https://twitter.com/ByBerkowitz/status/1...30721?s=19

Atlantic Coast Conference had $418.1 million in total revenue for FY17, its new tax return shows. That's a 12% increase over total for FY16.

ACC's per-school distributions to its 14 football members averaged $26.6 million in FY17, new tax return shows. Notre Dame got $5.8 million. Amounts do not include reimbursements to schools for expenses related to ACC championships.

ACC distributions in FY17 ranged from $30.7 million for Clemson to $25.3 million for Syracuse. Conference has equal basic revenue sharing, but distributions reflect amounts schools receive to offset bowl/CFP expenses. Clemson played in 2 CFP games, won title in 2016 season

"Everything is proceeding just as I have foreseen"

Based on previously-released data, I was able to project every conference except the Big Ten to within $2.1million or closer (I was off by $1.4M on the ACC, which I projected to pay out $28M per school for fiscal 2016-17).

FWIW, I'm telling you now that my 2017-18 revenue projection for the ACC is $32 million per team. Because of the contract bowl rotation, 2018-29 will be about the same.

The big jump doesn't come until 2019-20, when ACC Network money starts coming in. That year, expect about $41 million per school.

Will that be enough? That's a legitimate question, but this year's numbers should come as no surprise...

(05-25-2018 04:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The big jump doesn't come until 2019-20, when ACC Network money starts coming in. That year, expect about $41 million per school.

How much of that are you attributing to revenue paid to the ACC from the conference network?

SEC schools appear to be getting somewhere between $10 and 13 million per school per year from the SEC network, depending on how one allocates their money from the reported data. Projecting that kind of revenue for the ACC network would be extremely optimistic.

(05-28-2018 04:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 04:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The big jump doesn't come until 2019-20, when ACC Network money starts coming in. That year, expect about $41 million per school.

How much of that are you attributing to revenue paid to the ACC from the conference network?

SEC schools appear to be getting somewhere between $10 and 13 million per school per year from the SEC network, depending on how one allocates their money from the reported data. Projecting that kind of revenue for the ACC network would be extremely optimistic.

I expect our revenues to be around $5 mill a school. They will be that much lower because we have to buy back rights from Raycom. Rights that ESPN didn't want to sell in the first place and was forced to do so by the ACC. ESPN isn't going to take a haircut for something they weren't responsible for.

(cue the ACC fanboys trying to compare the SEC buying back rights their own schools owned and most of which were SEC vs FCS/G5 type games to our situation where the content included multiple conference games along with lower level OOC matchups)

(05-28-2018 06:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 04:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 04:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The big jump doesn't come until 2019-20, when ACC Network money starts coming in. That year, expect about $41 million per school.

How much of that are you attributing to revenue paid to the ACC from the conference network?

SEC schools appear to be getting somewhere between $10 and 13 million per school per year from the SEC network, depending on how one allocates their money from the reported data. Projecting that kind of revenue for the ACC network would be extremely optimistic.

I expect our revenues to be around $5 mill a school. They will be that much lower because we have to buy back rights from Raycom. Rights that ESPN didn't want to sell in the first place and was forced to do so by the ACC. ESPN isn't going to take a haircut for something they weren't responsible for.

(cue the ACC fanboys trying to compare the SEC buying back rights their own schools owned and most of which were SEC vs FCS/G5 type games to our situation where the content included multiple conference games along with lower level OOC matchups)

I agree - ESPN will not buy back those rights, the ACC will have to do that.

That said, there are two things to watch: (1) if Disney succeeds in buying the Fox RSNs, that would probably reduce the buyout cost (though ESPN would still want something for their troubles); (2) the ACC has been banking a few million dollars every year - could that be for the buyback? Pure speculation on my part, but I have wondered what they plan to do with the money...

(05-28-2018 08:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I agree - ESPN will not buy back those rights, the ACC will have to do that.

That said, there are two things to watch: (1) if Disney succeeds in buying the Fox RSNs, that would probably reduce the buyout cost (though ESPN would still want something for their troubles);

They are going to want more than something. The rights to these games provide a significant part of the value that they are paying for them.

Quote:(2) the ACC has been banking a few million dollars every year - could that be for the buyback? Pure speculation on my part, but I have wondered what they plan to do with the money...

