Our resident Clemson poster is making the claim that the ACC schools will not be able to compete against other schools from BCS conferences. Perhaps Catdaddy is claiming more specifically that the best of the ACC cannot compete against the best of the other BCS schools in other conferences due to financial shortfalls. I think this topic deserves its own thread, because I think this is different from what we think the ACC contract will look like in the next year or two. Here are some thoughts that I have on this subject.

What is the difference between the minimum amount of money needed to compete (a circuit breaker number) vs the delta in revenue between conferences? Obviously, the difference in the numbers mean a great deal when you are comparing the SEC to CUSA. However, is the difference that large of a deal when you are comparing the SEC to the B1G? The B1G arguably has the best revenue stream out there. Does the SEC have a built in disadvantage when it competes against the best of the B1G from a financial standpoint, i.e. Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State?

The financial differences between the ACC and the B1G are even greater. With this in mind, do ACC schools like Clemson, FSU and Miami feel like they cannot compete against Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State? A few ACC fans from the football schools are very much concerned about the income disparity of the ACC vs the SEC, and that this revenue gap will cause the ACC to fall way behind the SEC. But what if we insert the B1G into the argument? Do the ACC football schools feel like they cannot compete against the B1G schools due to revenue disparities?

What I'm getting at is this: is revenue the only factor when it comes to fielding competitive FB teams, or are there a number of other factors that need to be considered too?

It most definitely means that we aren't going to be able to compete with the B1G, Pac12, and Big XII long term. There will be a clear line of separation just like there is a clear line of separation now between the BE and CUSA. Sure, we may get the occasional win against one of their teams, but by the time this horrid TV deal runs it's course we will be consistently rated the 5th best conference and will have to have a ton of dominoes fall our way to be in contention for national titles, probably in any of the big sports.

I can't buy this. Money is just one factor in fielding a winning athletic program. How you manage the money that you bring in is even more important. For as much money as Penn State makes in the B1G, they have had next to no success in men's basketball, the #2 revenue generating sport. Some schools in the B1G are receiving a fat paycheck and not looking better than anyone else in the country - Northwestern, Indiana, Minnesota.

It all comes back to how you spend the dollars that you do have. A wise ACC team may not be completely on the same playing field as the B1G and SEC schools, however, they can do a respectable job and can surely compete going into the future. This is nothing like the line between the BCS schools and C-USA.

I think the way money matters most is when it comes to retaining a winning coach. If a B1G, Pac12, SEC, etc. school offers your coach more $$$ than you can match... that's a problem. (As long as players are not paid there is no reason to think revenue directly corresponds to talent, though indirectly players are influenced by coaches, of course).

Think MLB. The Oakland A's can be competitive, but the NY Yankees continue to win year after year...

(02-15-2012 11:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think the way money matters most is when it comes to retaining a winning coach. If a B1G, Pac12, SEC, etc. school offers your coach more $$$ than you can match... that's a problem. (As long as players are not paid there is no reason to think revenue directly corresponds to talent, though indirectly players are influenced by coaches, of course).

Think MLB. The Oakland A's can be competitive, but the NY Yankees continue to win year after year...

Two mistakes....First, it's not coach, it's coaches. One of the reasons the SEC is as dominant as they have been is the fact that they can pay to retain top assistants. If anybody on this board would understand what that means I would think it would be a VT fan.

It also means that the SEC, B1G, Big XII, and Pac12 can pay for top of the line support staffs....trainers, physical therapists, strength and conditioning coaches, nutritionists, academic support personnel, etc.

Second, talent is paid for in more ways than direct payment (although IMO the stipend issue is going to come to pass) I've often mentioned the facilities and keep getting the argument "you can only do so much" but it's more than just the buildings. When you go into a weight room and one school has brand new, top of the line equipment and the next has equipment that while good is several years old and showing wear and tear what kind of impression is that going to make?

Phil Knight started pouring money into Oregon's Athletics programs in the mid 1990's. From 1978 -1994 (16 years) Oregon averaged 5.4 wins a year, with 8 years of .500 or better records, no double digit win seasons, and one Pac10 championship. From 1995-2011 (16 years) Oregon has averaged 7.7 wins a year, with one record of .500 or less, seven double digit win seasons, and five Pac10/12 championships. Coincidence?

As for the Oakland A's/ NY Yankees reference....how many AL titles have the A's won in the past 30 years? My goal isn't to be competitive, my goal is to win championships.

