(06-26-2022 10:39 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 09:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 07:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 05:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded, I think the ACCN is making good money. It isn't making the kind of money that can seriously close the expanding gap with the SEC and B1G, but IMO it is making enough to keep it on the same level as the PAC and ahead of the new Big 12.

I bet that by 2023, ACC teams will be making around $8m to $10m more per team thanks to the ACCN than they would have made without it. To me, that's pretty serious.

The ACC will likely gross over $600m in revenue this year. That only looks weak because of what the SEC and B1G are making. But it's not bad in a general sense.

Question quo, when you mention $600 million in revenue this year for the ACC, is that all revenue? Does that include CFP revenue and NCAA Basketball tournament revenue?

I am not sure but I believe it would include all revenue as reported on the IRS Form 990. Last year, for 2020-2021, the ACC reported $578m in revenue, so I am predicting a slight boost that would put them over $600m. I do know it means more than just TV revenue, as that was around $400m.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...855686002/

Thanks. I hear these numbers being thrown around for different conferences and I am never quite sure if they are including an estimate on other revenue or if they are just talking TV revenue. I had read that the ACC Network was doing well financially.

Jon Wilner has predicted that the average annual value of the next Pac-12 media deal will be $600 million:
https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/2022/04...otiations/

"In our opinion, the Pac-12’s next media rights deal will bring an average annual value of $600 million, which breaks down to $50 million per school over the course of the deal. (The Year One value would be less, assuming an escalator of three or four percent.)"

Wilner is well connected, but he could be wrong or he could be right. He could understating or overstating the value of the next contract. But I do agree with you that $600 million only looks weak in comparison to the the Big Ten and SEC. I agree that "it's not bad in a general sense."

I agree with Wiliner and think the PAC is in strong position to get a good deal in 2024.

I also think the PAC should emulate the B1G and avoid the problem the SEC and ACC have had of signing long deals. The 2024 deal should be for six or seven years, IMO.