Swofford's exorbitant salary in relation to results costs money, and a few million dollars a year isn't going to buy back these rights. The ACC television package is the sole reason Raycom Sports exists these days. They are going to have to retool their entire business approach from television production to strictly internet based production when we buy these rights back.

(05-29-2018 01:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 08:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I agree - ESPN will not buy back those rights, the ACC will have to do that.

That said, there are two things to watch: (1) if Disney succeeds in buying the Fox RSNs, that would probably reduce the buyout cost (though ESPN would still want something for their troubles);

They are going to want more than something. The rights to these games provide a significant part of the value that they are paying for them.

Quote:(2) the ACC has been banking a few million dollars every year - could that be for the buyback? Pure speculation on my part, but I have wondered what they plan to do with the money...

Swofford's exorbitant salary in relation to results costs money, and a few million dollars a year isn't going to buy back these rights. The ACC television package is the sole reason Raycom Sports exists these days. They are going to have to retool their entire business approach from television production to strictly internet based production when we buy these rights back.

You are making a lot of sense. Probably has something to do with the long delay in launching the ACC network - couldn't afford to buy back until fewer years remained.

We: Swofford being the second highest paid commissioner - behind Larry Scott, of all people! - I just don't get it...

(05-29-2018 03:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 01:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 08:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I agree - ESPN will not buy back those rights, the ACC will have to do that.

That said, there are two things to watch: (1) if Disney succeeds in buying the Fox RSNs, that would probably reduce the buyout cost (though ESPN would still want something for their troubles);

They are going to want more than something. The rights to these games provide a significant part of the value that they are paying for them.

Quote:(2) the ACC has been banking a few million dollars every year - could that be for the buyback? Pure speculation on my part, but I have wondered what they plan to do with the money...

Swofford's exorbitant salary in relation to results costs money, and a few million dollars a year isn't going to buy back these rights. The ACC television package is the sole reason Raycom Sports exists these days. They are going to have to retool their entire business approach from television production to strictly internet based production when we buy these rights back.

You are making a lot of sense. Probably has something to do with the long delay in launching the ACC network - couldn't afford to buy back until fewer years remained.

We: Swofford being the second highest paid commissioner - behind Larry Scott, of all people! - I just don't get it...

There is an old axiom among CEO's. If you can't brag about your accomplishments then brag about your salary. It falls into the category of "I get paid the most therefore I must be the best."

(05-29-2018 03:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 03:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 01:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 08:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I agree - ESPN will not buy back those rights, the ACC will have to do that.

That said, there are two things to watch: (1) if Disney succeeds in buying the Fox RSNs, that would probably reduce the buyout cost (though ESPN would still want something for their troubles);

They are going to want more than something. The rights to these games provide a significant part of the value that they are paying for them.

Quote:(2) the ACC has been banking a few million dollars every year - could that be for the buyback? Pure speculation on my part, but I have wondered what they plan to do with the money...

Swofford's exorbitant salary in relation to results costs money, and a few million dollars a year isn't going to buy back these rights. The ACC television package is the sole reason Raycom Sports exists these days. They are going to have to retool their entire business approach from television production to strictly internet based production when we buy these rights back.

You are making a lot of sense. Probably has something to do with the long delay in launching the ACC network - couldn't afford to buy back until fewer years remained.

We: Swofford being the second highest paid commissioner - behind Larry Scott, of all people! - I just don't get it...

There is an old axiom among CEO's. If you can't brag about your accomplishments then brag about your salary. It falls into the category of "I get paid the most therefore I must be the best."

The ACC is paying a champagne level salary for O'Douls level results.

(05-29-2018 01:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 08:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I agree - ESPN will not buy back those rights, the ACC will have to do that.

That said, there are two things to watch: (1) if Disney succeeds in buying the Fox RSNs, that would probably reduce the buyout cost (though ESPN would still want something for their troubles);

They are going to want more than something. The rights to these games provide a significant part of the value that they are paying for them.

Quote:(2) the ACC has been banking a few million dollars every year - could that be for the buyback? Pure speculation on my part, but I have wondered what they plan to do with the money...

Swofford's exorbitant salary in relation to results costs money, and a few million dollars a year isn't going to buy back these rights. The ACC television package is the sole reason Raycom Sports exists these days. They are going to have to retool their entire business approach from television production to strictly internet based production when we buy these rights back.

SEC and Big 12 both had $23 million more in revenue than distributions (597 vs. 40.9*14 and 371 vs. 34.8*10). ACC had $30 million more (418 vs. 26.6*14+5.8).

