rights to get market rates...IMO, valuations would be much higher if the ACC media rights were not locked-in for the next 15 years.

(05-29-2021 03:40 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-29-2021 08:35 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-21-2021 09:05 PM)nole Wrote:  *I do like the new commish. Sadly the failed leadership of the ACC tied his hands for about 15-20 years.

What kind of media deal would the ACC have gotten if Clemson and Florida State had refused to agree to that long term GoR and contract? And if they would only agree to a deal that was expiring this year, how does anyone know how much the league would command in the open market? Would they be more valuable today relative to the B1G and SEC? Somehow, I doubt it.

You need to separate the decisions of the GoR versus the media contract extension.

IMO, the GoR was essential for the ACC’s survival. The 2008 media contract had been financially disastrous, and the subsequent additions of Pitt/Cuse/partial-ND did help boost immediate payouts. Nevertheless, Maryland leaving exposed the lack of long-term consensus amongst the schools. Florida State (and other football schools) boosters started vetting the B12; Virginia (and possibly Georgia Tech) were rumored to be talking with the BIG; UNC (and possibly Duke) were initiating feelers to the SEC; and Notre Dame had no real investment in the future ACC. The GoR forced all 15 members to commit to a joint future. Creating a dedicated conference network required upfront investment that neither ESPN nor the schools would risk without the GoR. BIG schools needed the GoR to start their BTN; and the ACC does not have the SEC’s football prowess that ensured its viability.

On the other hand, extending the length of the T1 & 2 contracts appears to have been a short-sighted gamble that is hurting the current value of schools. The ACC exchanged an increase in immediate cash for ESPN’s long term commitment. Given the horrible starting point (the once adjusted 2008 contract) and subsequent growth in sports media rights, the contract now appears very one-sided in favor of ESPN. Without the extension, the ACC members would likely be earning less today. Yet they could renegotiate rights to get market rates...IMO, valuations would be much higher if the ACC media rights were not locked-in for the next 15 years.

Yes it doesn’t look like the currenct contract is very fair to the ACC.

My question is, if the contract expires soon, say 2025 like the Big 12, would there be a possibility of some of the ACC leaving for the SEC / the BIG? To me, Swofford and the ACC took an extremely conservative approach to make sure nobody leaves until 2036. And if the ACC gets a high profile school by some miracle, then it will have a chance to reopen the contract.