(02-23-2015 02:19 PM)Lucy Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 01:43 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 10:43 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Don't see many #goacc cheer boys in here defending swofford. What's up with that?

WAIT & SEE

Swofford is an idiot.

Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner John Swofford had compensation totaling nearly $2.2 million during the 2012 calendar year, the conference's new federal tax return shows.

It also gives him the second-highest 2012 base pay amount among the commissioners of the five power conferences that have released their latest tax records.

Swofford has been the ACC's commissioner since 1997.
-- usatoday

then why haven't the presidents replaced him ...

STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES

(02-23-2015 12:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  The ACC isn't going to keep up with the B10 and SEC payouts, no matter what happens. That's not even something worth agonizing about. The SEC and B1G are chocked full of giant full stadiums, massive alumni bases, 100 year football programs and flagship public universities. You can trade the TV contract of the B1G and that of the ACC, and it's not going to change the fact one bit that the B1G schools have more revenue. TV is only one part of the revenue pie, and the attendance, culture and fan bases of the B1G and SEC guarantee they will always have a tremendous resource advantage over the other conferences.

The main thing is to not get buried in conference revenue by the PAC and Big 12, who face similar (but different) revenue disadvantages vis a vis the B1G and SEC. And the ACC is not buried now, but they are behind those conferences. I think it's important for the ACC to flip that and deliver the most revenue of those three conferences, and I think they have the fundamentals to do so eventually if they work toward that.

As for the B1G and SEC...the B1G has a football talent disadvantage in it's footprint that cannot be overcome with cash, so there is only so much they'll be able to bring their financial advantages to bear on the ACC. The SEC...well the SEC is going to do what they do.

But these schools have always had a tremendous advantage in resources over the other schools in the other conferences, and we've lived this long. The key point is to make sure that TV revenues don't allow some crazy imbalance between the ACC and the Big 12 or PAC, so that some day Oklahoma State is hiring away the head coach of Virginia Tech or Arizona State is hiring Clemson's defensive coordinator to coach linebackers.

That's a realistic goal.

Lou is 100% correct. The ACC cannot expect to be #1 in revenue over any long period of time (maybe a one-off year, that's about it). However, it must work hard to avoid the cellar...3rd place $$$ long-term is the realistic goal, which can be translated into #2 in terms of national championships - and that is all that should really matter to us fans.

As for the history of this problem, IMO it goes back to when the SEC first expanded to 12 teams. For years the ACC made the same mistake that the Big XII is making now - thinking that just because the per team money was good they didn't need to expand too. By the time the ACC got to 12 teams it was WAY behind the SEC, and has been playing catch-up ever since.

The Raycom issue is a side point, IMO - failure to have a conference championship game was the bigger problem. That hurt recruiting, which hurt the on-field product, which hurt TV ratings, which ultimately saddled the ACC with a bad TV contract... how do you think VT was able to come in from the Big East and own the league for as long as it did? That wasn't Raycom's fault! FSU and Clemson have recovered, and some others like GT are showing good signs (meanwhile VT suffers from Old Coach syndrome, aka "Bobby Bowden Disease").

Nole and Marge are right about one thing, though - it will take some serious, on-going investments in football by several ACC programs to get the league out of the mess it finds itself in.

(02-23-2015 12:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  The ACC isn't going to keep up with the B10 and SEC payouts, no matter what happens. That's not even something worth agonizing about. The SEC and B1G are chocked full of giant full stadiums, massive alumni bases, 100 year football programs and flagship public universities. You can trade the TV contract of the B1G and that of the ACC, and it's not going to change the fact one bit that the B1G schools have more revenue. TV is only one part of the revenue pie, and the attendance, culture and fan bases of the B1G and SEC guarantee they will always have a tremendous resource advantage over the other conferences.

The main thing is to not get buried in conference revenue by the PAC and Big 12, who face similar (but different) revenue disadvantages vis a vis the B1G and SEC. And the ACC is not buried now, but they are behind those conferences. I think it's important for the ACC to flip that and deliver the most revenue of those three conferences, and I think they have the fundamentals to do so eventually if they work toward that.

As for the B1G and SEC...the B1G has a football talent disadvantage in it's footprint that cannot be overcome with cash, so there is only so much they'll be able to bring their financial advantages to bear on the ACC. The SEC...well the SEC is going to do what they do.

But these schools have always had a tremendous advantage in resources over the other schools in the other conferences, and we've lived this long. The key point is to make sure that TV revenues don't allow some crazy imbalance between the ACC and the Big 12 or PAC, so that some day Oklahoma State is hiring away the head coach of Virginia Tech or Arizona State is hiring Clemson's defensive coordinator to coach linebackers.

That's a realistic goal.

Lou is 100% correct. The ACC cannot expect to be #1 in revenue over any long period of time (maybe a one-off year, that's about it). However, it must work hard to avoid the cellar...3rd place $$$ long-term is the realistic goal, which can be translated into #2 in terms of national championships - and that is all that should really matter to us fans.

As for the history of this problem, IMO it goes back to when the SEC first expanded to 12 teams. For years the ACC made the same mistake that the Big XII is making now - thinking that just because the per team money was good they didn't need to expand too. By the time the ACC got to 12 teams it was WAY behind the SEC, and has been playing catch-up ever since.

The Raycom issue is a side point, IMO - failure to have a conference championship game was the bigger problem. That hurt recruiting, which hurt the on-field product, which hurt TV ratings, which ultimately saddled the ACC with a bad TV contract... how do you think VT was able to come in from the Big East and own the league for as long as it did? That wasn't Raycom's fault! FSU and Clemson have recovered, and some others like GT are showing good signs (meanwhile VT suffers from Old Coach syndrome, aka "Bobby Bowden Disease").