(05-30-2018 02:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 01:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 08:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I agree - ESPN will not buy back those rights, the ACC will have to do that.

That said, there are two things to watch: (1) if Disney succeeds in buying the Fox RSNs, that would probably reduce the buyout cost (though ESPN would still want something for their troubles);

They are going to want more than something. The rights to these games provide a significant part of the value that they are paying for them.

Quote:(2) the ACC has been banking a few million dollars every year - could that be for the buyback? Pure speculation on my part, but I have wondered what they plan to do with the money...

Swofford's exorbitant salary in relation to results costs money, and a few million dollars a year isn't going to buy back these rights. The ACC television package is the sole reason Raycom Sports exists these days. They are going to have to retool their entire business approach from television production to strictly internet based production when we buy these rights back.

SEC and Big 12 both had $23 million more in revenue than distributions (597 vs. 40.9*14 and 371 vs. 34.8*10). ACC had $30 million more (418 vs. 26.6*14+5.8).

That's an improvement for the SEC. At some point in the not too distant past the conference got 1 equal share. I guess the money got strong enough that getting an equal share was no longer justifiable. So with the SEC and Big 12 the conference took less than a full share to fund their budgets and in the ACC it took more than a full share to do the same.

If we are judging the performance of commissioners, then the proper comparison is not just how much did one league get compared to other leagues. The SEC is a better product in a more rabid market than the ACC or PAC. For that matter, the B1G as well. They should be getting paid more.

The comparison should be how much is a league getting compared to its "true" worth, if that number could ever be known. Because that can't be known, we each apply our subjective opinion about how good a job a commissioner is doing based on our own biases. If we think Swofford is a bum, we would still think that even if he somehow accomplished world peace and a cure for the common cold in addition to getting more lucrative contracts.

From where I sit, looking at the last 40 years or so, the ACC has improved exponentially. If it continued to improve in areas over which the commissioner has little control (like football attendance), the revenue gap (which is only partly a function of media revenue) would close considerably.

Personally, I thought Gene Corrigan was an outstanding commissioner. But I have no way of telling if he could have negotiated any better deals than Swofford within the framework of ACC politics.

(05-30-2018 03:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  ...looking at the last 40 years or so, the ACC has improved exponentially. If it continued to improve in areas over which the commissioner has little control (like football attendance), the revenue gap (which is only partly a function of media revenue) would close considerably.

Personally, I thought Gene Corrigan was an outstanding commissioner. But I have no way of telling if he could have negotiated any better deals than Swofford within the framework of ACC politics.

The ACC HAS improved dramatically... and THAT is also the reason folks are so upset with the 2010 contract, which LOCKED in the OLD ACC value...

(05-30-2018 03:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  If we are judging the performance of commissioners, then the proper comparison is not just how much did one league get compared to other leagues. The SEC is a better product in a more rabid market than the ACC or PAC. For that matter, the B1G as well. They should be getting paid more.

The comparison should be how much is a league getting compared to its "true" worth, if that number could ever be known. Because that can't be known, we each apply our subjective opinion about how good a job a commissioner is doing based on our own biases. If we think Swofford is a bum, we would still think that even if he somehow accomplished world peace and a cure for the common cold in addition to getting more lucrative contracts.

From where I sit, looking at the last 40 years or so, the ACC has improved exponentially. If it continued to improve in areas over which the commissioner has little control (like football attendance), the revenue gap (which is only partly a function of media revenue) would close considerably.

Personally, I thought Gene Corrigan was an outstanding commissioner. But I have no way of telling if he could have negotiated any better deals than Swofford within the framework of ACC politics.

In the early 90s, the ACC at one point had the best contract. Now the relative value of football vs. basketball has probably changed. But still, going from first to fifth is not a good result.

(05-30-2018 05:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 03:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  ...looking at the last 40 years or so, the ACC has improved exponentially. If it continued to improve in areas over which the commissioner has little control (like football attendance), the revenue gap (which is only partly a function of media revenue) would close considerably.

Personally, I thought Gene Corrigan was an outstanding commissioner. But I have no way of telling if he could have negotiated any better deals than Swofford within the framework of ACC politics.

The ACC HAS improved dramatically... and THAT is also the reason folks are so upset with the 2010 contract, which LOCKED in the OLD ACC value...