(02-15-2012 10:20 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Our resident Clemson poster is making the claim that the ACC schools will not be able to compete against other schools from BCS conferences. Perhaps Catdaddy is claiming more specifically that the best of the ACC cannot compete against the best of the other BCS schools in other conferences due to financial shortfalls. I think this topic deserves its own thread, because I think this is different from what we think the ACC contract will look like in the next year or two. Here are some thoughts that I have on this subject.

What is the difference between the minimum amount of money needed to compete (a circuit breaker number) vs the delta in revenue between conferences? Obviously, the difference in the numbers mean a great deal when you are comparing the SEC to CUSA. However, is the difference that large of a deal when you are comparing the SEC to the B1G? The B1G arguably has the best revenue stream out there. Does the SEC have a built in disadvantage when it competes against the best of the B1G from a financial standpoint, i.e. Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State?

The financial differences between the ACC and the B1G are even greater. With this in mind, do ACC schools like Clemson, FSU and Miami feel like they cannot compete against Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State? A few ACC fans from the football schools are very much concerned about the income disparity of the ACC vs the SEC, and that this revenue gap will cause the ACC to fall way behind the SEC. But what if we insert the B1G into the argument? Do the ACC football schools feel like they cannot compete against the B1G schools due to revenue disparities?

What I'm getting at is this: is revenue the only factor when it comes to fielding competitive FB teams, or are there a number of other factors that need to be considered too?

You'll always be ahead of the big east

(02-15-2012 01:25 PM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 10:20 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Our resident Clemson poster is making the claim that the ACC schools will not be able to compete against other schools from BCS conferences. Perhaps Catdaddy is claiming more specifically that the best of the ACC cannot compete against the best of the other BCS schools in other conferences due to financial shortfalls. I think this topic deserves its own thread, because I think this is different from what we think the ACC contract will look like in the next year or two. Here are some thoughts that I have on this subject.

What is the difference between the minimum amount of money needed to compete (a circuit breaker number) vs the delta in revenue between conferences? Obviously, the difference in the numbers mean a great deal when you are comparing the SEC to CUSA. However, is the difference that large of a deal when you are comparing the SEC to the B1G? The B1G arguably has the best revenue stream out there. Does the SEC have a built in disadvantage when it competes against the best of the B1G from a financial standpoint, i.e. Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State?

The financial differences between the ACC and the B1G are even greater. With this in mind, do ACC schools like Clemson, FSU and Miami feel like they cannot compete against Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State? A few ACC fans from the football schools are very much concerned about the income disparity of the ACC vs the SEC, and that this revenue gap will cause the ACC to fall way behind the SEC. But what if we insert the B1G into the argument? Do the ACC football schools feel like they cannot compete against the B1G schools due to revenue disparities?

What I'm getting at is this: is revenue the only factor when it comes to fielding competitive FB teams, or are there a number of other factors that need to be considered too?

You'll always be ahead of the big east

So we will be the tallest midget.

Great.

I highly doubt the ACC will lag far behind the XII. They'll be about even in payout. The XII may get more money per team, but that's just because they only have 10 teams.

fix ACC FB
1 Mia program has to be fixxed
2 Duke has to be competive
3 Syc has to deliever NYC in FB
4 NC has to equal effort in FB & BB
5 Clemson want's to be FB power, play like one
6 BC has to be relavent
7 Pitt plays like they recurit

(02-15-2012 04:00 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  fix ACC FB
1 Mia program has to be fixxed
2 Duke has to be competive
3 Syc has to deliever NYC in FB
4 NC has to equal effort in FB & BB
5 Clemson want's to be FB power, play like one6 BC has to be relavent
7 Pitt plays like they recurit

Agree with both highlighted

Check out this link for a detailed chart of revenue by school for a recent year.

http://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?AppKey=900c1...6d4dd286d1

One thing that pops out is that the revenue differential in ticket sales and donations is much bigger than media rights as between the SEC and B1G as compared to the ACC. These sources have to be developed by the individual school and are not going to change a lot just because you change conferences.

It also matters how you spend your money. If the revenue isn't there, you may not be able to support as many sports as schools in the B1G.

Recruiting is definitely benefited by nice facilities, which come from money. I'm sure SU's hoops has gotten a big boost from the training facility donated by Carmelo Anthony. However, there are many intangible factors as well. Right now, the SEC is benefiting from its run of championships. Many kids want to play in the SEC because it is the league to play in. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

The ACC needs a couple of schools to break through that mindset and land a pile of 4 and 5 star recruits. FSU has done a great job at this the past 2 years. It will be interesting to see if that can be translate into wins. 1 school making regular runs at the national title will translate into 2 or 3 more schools recruiting better, which ultimately will help the whole conference recruit better.