Nole and Marge are right about one thing, though - it will take some serious, on-going investments in football by several ACC programs to get the league out of the mess it finds itself in.

(02-23-2015 02:45 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  As for the history of this problem, IMO it goes back to when the SEC first expanded to 12 teams. For years the ACC made the same mistake that the Big XII is making now - thinking that just because the per team money was good they didn't need to expand too. By the time the ACC got to 12 teams it was WAY behind the SEC, and has been playing catch-up ever since.

Just a note, at the time of that expansion, the ACC was making more TV money and more money per team than the SEC. It was not until a few years later that the SEC took over that spot.

Ironically it can be argued that the merger at that time is what fueled the SEC, as for whatever reason Miami and FSU fell off after that, and left a void at the top of the football world that was filled by SEC teams. Especially when you consider that previously the top teams in the ACC and Big East were competing for two spots out of eight, and later the combined lot of those teams were competing for one spot out of ten.

Note I don't think the merger had anything to do with that (the issues at Miami and FSU), but they did seem to help ensure the return to prominence of the SEC.

(02-22-2015 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 05:47 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 11:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 10:22 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If each SEC school made $5M, and ESPN is 50/50 partner with the SEC, then ESPN took home 14 X $5M = $70M.

Now, ESPN can refuse to launch an ACC Network - at a cost of $2M X 14 = $28M - or they can go ahead an launch it and hope to make another $70M for themselves.

Gee, I wonder what they will do...

Let's take your 70 million number and adjust it for ratings numbers. The SEC's ratings were 1.71 times that of the ACC. The SEC rating share was 4.52 and that netted 70 million in profits by your numbers. The ACC's ratings share was 2.64 so at the same rate of payout the ACCN should expect to receive 40.89 million which when divided in half would leave the ESPN share at 20.44 million. So they would save 7.5 million by starting a network. But that doesn't include the cost of buying back sublet rights. And, it also doesn't factor what they could make of off the SECN, or a larger share of Big 10 product, if they enhance the markets of both by say 19 million more viewers while reducing overhead.

So starting up the ACCN based solely on the numbers is hardly a slam dunk any time soon. And there are ways for ESPN to make more by not starting one. I'm not saying you won't get your network, I'm just saying it is not necessarily a numbers slam dunk. But certainly an infusion of a few more large market share brand name schools would put you a lot closer to attaining SEC like numbers. I believe ESPN is weighing carefully how to make a move that maximizes all of their product values in ways that doesn't necessarily increase their overhead proportionately. That means there are multiple angles still being considered. An ACCN is certainly on the table, but with which market configuration in mind is quite another question.

JR, your posts are usually very good but for some reason your math is way off this time. First of all, the difference to ESPN between launching and not launching an ACCN is the SUM, not the difference of the two numbers (the $28M for not launching is an expense, while the $70M for launching is revenue, meaning a $98M difference).

As for the SEC's football ratings being higher, that is a straw man argument because the high-rated SEC games are almost all on CBS. That is not the case with ACC football, so this is apples and oranges. Besides, what you really need to compare is SECN ratings vs. projected ACCN ratings - two numbers that no one but ESPN has right now.

I think someone else pointed out that SECN profits are unrelated to ratings anyway - they are based on subscriptions. ACCN is expected to have lower penetration but the footprint has way more potential subscribers; even at half the monthly rate the ACCN might earn MORE than the SECN.

The table simply doesn't lean as much toward the SEC as you are portraying it here...

There is no straw man argument. The ACC footprint in 2014 had 96.5 million people in it. Add another 6.5 million for Indiana if you want to. That gives you 103 million. The SEC footprint contains 91 million. 12 million is a nice advantage but hardly enough to skew the figures as you claim and N.D. is not a member for football. But the 12 million gives you the benefit of the doubt for the 6.5 million in Indiana. So your population gives you a 13% advantage in numbers. If you cut your rate 25% to sell your product you are the one who doesn't get the big advantage you are projecting. In fact you would earn significantly less even at a 25% reduction based upon pure population. No saturation model is involved here. If you calculate the rates based upon market penetration then a 45% reduction off of 1.30 would be more in line. There is nothing wrong with my math. You guys do a great job of tag teaming to back each other up on this board, but numbers don't lie, don't need spin, and are what they are. Methodology surely enters into the picture but not at any great level of significance. When I find the right query to pull up the SEC basketball viewing numbers I think you'll find we did quite well there as well. But this isn't an SEC vs ACC debate.

My response was to what you indicated was a no brainer for ESPN in the production of the ACCN. My response was, and is, that it isn't as much of a slam dunk as people think based upon population, saturation of market, attendance, or of the problem of living in a region of the country that is more affluent and has many more entertainment opportunities competing with college athletics. It will cost ESPN every year that they pay your conference 2 million per school not to have a conference 7.5 million (which will accumulate) over the start up costs of one. I think I read where the buy back if they could round up the sublet rights would be around 5 million a year for the remaining years on the contract. If that is indeed 5 to 6 years, or 25 to 30 million in total then waiting until 2017 for a start up of an ACCN would be about the break even point for money spent versus money paid out. That would be 22.5 million paid out to the ACC and 20 - 24 million for the buy back.

BTW the SEC doesn't lag the ACC in basketball viewership by very much. We are much closer than you might suspect. But I totally agree we lag the ACC in basketball competitiveness as a conference, and in pedigree outside of Kentucky.

Acc presidents and ADs (people with knowledge, not Internet "experts") are pretty bullish on the viability and profit potential of an accn. They don't make public statements like that lightly.