The ACC wanted more money while in the middle of a contract, right? ESPN was only going to give more money if the deal included an extension of years on the contract.

(05-30-2018 06:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 05:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 03:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  ...looking at the last 40 years or so, the ACC has improved exponentially. If it continued to improve in areas over which the commissioner has little control (like football attendance), the revenue gap (which is only partly a function of media revenue) would close considerably.

Personally, I thought Gene Corrigan was an outstanding commissioner. But I have no way of telling if he could have negotiated any better deals than Swofford within the framework of ACC politics.

The ACC HAS improved dramatically... and THAT is also the reason folks are so upset with the 2010 contract, which LOCKED in the OLD ACC value...

The ACC wanted more money while in the middle of a contract, right? ESPN was only going to give more money if the deal included an extension of years on the contract.

I think the point is Wedge that it still didn't help. They had to extend the GOR as well.

The oldest Boomers will be 80 in 2026 and 90 in 2036 when the ACC contract will be being discussed again. How is it that those East Coast Public Ivies were so brilliant that they didn't bother to consider demographics over time lapse when making the deal? The beginning of the thinning of the Boomer herd is underway. By 2026 it will be beginning to peak. The next time the ACC renews a contract most of the Boomers will have passed and with them the Golden Years of College Football. But in the interim the Big 10 and SEC will have bankrolled quite an advantage even if the new game is baseball, basketball, or something else. What they did was severely hamstring Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Louisville and Miami during what could very well be the peak of college football revenue earnings.

If for no other reason that is why Swofford isn't that great of a commissioner.

(05-30-2018 06:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 05:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 03:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  ...looking at the last 40 years or so, the ACC has improved exponentially. If it continued to improve in areas over which the commissioner has little control (like football attendance), the revenue gap (which is only partly a function of media revenue) would close considerably.

Personally, I thought Gene Corrigan was an outstanding commissioner. But I have no way of telling if he could have negotiated any better deals than Swofford within the framework of ACC politics.

The ACC HAS improved dramatically... and THAT is also the reason folks are so upset with the 2010 contract, which LOCKED in the OLD ACC value...

The ACC wanted more money while in the middle of a contract, right? ESPN was only going to give more money if the deal included an extension of years on the contract.

No, it was the FIRST contract with ESPN which was the problem... it was both TOO LOW and TOO LONG. They couldn't do much about the LOW, but they could've about the LONG.

(05-30-2018 09:23 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 06:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 05:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 03:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  ...looking at the last 40 years or so, the ACC has improved exponentially. If it continued to improve in areas over which the commissioner has little control (like football attendance), the revenue gap (which is only partly a function of media revenue) would close considerably.

Personally, I thought Gene Corrigan was an outstanding commissioner. But I have no way of telling if he could have negotiated any better deals than Swofford within the framework of ACC politics.

The ACC HAS improved dramatically... and THAT is also the reason folks are so upset with the 2010 contract, which LOCKED in the OLD ACC value...

The ACC wanted more money while in the middle of a contract, right? ESPN was only going to give more money if the deal included an extension of years on the contract.

No, it was the FIRST contract with ESPN which was the problem... it was both TOO LOW and TOO LONG. They couldn't do much about the LOW, but they could've about the LONG.

That would have expired in summer 2024 if not extended. That contract was $1.86 billion for 12 years, average of $155 million/year. If that had never been renegotiated, not even for the additions of Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Notre Dame, then that average of $155 million/year would have been split 14 1/3 ways through the 2023-24 school year, with each full member getting about $10.8 million per year.

To sit tight on the existing contract until 2024, given how much less they would have been making compared to the Pac-12 and Big 12, let alone the SEC and Big Ten, is probably not what the ACC presidents wanted. They're getting a conference network, which should give them each a few million more per year, and now that Skipper is gone, ESPN might not have given the ACC a fat increase in 2024 anyway.

(05-30-2018 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 06:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 05:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 03:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  ...looking at the last 40 years or so, the ACC has improved exponentially. If it continued to improve in areas over which the commissioner has little control (like football attendance), the revenue gap (which is only partly a function of media revenue) would close considerably.

Personally, I thought Gene Corrigan was an outstanding commissioner. But I have no way of telling if he could have negotiated any better deals than Swofford within the framework of ACC politics.

The ACC HAS improved dramatically... and THAT is also the reason folks are so upset with the 2010 contract, which LOCKED in the OLD ACC value...