(02-15-2012 05:04 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Check out this link for a detailed chart of revenue by school for a recent year.

http://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?AppKey=900c1...6d4dd286d1

One thing that pops out is that the revenue differential in ticket sales and donations is much bigger than media rights as between the SEC and B1G as compared to the ACC. These sources have to be developed by the individual school and are not going to change a lot just because you change conferences.

It also matters how you spend your money. If the revenue isn't there, you may not be able to support as many sports as schools in the B1G.

Recruiting is definitely benefited by nice facilities, which come from money. I'm sure SU's hoops has gotten a big boost from the training facility donated by Carmelo Anthony. However, there are many intangible factors as well. Right now, the SEC is benefiting from its run of championships. Many kids want to play in the SEC because it is the league to play in. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

The ACC needs a couple of schools to break through that mindset and land a pile of 4 and 5 star recruits. FSU has done a great job at this the past 2 years. It will be interesting to see if that can be translate into wins. 1 school making regular runs at the national title will translate into 2 or 3 more schools recruiting better, which ultimately will help the whole conference recruit better.

When talking about private schools, the chart means very little. Syracuse usually shows the same revenue as expenses. Several others do the same. Some state reporting requirements are different, too, so not all numbers are readily comparable.

Like the majority states in this thread, how you spend it is what counts.

Like many have said in other threads: Winning will cure many ills.

(02-15-2012 05:04 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Check out this link for a detailed chart of revenue by school for a recent year.

http://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?AppKey=900c1...6d4dd286d1

One thing that pops out is that the revenue differential in ticket sales and donations is much bigger than media rights as between the SEC and B1G as compared to the ACC. These sources have to be developed by the individual school and are not going to change a lot just because you change conferences.

It also matters how you spend your money. If the revenue isn't there, you may not be able to support as many sports as schools in the B1G.

Recruiting is definitely benefited by nice facilities, which come from money. I'm sure SU's hoops has gotten a big boost from the training facility donated by Carmelo Anthony. However, there are many intangible factors as well. Right now, the SEC is benefiting from its run of championships. Many kids want to play in the SEC because it is the league to play in. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

The ACC needs a couple of schools to break through that mindset and land a pile of 4 and 5 star recruits. FSU has done a great job at this the past 2 years. It will be interesting to see if that can be translate into wins. 1 school making regular runs at the national title will translate into 2 or 3 more schools recruiting better, which ultimately will help the whole conference recruit better.

This is nice information. Thanks for sharing.

Those stats say ESPN, but the site isn't ESPN, and those figures if you scroll to the bottom are reported for 2008... only the Big East isn't into a new contract yet since then - so those numbers are so outdated its not even funny.

That said, in regards to the ACC tv deal, the Big East will get a new contract soon, and could be up for renewal again before the ACC's current deal ends... I really think this contract is going to hurt long term at fixed amounts even with a slight boost from 'Cuse and Pittsburgh.

(02-15-2012 11:51 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Those stats say ESPN, but the site isn't ESPN, and those figures if you scroll to the bottom are reported for 2008... only the Big East isn't into a new contract yet since then - so those numbers are so outdated its not even funny.

That said, in regards to the ACC tv deal, the Big East will get a new contract soon, and could be up for renewal again before the ACC's current deal ends... I really think this contract is going to hurt long term at fixed amounts even with a slight boost from 'Cuse and Pittsburgh.

It really all boils down to how that "adjust for inflation" clause works in the ACC contract. How is inflation measured? How big are the adjustments? Are they automatic, or only when the contract is renegotiated (e.g. when new teams are added)?

Also, the ACC TV contract is for all home games played in ACC stadiums (and maybe "home" games played on a neutral site, e.g. Florida & Georgia). I don't think true neutral site games are covered, but I'm not sure.

Not necessarily. I mean Texas has more money than god, yet they're 13-12 the last two years. Money helps certainly, but it's not the end-all, be-all. College athletics aren't like MLB.

The biggest thing that separates the SEC from the ACC isn't the TV deal. The difference isn't big enough the make a significant impact. We're talking 2-3 percent of an athletic department's overall budget.