I live in sec country. Nobody watches sec basketball. Nobody. Because it's crap and they know it (excluding Kentucky, of course).

(02-22-2015 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 05:47 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 11:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 10:22 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If each SEC school made $5M, and ESPN is 50/50 partner with the SEC, then ESPN took home 14 X $5M = $70M.

Now, ESPN can refuse to launch an ACC Network - at a cost of $2M X 14 = $28M - or they can go ahead an launch it and hope to make another $70M for themselves.

Gee, I wonder what they will do...

Let's take your 70 million number and adjust it for ratings numbers. The SEC's ratings were 1.71 times that of the ACC. The SEC rating share was 4.52 and that netted 70 million in profits by your numbers. The ACC's ratings share was 2.64 so at the same rate of payout the ACCN should expect to receive 40.89 million which when divided in half would leave the ESPN share at 20.44 million. So they would save 7.5 million by starting a network. But that doesn't include the cost of buying back sublet rights. And, it also doesn't factor what they could make of off the SECN, or a larger share of Big 10 product, if they enhance the markets of both by say 19 million more viewers while reducing overhead.

So starting up the ACCN based solely on the numbers is hardly a slam dunk any time soon. And there are ways for ESPN to make more by not starting one. I'm not saying you won't get your network, I'm just saying it is not necessarily a numbers slam dunk. But certainly an infusion of a few more large market share brand name schools would put you a lot closer to attaining SEC like numbers. I believe ESPN is weighing carefully how to make a move that maximizes all of their product values in ways that doesn't necessarily increase their overhead proportionately. That means there are multiple angles still being considered. An ACCN is certainly on the table, but with which market configuration in mind is quite another question.

JR, your posts are usually very good but for some reason your math is way off this time. First of all, the difference to ESPN between launching and not launching an ACCN is the SUM, not the difference of the two numbers (the $28M for not launching is an expense, while the $70M for launching is revenue, meaning a $98M difference).

As for the SEC's football ratings being higher, that is a straw man argument because the high-rated SEC games are almost all on CBS. That is not the case with ACC football, so this is apples and oranges. Besides, what you really need to compare is SECN ratings vs. projected ACCN ratings - two numbers that no one but ESPN has right now.

I think someone else pointed out that SECN profits are unrelated to ratings anyway - they are based on subscriptions. ACCN is expected to have lower penetration but the footprint has way more potential subscribers; even at half the monthly rate the ACCN might earn MORE than the SECN.

The table simply doesn't lean as much toward the SEC as you are portraying it here...

There is no straw man argument. The ACC footprint in 2014 had 96.5 million people in it. Add another 6.5 million for Indiana if you want to. That gives you 103 million. The SEC footprint contains 91 million. 12 million is a nice advantage but hardly enough to skew the figures as you claim and N.D. is not a member for football. But the 12 million gives you the benefit of the doubt for the 6.5 million in Indiana. So your population gives you a 13% advantage in numbers. If you cut your rate 25% to sell your product you are the one who doesn't get the big advantage you are projecting. In fact you would earn significantly less even at a 25% reduction based upon pure population. No saturation model is involved here. If you calculate the rates based upon market penetration then a 45% reduction off of 1.30 would be more in line. There is nothing wrong with my math. You guys do a great job of tag teaming to back each other up on this board, but numbers don't lie, don't need spin, and are what they are. Methodology surely enters into the picture but not at any great level of significance. When I find the right query to pull up the SEC basketball viewing numbers I think you'll find we did quite well there as well. But this isn't an SEC vs ACC debate.

My response was to what you indicated was a no brainer for ESPN in the production of the ACCN. My response was, and is, that it isn't as much of a slam dunk as people think based upon population, saturation of market, attendance, or of the problem of living in a region of the country that is more affluent and has many more entertainment opportunities competing with college athletics. It will cost ESPN every year that they pay your conference 2 million per school not to have a conference 7.5 million (which will accumulate) over the start up costs of one. I think I read where the buy back if they could round up the sublet rights would be around 5 million a year for the remaining years on the contract. If that is indeed 5 to 6 years, or 25 to 30 million in total then waiting until 2017 for a start up of an ACCN would be about the break even point for money spent versus money paid out. That would be 22.5 million paid out to the ACC and 20 - 24 million for the buy back.

BTW the SEC doesn't lag the ACC in basketball viewership by very much. We are much closer than you might suspect. But I totally agree we lag the ACC in basketball competitiveness as a conference, and in pedigree outside of Kentucky.

Don't know what numbers you're looking at but check out the top 10 rated espn bball games from last season. Half were acc conference games. Another 2 were acc non conference games, one of which was vs Kentucky. The takeaway: Kentucky needed to play an acc team to break the top 10. Why? Because the rest of the sec isn't worth watching even to sec fans.

Below are the best numbers I can find for conference distributions per school for the 2013-14 school year. The books are still open on the current school year.

ACC $20.8 million
SEC $21 million
PAC $19.8 million
Big 12 $23 million
B1G $25.9 million

There's a lot of hyperbolic crap on this board about other conferences having double the revenues of the ACC. That's just not true. Unless you have something to back this up, knock it off. The ACC isn't some weak sister of a conference. The differences between the ACC's revenues and those of other conferences are mostly trivial.

Two of the conferences with similar revenues to the ACC -- the PAC and the B12 -- have positioned themselves poorly for the future by signing TV contracts with Fox, which has dismal ratings. The ACC could have gotten higher revenues by signing with Fox but decided to sign with ESPN for the better exposure. That seems in retrospect to have been a wise decision.

