Can't say I'm too pleased with this.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...CC-TV.aspx

(02-06-2012 04:06 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Can't say I'm too pleased with this.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...CC-TV.aspx

Ah don't worry about it. In a little bit a couple of Chapel Hill's finest will come along and tell you how great it is.

(02-06-2012 04:16 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 04:06 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Can't say I'm too pleased with this.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...CC-TV.aspx

Ah don't worry about it. In a little bit a couple of Chapel Hill's finest will come along and tell you how great it is.

I sense a lot of venom from you these past few days. About how long will it take for us Pitt and Cuse fans to have this same hatred for Tobacco Road?

Most likely the length of the last ACC deal killed any real negotiating position for the ACC. If the deal was only for 6 years, I bet the annual boost on a per team basis would have been a good bit better.

(02-06-2012 04:32 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Most likely the length of the last ACC deal killed any real negotiating position for the ACC. If the deal was only for 6 years, I bet the annual boost on a per team basis would have been a good bit better.

I can agree with this. In 15 years from now, I sincerely hope that, whomever the Commish is, the ACC negotiates a much shorter term deal.

Everyone assumes the Big-12 will get a huge TV contract increase, but I'm not so sure... I mean, they are already getting 12-team money for a 10-team league (a 20% increase right there), and since then they have lost Texas A&M and Missouri and replaced them with TCU and WVU. How does that translate in more money?

One thing I didn't read in this is if the ACC is allowed to start its own network or not. I do understand that the online Digital Network is out there.

(02-06-2012 05:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Everyone assumes the Big-12 will get a huge TV contract increase, but I'm not so sure... I mean, they are already getting 12-team money for a 10-team league (a 20% increase right there), and since then they have lost Texas A&M and Missouri and replaced them with TCU and WVU. How does that translate in more money?

They had 12 teams playing 8 games or 48 games per year and went to 10 teams playing 9 games or 45 games per year. They will have to maintain the 9 game schedule to add significant inventory if they expand.

Also, their tier one package probably included the championship game before. So they are getting 9 million for the tier two which only got reduced by 3 total games while not all games would have been shown anyway. Their tier one lost the option to pick from games such as Nebraska vs ranked teams and Texas A&M/UT game. Their basketball championship got smaller and they lost their football championship game which was a good draw. So they do have less inventory and quality in tier one than they did before. I'm not sure how round robin basketball games affect viewership if they do at all. I'd be inclined to believe less people would watch the second in a series but I really have no idea.

(02-06-2012 05:10 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  One thing I didn't read in this is if the ACC is allowed to start its own network or not. I do understand that the online Digital Network is out there.

I would think ESPN would have to partner on it since they own the rights to everything. It'd be something along the lines of the longhorn network I imagine.

(02-06-2012 04:19 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 04:16 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 04:06 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Can't say I'm too pleased with this.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...CC-TV.aspx

Ah don't worry about it. In a little bit a couple of Chapel Hill's finest will come along and tell you how great it is.

I sense a lot of venom from you these past few days. About how long will it take for us Pitt and Cuse fans to have this same hatred for Tobacco Road?

Depends. If you're a conspriacy theory afficiando, then not long at all.

The plus side is the ACC (with a longer deal) will be able to negotiate after all the other conferences the next time...was hoping for $16-18M vs $14-15M per team.

Why do most posters on here do this?

The article is a media report SPECULATING on the deal from "sources privy to the negotiations..." Nothing from either the ACC or ESPN. How many times have people been burned by the "sources close to the discussions" line? This story has not been repeated anywhere else, has it?

Maybe we should wait until there is a definitive announcement before pronouncing whether this deal is a success or not.

What did Einstein supposedly say: "The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

(02-06-2012 10:33 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Why do most posters on here do this?

The article is a media report SPECULATING on the deal from "sources privy to the negotiations..." Nothing from either the ACC or ESPN. How many times have people been burned by the "sources close to the discussions" line? This story has not been repeated anywhere else, has it?

Maybe we should wait until there is a definitive announcement before pronouncing whether this deal is a success or not.

What did Einstein supposedly say: "The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

Good points.