The ACC wanted more money while in the middle of a contract, right? ESPN was only going to give more money if the deal included an extension of years on the contract.

I think the point is Wedge that it still didn't help. They had to extend the GOR as well.

The oldest Boomers will be 80 in 2026 and 90 in 2036 when the ACC contract will be being discussed again. How is it that those East Coast Public Ivies were so brilliant that they didn't bother to consider demographics over time lapse when making the deal? The beginning of the thinning of the Boomer herd is underway. By 2026 it will be beginning to peak. The next time the ACC renews a contract most of the Boomers will have passed and with them the Golden Years of College Football. But in the interim the Big 10 and SEC will have bankrolled quite an advantage even if the new game is baseball, basketball, or something else. What they did was severely hamstring Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Louisville and Miami during what could very well be the peak of college football revenue earnings.

If for no other reason that is why Swofford isn't that great of a commissioner.

Excellent point. College football will do better post-boomer than some others. For example the demographics for the NCAA Tournament are not encouraging at all, even older and whiter than the CFP. Baseball's demographics are ugly and now that most everyone is just swinging for the fences rather than hit gaps and advance runners baseball probably isn't going to see any real uptick.

(05-30-2018 10:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 06:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 05:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 03:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  ...looking at the last 40 years or so, the ACC has improved exponentially. If it continued to improve in areas over which the commissioner has little control (like football attendance), the revenue gap (which is only partly a function of media revenue) would close considerably.

Personally, I thought Gene Corrigan was an outstanding commissioner. But I have no way of telling if he could have negotiated any better deals than Swofford within the framework of ACC politics.

The ACC HAS improved dramatically... and THAT is also the reason folks are so upset with the 2010 contract, which LOCKED in the OLD ACC value...

The ACC wanted more money while in the middle of a contract, right? ESPN was only going to give more money if the deal included an extension of years on the contract.

I think the point is Wedge that it still didn't help. They had to extend the GOR as well.

The oldest Boomers will be 80 in 2026 and 90 in 2036 when the ACC contract will be being discussed again. How is it that those East Coast Public Ivies were so brilliant that they didn't bother to consider demographics over time lapse when making the deal? The beginning of the thinning of the Boomer herd is underway. By 2026 it will be beginning to peak. The next time the ACC renews a contract most of the Boomers will have passed and with them the Golden Years of College Football. But in the interim the Big 10 and SEC will have bankrolled quite an advantage even if the new game is baseball, basketball, or something else. What they did was severely hamstring Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Louisville and Miami during what could very well be the peak of college football revenue earnings.

If for no other reason that is why Swofford isn't that great of a commissioner.

Excellent point. College football will do better post-boomer than some others. For example the demographics for the NCAA Tournament are not encouraging at all, even older and whiter than the CFP. Baseball's demographics are ugly and now that most everyone is just swinging for the fences rather than hit gaps and advance runners baseball probably isn't going to see any real uptick.

Hoops demographics have been headed down for sometime. Baseball is at least relatively concussion free as compared to most other sports. But the game is long and it doesn't translate to those who never played and with the video game generation making up more and more of the work force, well it doesn't look too good.

My grandfather grew up loving Polo, Boxing and the Indianapolis 500 and Horse Racing. In his peak earning years he never missed the Brickyard or Churchill Downs.

My father grew up on football, and his closest cousin baseball.

I grew up with both and considered basketball a rainy day activity.

My daughters had the joy of playing their respective Universities marching bands. Their link to the sport is centered around that.

So far I have one grandson who can hunt, farm and raise chickens and he's becoming an engineer. I have another grandson who flies. And I have a third grandson who has never done anything in the flesh and only has video games to play. Every time he's with me I'm trying to teach him how to catch, throw, and hit. It's a big time work in progress and the only true inclination he has shown thus far is for fishing. Th one who is becoming an engineer was at least a swimmer. But none of them played baseball, football, or basketball. At least the youngest has time to learn. But as far as confidence building goes the oldest two are both quite self aware and confident and show good decision making capabilities so I have nothing to complain about. I'm proud of them both. The youngest is smart and social, but he needs confidence, but at least we have some years to work on that, God willing.

So when my daughters are gone the last big time football fans of this family will have passed. I don't think the big 3 have much of a future. In fact organized team sports in general may not have much of one.