There is no sign that the ACC will be unable to launch a conference network. The most recent rumors, coming out of FSU, were that an agreement was likely in the near term. Nothing has come out since to contradict that. No one knows what the revenues will be on an ACC network but the ACC has the most populous footprint of any conference by a wide margin. That's likely to count for a lot.

The ACC is certainly competitive and looks to be well positioned for the future.

Actually the ACC tv footprint contains closer to 130 million people - in addition the states that house an ACC team, the media overflow goes into Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Delaware, Rhode Island, NE NJ, SE and Eastern Alabama, NE Tennessee, parts of West Va, far east Ohio, Chicagoland, southwest Michigan, and any other place ND is popular.

If you look at all the contract information that you can find, what stands out is that everything the ACC does tends to come in at about 82-85% of B10 and/or SEC money.

That's consistent with the swing in value toward football.

If you cut the schools into A, B, C, and D draws - meaning an A will turn on TV sets inside the entire conference footprint even if they stink and carry at least a split national telecast, and a D being something really crappy like Vanderbilt, Indiana, or WF football - then what stands out is the ACC has just 1 school that does that - FSU and part of another (ND) that are 4's. The SEC has 7 - Bama, Auburn, TN, Florida, LSU, TAMU, and Georgia. The B10 has 6 - Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin and Nebraska.

Miami, UNC, Clemson, VT and Louisville are B's.

You get the absolute reverse with basketball and the ACC/SEC - Only Kentucky can carry a national game. In the ACC Duke, Syracuse, UNC, Louisville, and ND can carry a national game and are A's, while UVa, NC State, Miami, and Pitt are B's in basketball.

The ACC split from the SoCon to emphasize football. Schools have been added for football or territory, not basketball - GT, FSU, Miami, VT, Pitt, Syracuse, ND and Louisville were not basketball adds although Syracuse and Louisville are known now more for basketball.

The ACC remains competitive with the SEC and B10 due to basketball and ND, not in spite of basketball.

When Miami and FSU football went into the dumpster at the same time before the 2010 contract that hurt. If you mention that they, particularly FSU get pissed. But FSU and Miami were expected to carry ACC in football because UNC, UVa, and NC State had not delivered for the conference but 2 or 3 times in the past 30 years. Clemson didn't stink for 20 years, but didn't really do anything from the late 80's until the last 5 or so years.

Until Miami recovers, and until two of UNC, UVa, NCSU, Pitt and Syracuse can figure out how to win 10 games it is what it is.

VT, GT, BC, and WF were forced to carry the conference in football for about 5 years - keep that in mind.

(02-23-2015 08:02 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Actually the ACC tv footprint contains closer to 130 million people - in addition the states that house an ACC team, the media overflow goes into Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Delaware, Rhode Island, NE NJ, SE and Eastern Alabama, NE Tennessee, parts of West Va, far east Ohio, Chicagoland, southwest Michigan, and any other place ND is popular.

If you look at all the contract information that you can find, what stands out is that everything the ACC does tends to come in at about 82-85% of B10 and/or SEC money.

That's consistent with the swing in value toward football.

If you cut the schools into A, B, C, and D draws - meaning an A will turn on TV sets inside the entire conference footprint even if they stink and carry at least a split national telecast, and a D being something really crappy like Vanderbilt, Indiana, or WF football - then what stands out is the ACC has just 1 school that does that - FSU and part of another (ND) that are 4's. The SEC has 7 - Bama, Auburn, TN, Florida, LSU, TAMU, and Georgia. The B10 has 6 - Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin and Nebraska.

Miami, UNC, Clemson, VT and Louisville are B's.

You get the absolute reverse with basketball and the ACC/SEC - Only Kentucky can carry a national game. In the ACC Duke, Syracuse, UNC, Louisville, and ND can carry a national game and are A's, while UVa, NC State, Miami, and Pitt are B's in basketball.

The ACC split from the SoCon to emphasize football. Schools have been added for football or territory, not basketball - GT, FSU, Miami, VT, Pitt, Syracuse, ND and Louisville were not basketball adds although Syracuse and Louisville are known now more for basketball.

The ACC remains competitive with the SEC and B10 due to basketball and ND, not in spite of basketball.

When Miami and FSU football went into the dumpster at the same time before the 2010 contract that hurt. If you mention that they, particularly FSU get pissed. But FSU and Miami were expected to carry ACC in football because UNC, UVa, and NC State had not delivered for the conference but 2 or 3 times in the past 30 years. Clemson didn't stink for 20 years, but didn't really do anything from the late 80's until the last 5 or so years.

Until Miami recovers, and until two of UNC, UVa, NCSU, Pitt and Syracuse can figure out how to win 10 games it is what it is.

VT, GT, BC, and WF were forced to carry the conference in football for about 5 years - keep that in mind.

Got a cite for that 82-85% number? People are pulling all kinds of numbers out of thin air.

(02-23-2015 04:05 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 05:47 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 11:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 10:22 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If each SEC school made $5M, and ESPN is 50/50 partner with the SEC, then ESPN took home 14 X $5M = $70M.

Now, ESPN can refuse to launch an ACC Network - at a cost of $2M X 14 = $28M - or they can go ahead an launch it and hope to make another $70M for themselves.

Gee, I wonder what they will do...

Let's take your 70 million number and adjust it for ratings numbers. The SEC's ratings were 1.71 times that of the ACC. The SEC rating share was 4.52 and that netted 70 million in profits by your numbers. The ACC's ratings share was 2.64 so at the same rate of payout the ACCN should expect to receive 40.89 million which when divided in half would leave the ESPN share at 20.44 million. So they would save 7.5 million by starting a network. But that doesn't include the cost of buying back sublet rights. And, it also doesn't factor what they could make of off the SECN, or a larger share of Big 10 product, if they enhance the markets of both by say 19 million more viewers while reducing overhead.

