(02-16-2012 11:49 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(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.

So, that's your basis for leaving?

Alrighty then

[/u]

(02-16-2012 11:49 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(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.

Is that universally true for all SEC schools, i.e. that every school sees 7K - 10K fans from the opposing school in their stands? I suspect that not all SEC venues have that many fans visiting. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would have thought that schools like Florida, Georgia, LSU and Alabama would sell out every single game - whether opposing fans are traveling to these power schools or not. My assumption that at a minimum two SEC schools - LSU and Alabama - are likely a lot like OSU, PSU and Michigan in the B1G in that they will sell out their stadium with their own fans NO MATTER WHAT. That means 1) the opponent is irrelevent, 2) the number of fans from opposing schools showing up is irrelevent and 3) the weather is irrelevent - because these schools would sell out their stadiums regardless of the circumstances.

The schools in the SEC that do require 7K - 10K fans from other schools to show up at their stadiums are likely not making nearly as much revenue as the big time schools. I don't have the link handy, but I've seen athletic department revenue where the revenue disparity WITHIN the SEC and B1G is significantly larger than the revenue disparity between conferences when it comes to TV contract dollars.

(02-16-2012 03:42 PM)miko33 Wrote:  [/u]

(02-16-2012 11:49 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(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.

Is that universally true for all SEC schools, i.e. that every school sees 7K - 10K fans from the opposing school in their stands? I suspect that not all SEC venues have that many fans visiting. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would have thought that schools like Florida, Georgia, LSU and Alabama would sell out every single game - whether opposing fans are traveling to these power schools or not. My assumption that at a minimum two SEC schools - LSU and Alabama - are likely a lot like OSU, PSU and Michigan in the B1G in that they will sell out their stadium with their own fans NO MATTER WHAT. That means 1) the opponent is irrelevent, 2) the number of fans from opposing schools showing up is irrelevent and 3) the weather is irrelevent - because these schools would sell out their stadiums regardless of the circumstances.

The schools in the SEC that do require 7K - 10K fans from other schools to show up at their stadiums are likely not making nearly as much revenue as the big time schools. I don't have the link handy, but I've seen athletic department revenue where the revenue disparity WITHIN the SEC and B1G is significantly larger than the revenue disparity between conferences when it comes to TV contract dollars.

From time to time in the past I have worked South Carolina home games providing first aid/EMS. I know that in '93 or '94 they played Kentucky on a Thursday night and there were more Kentucky fans there than I have ever seen from any ACC team except FSU/GT/VT. I'm talking 7-8k fans for a weeknight game between two bad teams.

I worked a South Carolina/Arkansas game when Danny Ford was coaching the Hogs and there were easy 8-9k Hog fans there. Mississippi State? 9-10k the two games I worked. UGA/UF/UT? Minimum 10K, with 15K at times for UF/UT because both used to be later in the year when South Carolina would be in the season ending swoon.

Well, you do know that Big 12 schools aren't filling up Death Valley, right?

Texas has never traveled to Big 12 North schools, except Nebraska and Colorado. Oklahoma's a little better about going to Kansas/K-State/Iowa State, but not much.

Baylor, TCU, OSU, Tech, Kansas and Iowa State wouldn't bring anyone to Clemson. K-State and WVU would bring some, but nothing crazy. Probably about what NC State brings, if that.

(02-16-2012 04:18 PM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  Well, you do know that Big 12 schools aren't filling up Death Valley, right?

Texas has never traveled to Big 12 North schools, except Nebraska and Colorado. Oklahoma's a little better about going to Kansas/K-State/Iowa State, but not much.

Baylor, TCU, OSU, Tech, Kansas and Iowa State wouldn't bring anyone to Clemson. K-State and WVU would bring some, but nothing crazy. Probably about what NC State brings, if that.

That's what I'm thinking. CatDaddy may have an arguement for joining the SEC but his rational does not support a B12 move.

(02-16-2012 04:18 PM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  Well, you do know that Big 12 schools aren't filling up Death Valley, right?

Never said they would.

I do know that we will make enough money to be able to compete against regional SEC teams in the Big XII while in this basketball conference we are in a huge hole that is only going to get bigger because of the length of the contract. There is nothing that Clemson can do on or off the field that will close that gap.

So the worst case scenario is we will have about the same amount of attendance but will have the money needed to keep up with the neighbors. It beats the alternative.

Me thinks were way overestimating the SEC's financial advantages over the ACC.

How much are you spending on your coaching staff again?

(02-16-2012 07:49 PM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  Me thinks were way overestimating the SEC's financial advantages over the ACC.

As of today it is $4 million a year in favor of the SEC. Their contract as it stands today (not renegotiated with their two additions) is $17 million/year per team. When they renegotiate I would be surprised if the least they get is $21 million/year like the Pac12 and B1G. I fully expect them to net $22-$23/year per team when all is said and done. At best it will be $6 million a year, possibly up to $8 million.

Quote:How much are you spending on your coaching staff again?

Enough for the moment, but with the salary we paid out to Chad Morris we have set the market. With SEC schools having an extra $6 million a year to spend how long do you think it would take for us to get priced out of the game?

(02-16-2012 08:10 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 07:49 PM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  Me thinks were way overestimating the SEC's financial advantages over the ACC.

As of today it is $4 million a year in favor of the SEC. Their contract as it stands today (not renegotiated with their two additions) is $17 million/year per team. When they renegotiate I would be surprised if the least they get is $21 million/year like the Pac12 and B1G. I fully expect them to net $22-$23/year per team when all is said and done. At best it will be $6 million a year, possibly up to $8 million.