What separates the SEC is having fans that make $40,000 a year, yet are willing to give a $2,500 donation for tickets and then another $600 for good seats. The SEC territory does three things well - poverty, poor education and football. So, their wild-ass fans get so wrapped up in the football team because it's the best thing in their lives and spend whatever disposable income they have on it.

That's not something that can be replicated anywhere else, nor should it. I mean, the Alabama and LSU football teams generate 14 and 11 percent of the school's overall income! That's absurd on so many levels, and not in a good way.

I agree with the others who stated that TV contract revenue is but a part of much more complex picture that is best explained by taking multiple factors into account. I hate to break it to catdaddy this way, but Clemson will not become elite by switching conferences - be it the SEC or Big12. As you pointed out, your fans need exciting matchups in order to show up to games. Pitt's in the same boat, so I'm not unfairly criticizing Clemson here because my school does not consistently sell out for home games either. That doesn't mean that Pitt and Clemson can't compete in FBS football and do quite well for themselves. However, neither will ever become elite until they can sell out no matter who the opponent is - like OSU, PSU and Michigan who will sell out to watch an FCS team get slaughtered (in most cases...). This goes for any school in the ACC who desires to compete at the highest levels. You need to sell out your stadiums regardless of who the opponent is, and believe me Pitt has A LOT of work to do on that front too. Switching conferences in order to chase TV money will not accomplish that goal for you. Sorry.

(02-15-2012 05:04 PM)orangefan Wrote:  One thing that pops out is that the revenue differential in ticket sales and donations is much bigger than media rights as between the SEC and B1G as compared to the ACC. These sources have to be developed by the individual school and are not going to change a lot just because you change conferences.

(02-16-2012 09:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I hate to break it to catdaddy this way, but Clemson will not become elite by switching conferences - be it the SEC or Big12. As you pointed out, your fans need exciting matchups in order to show up to games. Pitt's in the same boat, so I'm not unfairly criticizing Clemson here because my school does not consistently sell out for home games either.

Quote:However, neither will ever become elite until they can sell out no matter who the opponent is - like OSU, PSU and Michigan who will sell out to watch an FCS team get slaughtered (in most cases...). This goes for any school in the ACC who desires to compete at the highest levels. You need to sell out your stadiums regardless of who the opponent is, and believe me Pitt has A LOT of work to do on that front too.

You still don't get it.

SEC fans that brag about selling out their home stadiums for every game aren't telling the whole truth. South Carolina's actual fan attendance isn't that much better than Clemson's despite having a larger enrollment and a much larger alumni base. The difference is EVERY SEC team has a strong fan following and even the worst SEC fanbase as far as traveling, Vanderbilt, rings more fans to Columbia than anybody in the ACC to Clemson except FSU and GT. When you are in a conference that brings in anywhere from 7-10k visiting fans to every game it's easy to have sellout after sellout. There is NOTHING Clemson can do to improve the rest of the conference's lackadaisical attitude towards football.

(02-16-2012 11:49 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  ...There is NOTHING Clemson can do to improve the rest of the conference's lackadaisical attitude towards football.

Agreed. So just stomp 'em all. That's what VT has been doing!

(02-16-2012 11:49 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  You still don't get it.

SEC fans that brag about selling out their home stadiums for every game aren't telling the whole truth. South Carolina's actual fan attendance isn't that much better than Clemson's despite having a larger enrollment and a much larger alumni base. The difference is EVERY SEC team has a strong fan following and even the worst SEC fanbase as far as traveling, Vanderbilt, rings more fans to Columbia than anybody in the ACC to Clemson except FSU and GT. When you are in a conference that brings in anywhere from 7-10k visiting fans to every game it's easy to have sellout after sellout. There is NOTHING Clemson can do to improve the rest of the conference's lackadaisical attitude towards football.

How much does Clemson charge for tickets? If Clemson sells 10,000 extra seats a game for 5 game at $50/ticket, that's $2.5 million per year in revenue. Major college programs are generating $50+ million/years in revenue, so there's a potential 5% increase.

As conferences grow geographically, going to road games gets harder and harder. I would have to fly to any ACC road game except BC. If Clemson joined the B12, every visiting fan would have to fly to Clemson. In the P12, fans of every school have to fly to any away game except for their travel partner.

Every school and every conference has unique challenges and opportunities. You should be glad your scholarship expense isn't what the private schools in the conference have to pay. I guaranty the extra cost is way more than the potential value of visiting fans. Every school has to look at all of its opportunities and figure out how to maximize them. Heck, that's why a bunch of schools are switching conferences.