So starting up the ACCN based solely on the numbers is hardly a slam dunk any time soon. And there are ways for ESPN to make more by not starting one. I'm not saying you won't get your network, I'm just saying it is not necessarily a numbers slam dunk. But certainly an infusion of a few more large market share brand name schools would put you a lot closer to attaining SEC like numbers. I believe ESPN is weighing carefully how to make a move that maximizes all of their product values in ways that doesn't necessarily increase their overhead proportionately. That means there are multiple angles still being considered. An ACCN is certainly on the table, but with which market configuration in mind is quite another question.

JR, your posts are usually very good but for some reason your math is way off this time. First of all, the difference to ESPN between launching and not launching an ACCN is the SUM, not the difference of the two numbers (the $28M for not launching is an expense, while the $70M for launching is revenue, meaning a $98M difference).

As for the SEC's football ratings being higher, that is a straw man argument because the high-rated SEC games are almost all on CBS. That is not the case with ACC football, so this is apples and oranges. Besides, what you really need to compare is SECN ratings vs. projected ACCN ratings - two numbers that no one but ESPN has right now.

I think someone else pointed out that SECN profits are unrelated to ratings anyway - they are based on subscriptions. ACCN is expected to have lower penetration but the footprint has way more potential subscribers; even at half the monthly rate the ACCN might earn MORE than the SECN.

The table simply doesn't lean as much toward the SEC as you are portraying it here...

There is no straw man argument. The ACC footprint in 2014 had 96.5 million people in it. Add another 6.5 million for Indiana if you want to. That gives you 103 million. The SEC footprint contains 91 million. 12 million is a nice advantage but hardly enough to skew the figures as you claim and N.D. is not a member for football. But the 12 million gives you the benefit of the doubt for the 6.5 million in Indiana. So your population gives you a 13% advantage in numbers. If you cut your rate 25% to sell your product you are the one who doesn't get the big advantage you are projecting. In fact you would earn significantly less even at a 25% reduction based upon pure population. No saturation model is involved here. If you calculate the rates based upon market penetration then a 45% reduction off of 1.30 would be more in line. There is nothing wrong with my math. You guys do a great job of tag teaming to back each other up on this board, but numbers don't lie, don't need spin, and are what they are. Methodology surely enters into the picture but not at any great level of significance. When I find the right query to pull up the SEC basketball viewing numbers I think you'll find we did quite well there as well. But this isn't an SEC vs ACC debate.

My response was to what you indicated was a no brainer for ESPN in the production of the ACCN. My response was, and is, that it isn't as much of a slam dunk as people think based upon population, saturation of market, attendance, or of the problem of living in a region of the country that is more affluent and has many more entertainment opportunities competing with college athletics. It will cost ESPN every year that they pay your conference 2 million per school not to have a conference 7.5 million (which will accumulate) over the start up costs of one. I think I read where the buy back if they could round up the sublet rights would be around 5 million a year for the remaining years on the contract. If that is indeed 5 to 6 years, or 25 to 30 million in total then waiting until 2017 for a start up of an ACCN would be about the break even point for money spent versus money paid out. That would be 22.5 million paid out to the ACC and 20 - 24 million for the buy back.

BTW the SEC doesn't lag the ACC in basketball viewership by very much. We are much closer than you might suspect. But I totally agree we lag the ACC in basketball competitiveness as a conference, and in pedigree outside of Kentucky.

Acc presidents and ADs (people with knowledge, not Internet "experts") are pretty bullish on the viability and profit potential of an accn. They don't make public statements like that lightly.

I live in sec country. Nobody watches sec basketball. Nobody. Because it's crap and they know it (excluding Kentucky, of course).

So the SEC is now claiming all 26 million Texans as SEC homers loyal to their kingdom? Sounds about right in terms of the level of delusion I'd expect from them.

(02-23-2015 10:46 PM)ACCslater Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 04:05 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 05:47 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 11:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's take your 70 million number and adjust it for ratings numbers. The SEC's ratings were 1.71 times that of the ACC. The SEC rating share was 4.52 and that netted 70 million in profits by your numbers. The ACC's ratings share was 2.64 so at the same rate of payout the ACCN should expect to receive 40.89 million which when divided in half would leave the ESPN share at 20.44 million. So they would save 7.5 million by starting a network. But that doesn't include the cost of buying back sublet rights. And, it also doesn't factor what they could make of off the SECN, or a larger share of Big 10 product, if they enhance the markets of both by say 19 million more viewers while reducing overhead.

So starting up the ACCN based solely on the numbers is hardly a slam dunk any time soon. And there are ways for ESPN to make more by not starting one. I'm not saying you won't get your network, I'm just saying it is not necessarily a numbers slam dunk. But certainly an infusion of a few more large market share brand name schools would put you a lot closer to attaining SEC like numbers. I believe ESPN is weighing carefully how to make a move that maximizes all of their product values in ways that doesn't necessarily increase their overhead proportionately. That means there are multiple angles still being considered. An ACCN is certainly on the table, but with which market configuration in mind is quite another question.

JR, your posts are usually very good but for some reason your math is way off this time. First of all, the difference to ESPN between launching and not launching an ACCN is the SUM, not the difference of the two numbers (the $28M for not launching is an expense, while the $70M for launching is revenue, meaning a $98M difference).