Quote:How much are you spending on your coaching staff again?

Enough for the moment, but with the salary we paid out to Chad Morris we have set the market. With SEC schools having an extra $6 million a year to spend how long do you think it would take for us to get priced out of the game?

If you think that money is the key difference that limits CU's ability to compete with SEC Schools, I suggest jacking your student activity fee. The chart I posted previously shows several schools collecting $10 million + per year from this source, including some in the ACC. Also, time to raise ticket prices. Finally, need to cut a couple of varsity sports.

Boise seems to be doing okay netting maybe $1M per year. WVU was doing ok netting about half what Clemson received.

That's $4 - $6 million of a dedicated budget of $60 million and an additional $40 million in hidden funding from the university.

If that's the reason why you lose to South Carolina, well, I just can't help you there.

If money were the key component to success, then Tennessee wouldn't be going through its 6 walk through the wilderness. Clemson moving to the B12 would improve TV dollars but at the expensive of recruiting, gate receipts and quite possibly fan loyalty.

This past season was essentially Clemson's to lose and everyone knew they would find a way to do so after watching the Maryland game. Quite simply, the current coaching staff lacks the ability to properly game plan. No way should the Tigers have lost to GT, but they managed to anyway. The NC State and WVU games further illustrate this point.

If FSU can dominate the ACC for the bulk of the 90's and still merit MNC consideration (when ACC football was the 'Noles and everyone else), I fail to see how and expanded an decidedly more competitive league wouldn't provide similar opportunities to worthy champs.

Catdaddy, you assert that there are only 4 schools committed to football in the pre 09 expansion in the ACC; FSU, GT, Clemson and VT, but that is pretty much par for the course amongst the BCS conferences. Please correct me is the following list is wrong:

B1G: UM, Ohio St, Wisc., Penn St.
SEC: TN, UGA, AL, AU, ARK, LSU, UF, SCAR
PAC: USC, OR, Stanford
B12: TX, OK, OSU, TT

I think its a bit of a stretch to measures the ACC commitment to the football against the standards of the SEC since it is clearly and outlier. Compared to the other three, I don't see that much of a difference.

(02-17-2012 03:06 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  If money were the key component to success, then Tennessee wouldn't be going through its 6 walk through the wilderness. Clemson moving to the B12 would improve TV dollars but at the expensive of recruiting, gate receipts and quite possibly fan loyalty.

This past season was essentially Clemson's to lose and everyone knew they would find a way to do so after watching the Maryland game. Quite simply, the current coaching staff lacks the ability to properly game plan. No way should the Tigers have lost to GT, but they managed to anyway. The NC State and WVU games further illustrate this point.

If FSU can dominate the ACC for the bulk of the 90's and still merit MNC consideration (when ACC football was the 'Noles and everyone else), I fail to see how and expanded an decidedly more competitive league wouldn't provide similar opportunities to worthy champs.

Catdaddy, you assert that there are only 4 schools committed to football in the pre 09 expansion in the ACC; FSU, GT, Clemson and VT, but that is pretty much par for the course amongst the BCS conferences. Please correct me is the following list is wrong:

B1G: UM, Ohio St, Wisc., Penn St.
SEC: TN, UGA, AL, AU, ARK, LSU, UF, SCAR
PAC: USC, OR, Stanford
B12: TX, OK, OSU, TT

I think its a bit of a stretch to measures the ACC commitment to the football against the standards of the SEC since it is clearly and outlier. Compared to the other three, I don't see that much of a difference.

You forgot Nebraska in the B1G and I don't think Stanford is committed to football, they just had a few good years with Andrew Luck.

(02-17-2012 04:55 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 03:06 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  If money were the key component to success, then Tennessee wouldn't be going through its 6 walk through the wilderness. Clemson moving to the B12 would improve TV dollars but at the expensive of recruiting, gate receipts and quite possibly fan loyalty.

This past season was essentially Clemson's to lose and everyone knew they would find a way to do so after watching the Maryland game. Quite simply, the current coaching staff lacks the ability to properly game plan. No way should the Tigers have lost to GT, but they managed to anyway. The NC State and WVU games further illustrate this point.

If FSU can dominate the ACC for the bulk of the 90's and still merit MNC consideration (when ACC football was the 'Noles and everyone else), I fail to see how and expanded an decidedly more competitive league wouldn't provide similar opportunities to worthy champs.

Catdaddy, you assert that there are only 4 schools committed to football in the pre 09 expansion in the ACC; FSU, GT, Clemson and VT, but that is pretty much par for the course amongst the BCS conferences. Please correct me is the following list is wrong:

B1G: UM, Ohio St, Wisc., Penn St.
SEC: TN, UGA, AL, AU, ARK, LSU, UF, SCAR
PAC: USC, OR, Stanford
B12: TX, OK, OSU, TT

I think its a bit of a stretch to measures the ACC commitment to the football against the standards of the SEC since it is clearly and outlier. Compared to the other three, I don't see that much of a difference.

You forgot Nebraska in the B1G and I don't think Stanford is committed to football, they just had a few good years with Andrew Luck.

Thanks for the catch with the Huskers. With regard to Stanford, I think any program that produced John Elway gets the benefit of the doubt.

I think ACC schools can compete, its just that the margin for error is less. Sure there are advantages to making more money, no doubt about it. It just depends on how you spend it.
In basketball, Syracuse can compete with anybody. Even when Jim Boeheim retires, the new coach Mike Hopkins will pickup where Boeheim left off.
There are going to be big differences in revenue between the ACC and other conferences. It is just a bad contract at a bad time. Not much can be done now.