It does say "at least $1 million to $2 million a year". So it could be more.

Average annual payout for the PAC is $18.8 million. If the ACC can't get at least $17 million a year, then there's a problem.

See, and here I was thinking Swofford had moved up from diapers to maxipads and tampons after Expansion 2.0.

If what is speculated on there is final, our little girl is getting put back in diapers.

(02-06-2012 05:38 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 05:10 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  One thing I didn't read in this is if the ACC is allowed to start its own network or not. I do understand that the online Digital Network is out there.

I would think ESPN would have to partner on it since they own the rights to everything. It'd be something along the lines of the longhorn network I imagine.

I wonder if the ACC would be able to buy some of those rights to start up a network.

And I'm sure its not that easy either.

(02-07-2012 12:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 05:38 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 05:10 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  One thing I didn't read in this is if the ACC is allowed to start its own network or not. I do understand that the online Digital Network is out there.

I would think ESPN would have to partner on it since they own the rights to everything. It'd be something along the lines of the longhorn network I imagine.

I wonder if the ACC would be able to buy some of those rights to start up a network.

And I'm sure its not that easy either.

Got to have someone willing to sell the rights, and honestly I doubt the ACC could offer enough to ESECPN and keep the cost low enough where the ACC Network would be financially viable.

one thing you guys are missing
expansion will increase other sources of revenue
total might be 4 or 5 million total package

(02-08-2012 11:08 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  one thing you guys are missing
expansion will increase other sources of revenue
total might be 4 or 5 million total package

Which still puts us behind the PAC12 and B1G's tv contracts currently, and the SEC when their new deal gets done, before you add in all their "other sources of revenue"

Plus for Clemson it means we are giving up an 82K home OOC sellout for an anywhere from 72-78k ACC home game. Even with the basic ticket cost of $25 that means on the high end it is costing us $100k, on the low end $250k.

(02-08-2012 11:47 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 11:08 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  one thing you guys are missing
expansion will increase other sources of revenue
total might be 4 or 5 million total package

Which still puts us behind the PAC12 and B1G's tv contracts currently, and the SEC when their new deal gets done, before you add in all their "other sources of revenue"

Plus for Clemson it means we are giving up an 82K home OOC sellout for an anywhere from 72-78k ACC home game. Even with the basic ticket cost of $25 that means on the high end it is costing us $100k, on the low end $250k.

Not so fast, Cat Daddy!

First, your stadium capacity is listed as 80,301 - not 82k. According to reported attendance numbers, you were above that 3 times last year:

Auburn = 81,514
FSU = 80,994
UNC = 80,519

Second, the only OOC game you actually sold out last year was Auburn; the 2 that won't require a return trip - Troy & Wofford - averaged only 73,998 attendance - far below capacity (and I know for a fact that some of those tickets were given away for free).

By contrast, if we take away the FSU game for a moment and just look at the ACC opponents that you despise so much - BC, UNC, and Wake - the reported attendance numbers for those 3 games were:

BC = 76315 (still 2,000 better than Wofford & 3,000 better than Troy)
UNC = 80519 (as much as we love to hate UNC, it WAS a sellout)
Wake = 78375
AVG = 78403

So, in real world terms, your ACC games did not cost you money -- they actually brought in EXTRA money. You sold an extra 4,405 tickets vs ACC "northern" and "NC" teams than vs. OOC cupcakes. Using your $25 per ticket number, that's an extra $110,125 per game.

Would it better if they were all sold out? And that is what Clemson needs to try to achieve. By not selling out Troy, Wofford, BC, and Wake, Clemson left $462,950 on the table. That's nearly half a million in extra revenue right there.

I get that you don't want to completely give up a home game every other year. Neither does VT. So, what if you only schedule "extra" BCS at neutral sites, where Clemson gets half? Ga Dome seats 71,228; Bank of America seats 73,778. Here is a link discussing neutral site games. According to the article, Georgia made nearly as much money from playing Boise St in the Georgia Dome as they would have if they had played them in Athens.

BOTTOM LINE: I don't think the 9 game schedule is going to be as bad as you think it is - especially when you factor in an extra $2 million or more in TV money.