As for the SEC's football ratings being higher, that is a straw man argument because the high-rated SEC games are almost all on CBS. That is not the case with ACC football, so this is apples and oranges. Besides, what you really need to compare is SECN ratings vs. projected ACCN ratings - two numbers that no one but ESPN has right now.

I think someone else pointed out that SECN profits are unrelated to ratings anyway - they are based on subscriptions. ACCN is expected to have lower penetration but the footprint has way more potential subscribers; even at half the monthly rate the ACCN might earn MORE than the SECN.

The table simply doesn't lean as much toward the SEC as you are portraying it here...

There is no straw man argument. The ACC footprint in 2014 had 96.5 million people in it. Add another 6.5 million for Indiana if you want to. That gives you 103 million. The SEC footprint contains 91 million. 12 million is a nice advantage but hardly enough to skew the figures as you claim and N.D. is not a member for football. But the 12 million gives you the benefit of the doubt for the 6.5 million in Indiana. So your population gives you a 13% advantage in numbers. If you cut your rate 25% to sell your product you are the one who doesn't get the big advantage you are projecting. In fact you would earn significantly less even at a 25% reduction based upon pure population. No saturation model is involved here. If you calculate the rates based upon market penetration then a 45% reduction off of 1.30 would be more in line. There is nothing wrong with my math. You guys do a great job of tag teaming to back each other up on this board, but numbers don't lie, don't need spin, and are what they are. Methodology surely enters into the picture but not at any great level of significance. When I find the right query to pull up the SEC basketball viewing numbers I think you'll find we did quite well there as well. But this isn't an SEC vs ACC debate.

My response was to what you indicated was a no brainer for ESPN in the production of the ACCN. My response was, and is, that it isn't as much of a slam dunk as people think based upon population, saturation of market, attendance, or of the problem of living in a region of the country that is more affluent and has many more entertainment opportunities competing with college athletics. It will cost ESPN every year that they pay your conference 2 million per school not to have a conference 7.5 million (which will accumulate) over the start up costs of one. I think I read where the buy back if they could round up the sublet rights would be around 5 million a year for the remaining years on the contract. If that is indeed 5 to 6 years, or 25 to 30 million in total then waiting until 2017 for a start up of an ACCN would be about the break even point for money spent versus money paid out. That would be 22.5 million paid out to the ACC and 20 - 24 million for the buy back.

BTW the SEC doesn't lag the ACC in basketball viewership by very much. We are much closer than you might suspect. But I totally agree we lag the ACC in basketball competitiveness as a conference, and in pedigree outside of Kentucky.

Acc presidents and ADs (people with knowledge, not Internet "experts") are pretty bullish on the viability and profit potential of an accn. They don't make public statements like that lightly.

I live in sec country. Nobody watches sec basketball. Nobody. Because it's crap and they know it (excluding Kentucky, of course).

So the SEC is now claiming all 26 million Texans as SEC homers loyal to their kingdom? Sounds about right in terms of the level of delusion I'd expect from them.

It's the nature of the beast buddy. The ACC gets full credit for New York and Pennsylvania and for Florida and Georgia even though the Jackets only carry a small fraction of the state, and Kentucky where you guys lag the Cats. They also get all of South Carolina even though (according to the NYTimes the Tigers lag the Gamecocks there by a reasonable margin). In TV's own convoluted way of figuring market potential and households that's the way it works. Even for those delusional enough to think they carry New York, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina, let alone Florida (although it is much closer there).

How is the SEC claiming Texas different than the ACC claiming Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, all of New York?

(02-23-2015 11:09 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  How is the SEC claiming Texas different than the ACC claiming Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, all of New York?

That was my point. It's not. But the newbie up there called it "delusional" while attempting to deride the SEC. So he seemed to think it was. I just pointed out that the ACC benefits from more of those quirks than the SEC does, not that it matters, because it is the way the contracts are figured.

(02-23-2015 11:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 11:09 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  How is the SEC claiming Texas different than the ACC claiming Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, all of New York?

That was my point. It's not. But the newbie up there called it "delusional" while attempting to deride the SEC. So he seemed to think it was. I just pointed out that the ACC benefits from more of those quirks than the SEC does, not that it matters, because it is the way the contracts are figured.

but that's ok

(02-23-2015 10:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's the nature of the beast buddy. The ACC gets full credit for New York and Pennsylvania and for Florida and Georgia even though the Jackets only carry a small fraction of the state, and Kentucky where you guys lag the Cats. They also get all of South Carolina even though (according to the NYTimes the Tigers lag the Gamecocks there by a reasonable margin). In TV's own convoluted way of figuring market potential and households that's the way it works.

No no no no. Nobody gets credit for anything that isn't real. All those "problems" can very easily be solved through the magic of weighted averages, which has the added benefit of reducing transaction costs.

(02-23-2015 10:13 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 08:02 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Actually the ACC tv footprint contains closer to 130 million people - in addition the states that house an ACC team, the media overflow goes into Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Delaware, Rhode Island, NE NJ, SE and Eastern Alabama, NE Tennessee, parts of West Va, far east Ohio, Chicagoland, southwest Michigan, and any other place ND is popular.

If you look at all the contract information that you can find, what stands out is that everything the ACC does tends to come in at about 82-85% of B10 and/or SEC money.

That's consistent with the swing in value toward football.

If you cut the schools into A, B, C, and D draws - meaning an A will turn on TV sets inside the entire conference footprint even if they stink and carry at least a split national telecast, and a D being something really crappy like Vanderbilt, Indiana, or WF football - then what stands out is the ACC has just 1 school that does that - FSU and part of another (ND) that are 4's. The SEC has 7 - Bama, Auburn, TN, Florida, LSU, TAMU, and Georgia. The B10 has 6 - Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin and Nebraska.

Miami, UNC, Clemson, VT and Louisville are B's.

You get the absolute reverse with basketball and the ACC/SEC - Only Kentucky can carry a national game. In the ACC Duke, Syracuse, UNC, Louisville, and ND can carry a national game and are A's, while UVa, NC State, Miami, and Pitt are B's in basketball.

The ACC split from the SoCon to emphasize football. Schools have been added for football or territory, not basketball - GT, FSU, Miami, VT, Pitt, Syracuse, ND and Louisville were not basketball adds although Syracuse and Louisville are known now more for basketball.

The ACC remains competitive with the SEC and B10 due to basketball and ND, not in spite of basketball.

When Miami and FSU football went into the dumpster at the same time before the 2010 contract that hurt. If you mention that they, particularly FSU get pissed. But FSU and Miami were expected to carry ACC in football because UNC, UVa, and NC State had not delivered for the conference but 2 or 3 times in the past 30 years. Clemson didn't stink for 20 years, but didn't really do anything from the late 80's until the last 5 or so years.

Until Miami recovers, and until two of UNC, UVa, NCSU, Pitt and Syracuse can figure out how to win 10 games it is what it is.

VT, GT, BC, and WF were forced to carry the conference in football for about 5 years - keep that in mind.

Got a cite for that 82-85% number? People are pulling all kinds of numbers out of thin air.

It would take me several days and probably a dozen citations to show the 82%-85% number and even then, someone could claim that I don't have direct access enough information in the contracts to be certain. That would be like writing a short paper for publication based on meta-data.

Reliable ACC sources that have talked on, or close to the record come from GT, FSU, and Dave Teel. GT's folks have revealed data to the AJC that divulges the value of the this year's and future expected distributions prior to working ND into the contract. FSU's folks have talked on the record about what happens with or without a network. Dave Teel used to have his fiscal info corroborated out of Blacksburg and Charlottesville.

The issue is how little can ESPN pay the ACC to keep the ACC in a happy state vis a vie the B10 and SEC? They wont pay 100% because the ACC IS NOT WORTH 100% of the B10 because of the alumni base size of the B10 and the outsized football interest generated by the SEC.

In a post somewhere in the past here, I compared the payouts for SEC and ACC over a term and the key difference is when the base contract began or was completely negotiated not just renewed. I have a cold and don't really want to search for it. Maybe I will, let me see what I can dig back up.

(02-24-2015 07:00 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:13 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 08:02 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Actually the ACC tv footprint contains closer to 130 million people - in addition the states that house an ACC team, the media overflow goes into Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Delaware, Rhode Island, NE NJ, SE and Eastern Alabama, NE Tennessee, parts of West Va, far east Ohio, Chicagoland, southwest Michigan, and any other place ND is popular.

If you look at all the contract information that you can find, what stands out is that everything the ACC does tends to come in at about 82-85% of B10 and/or SEC money.

That's consistent with the swing in value toward football.

If you cut the schools into A, B, C, and D draws - meaning an A will turn on TV sets inside the entire conference footprint even if they stink and carry at least a split national telecast, and a D being something really crappy like Vanderbilt, Indiana, or WF football - then what stands out is the ACC has just 1 school that does that - FSU and part of another (ND) that are 4's. The SEC has 7 - Bama, Auburn, TN, Florida, LSU, TAMU, and Georgia. The B10 has 6 - Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin and Nebraska.

Miami, UNC, Clemson, VT and Louisville are B's.

You get the absolute reverse with basketball and the ACC/SEC - Only Kentucky can carry a national game. In the ACC Duke, Syracuse, UNC, Louisville, and ND can carry a national game and are A's, while UVa, NC State, Miami, and Pitt are B's in basketball.

The ACC split from the SoCon to emphasize football. Schools have been added for football or territory, not basketball - GT, FSU, Miami, VT, Pitt, Syracuse, ND and Louisville were not basketball adds although Syracuse and Louisville are known now more for basketball.

The ACC remains competitive with the SEC and B10 due to basketball and ND, not in spite of basketball.

When Miami and FSU football went into the dumpster at the same time before the 2010 contract that hurt. If you mention that they, particularly FSU get pissed. But FSU and Miami were expected to carry ACC in football because UNC, UVa, and NC State had not delivered for the conference but 2 or 3 times in the past 30 years. Clemson didn't stink for 20 years, but didn't really do anything from the late 80's until the last 5 or so years.

Until Miami recovers, and until two of UNC, UVa, NCSU, Pitt and Syracuse can figure out how to win 10 games it is what it is.

VT, GT, BC, and WF were forced to carry the conference in football for about 5 years - keep that in mind.

Got a cite for that 82-85% number? People are pulling all kinds of numbers out of thin air.

It would take me several days and probably a dozen citations to show the 82%-85% number and even then, someone could claim that I don't have direct access enough information in the contracts to be certain. That would be like writing a short paper for publication based on meta-data.

Reliable ACC sources that have talked on, or close to the record come from GT, FSU, and Dave Teel. GT's folks have revealed data to the AJC that divulges the value of the this year's and future expected distributions prior to working ND into the contract. FSU's folks have talked on the record about what happens with or without a network. Dave Teel used to have his fiscal info corroborated out of Blacksburg and Charlottesville.

The issue is how little can ESPN pay the ACC to keep the ACC in a happy state vis a vie the B10 and SEC? They wont pay 100% because the ACC IS NOT WORTH 100% of the B10 because of the alumni base size of the B10 and the outsized football interest generated by the SEC.

In a post somewhere in the past here, I compared the payouts for SEC and ACC over a term and the key difference is when the base contract began or was completely negotiated not just renewed. I have a cold and don't really want to search for it. Maybe I will, let me see what I can dig back up.

In other words you're pulling numbers out of thin air or, perhaps, somewhere else where the sun doesn't shine.

Not including the SECN the SEC is projected to distribute $21 million by May of this year. Where does the ACC stand in relation to this?

(02-24-2015 09:10 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Not including the SECN the SEC is projected to distribute $21 million by May of this year. Where does the ACC stand in relation to this?

Quibbling over 5 or 10 million in TV money kind of misses the point:

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2014/co...-programs/


Television revenue is just a minor aspect of a much larger economic recipe.

I have actual revenue figures over at the SEC board in a thread tacked to the important threads section. Please don't confuse these figures with income. They are simply valuations of programs as if they were franchise teams. But those doing the estimates understand market impact of branding which is an issue germane to the discussion here.

It is why those arguing for Texas (or Texas and OU) to the ACC can make a good case for why that would make an ACCN competitive in a much more dynamic way. Content vs Content is where the next revenue bumps will be coming. That is why the argument that conferences that add too much branding hurt themselves is specious. Conference that accept the difficulty of adding top brands will be rewarded in ways that other conferences will not be and that is where the real separation in wealth and the utilization of wealth will come into play.

(02-24-2015 08:02 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 07:00 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:13 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 08:02 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Actually the ACC tv footprint contains closer to 130 million people - in addition the states that house an ACC team, the media overflow goes into Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Delaware, Rhode Island, NE NJ, SE and Eastern Alabama, NE Tennessee, parts of West Va, far east Ohio, Chicagoland, southwest Michigan, and any other place ND is popular.

If you look at all the contract information that you can find, what stands out is that everything the ACC does tends to come in at about 82-85% of B10 and/or SEC money.

That's consistent with the swing in value toward football.

If you cut the schools into A, B, C, and D draws - meaning an A will turn on TV sets inside the entire conference footprint even if they stink and carry at least a split national telecast, and a D being something really crappy like Vanderbilt, Indiana, or WF football - then what stands out is the ACC has just 1 school that does that - FSU and part of another (ND) that are 4's. The SEC has 7 - Bama, Auburn, TN, Florida, LSU, TAMU, and Georgia. The B10 has 6 - Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin and Nebraska.

Miami, UNC, Clemson, VT and Louisville are B's.

You get the absolute reverse with basketball and the ACC/SEC - Only Kentucky can carry a national game. In the ACC Duke, Syracuse, UNC, Louisville, and ND can carry a national game and are A's, while UVa, NC State, Miami, and Pitt are B's in basketball.

The ACC split from the SoCon to emphasize football. Schools have been added for football or territory, not basketball - GT, FSU, Miami, VT, Pitt, Syracuse, ND and Louisville were not basketball adds although Syracuse and Louisville are known now more for basketball.

The ACC remains competitive with the SEC and B10 due to basketball and ND, not in spite of basketball.

When Miami and FSU football went into the dumpster at the same time before the 2010 contract that hurt. If you mention that they, particularly FSU get pissed. But FSU and Miami were expected to carry ACC in football because UNC, UVa, and NC State had not delivered for the conference but 2 or 3 times in the past 30 years. Clemson didn't stink for 20 years, but didn't really do anything from the late 80's until the last 5 or so years.

Until Miami recovers, and until two of UNC, UVa, NCSU, Pitt and Syracuse can figure out how to win 10 games it is what it is.

VT, GT, BC, and WF were forced to carry the conference in football for about 5 years - keep that in mind.

Got a cite for that 82-85% number? People are pulling all kinds of numbers out of thin air.

It would take me several days and probably a dozen citations to show the 82%-85% number and even then, someone could claim that I don't have direct access enough information in the contracts to be certain. That would be like writing a short paper for publication based on meta-data.

Reliable ACC sources that have talked on, or close to the record come from GT, FSU, and Dave Teel. GT's folks have revealed data to the AJC that divulges the value of the this year's and future expected distributions prior to working ND into the contract. FSU's folks have talked on the record about what happens with or without a network. Dave Teel used to have his fiscal info corroborated out of Blacksburg and Charlottesville.

The issue is how little can ESPN pay the ACC to keep the ACC in a happy state vis a vie the B10 and SEC? They wont pay 100% because the ACC IS NOT WORTH 100% of the B10 because of the alumni base size of the B10 and the outsized football interest generated by the SEC.

In a post somewhere in the past here, I compared the payouts for SEC and ACC over a term and the key difference is when the base contract began or was completely negotiated not just renewed. I have a cold and don't really want to search for it. Maybe I will, let me see what I can dig back up.

In other words you're pulling numbers out of thin air or, perhaps, somewhere else where the sun doesn't shine.

No you arrogant Duke prick.

I've had a cold for a damn week, and was more interested in watching State beat UNC tonight than going back and doing free research for which I will not be paid, nor get a publishing credit. Only an *******, and a Duke ******* at that, demands high quality work on a ******* moment's notice. Why don't you get off your ass and do some research or are you too busy washing the Hospital's medical instruments in elevator fluid.

I have to take someone to the Children's Hospital several times a year - I will gladly meet you in the tunnel under the street and just whip your Yankee ass - how's that? Sound fair?

I am on so much Benadryl, Clindamycin, and a GD steroid that I want to punch a hole in the wall. I really hated pricks like you when I was taking classes at Duke's Public Policy school - a bunch of spoiled ***** from New Jersey and Long Island and not a decent looking girl on campus.