(05-23-2020 04:00 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  If Pitt can sustain any success or relevance, it will have big regional games in the ACC the same as when it was a regular national contender as an independent.

This is most certainly not true.

Pitt’s annual ACC games:
- Syracuse
- Miami
- Virginia
- Virginia Tech
- Duke
- UNC
- Georgia Tech

Pitt’s games as a contending Independent from ‘75-‘83:
- Penn St (9/9)
- West Virginia (9/9)
- Syracuse (9/9)
- Temple (9/9)
- Army (9/9)
- Notre Dame (6/9)
- Navy (6/9)
- Boston College (5/9)

(05-23-2020 04:49 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 04:00 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  If Pitt can sustain any success or relevance, it will have big regional games in the ACC the same as when it was a regular national contender as an independent.

This is most certainly not true.

Pitt’s annual ACC games:
- Syracuse
- Miami
- Virginia
- Virginia Tech
- Duke
- UNC
- Georgia Tech

Pitt’s games as a contending Independent from ‘75-‘83:
- Penn St (9/9)
- West Virginia (9/9)
- Syracuse (9/9)
- Temple (9/9)
- Army (9/9)
- Notre Dame (6/9)
- Navy (6/9)
- Boston College (5/9)

It most certainly is true, for people that have a feel for the history of the school. Army, Temple, Navy, and BC were never big games, regional or not. Navy is a nice game, not a big game, primarily because of respect of the opponent and ease of travel to Annapolis. Really only PSU, ND, and WVU were big games, and back then, it was in that order. Syracuse and Pitt were never good at the same time so rarely competing for anything during the same season and a rivalry has never taken off on the football side, but they are considered a traditional opponent for each other.

Virginia Tech, from the shared time in the Big East, is a much more desirable game and feels more like a rivalry than Temple, Rutgers, Army, or even BC ever did. Geographically, it is the same distance from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia as it is Charlottesville, the same distance to Syracuse as Blacksburg, and 100 miles closer to UNC and Duke than Boston. Pitt is used to playing and wants to play Miami annually and would fight giving that up. The only real geographic stretch is Georgia Tech, which Pitt shares ancient history with and athletically is a lot more similar to Pitt than most schools.

Your athletic director is perfectly happy in the Coastal and has voted as such. If you want to switch and get Syracuse and BC along with Clemson and FSU, I'm sure NC State will switch with you. It would be interesting to be in an ACC football division without a top 5 program for a change.

(05-23-2020 05:24 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Your athletic director is perfectly happy in the Coastal and has voted as such. If you want to switch and get Syracuse and BC along with Clemson and FSU, I'm sure NC State will switch with you. It would be interesting to be in an ACC football division without a top 5 program for a change.

Pitt nor the vast majority of its fans want to leave the Coastal.

(05-23-2020 05:25 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 05:24 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Your athletic director is perfectly happy in the Coastal and has voted as such. If you want to switch and get Syracuse and BC along with Clemson and FSU, I'm sure NC State will switch with you. It would be interesting to be in an ACC football division without a top 5 program for a change.

Pitt nor the vast majority of its fans want to leave the Coastal.

Of course not, who would want FSU and Clemson in their division if they could duck them and who would want home and away conference games in Upstate New York, Kentucky, and Boston where there are no recruits. Makes me wonder what Clarion was thinking.

Penn State's heyday:

PSU and Pitt played every year 1935-1992 and played in November or December every year.
PSU and WV played every year 1947-1992. Most games were in October.
PSU and Syr played every year 1944-1990.
PSU and Md played most years between 1960 and 1993.
PSU and Temp played every year 1975-1992 except 1984.
PSU and Rut played every year 1977-1979 and 1982-1992.
PSU and ND played every year 1981-1992.
PSU and BC played every year 1981-1992.
PSU and Ala played every year 1981-1990 (seems like the oddball).

PSU and NCSt played every year 1971-1982. I wonder why they stopped.

(05-23-2020 05:04 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 04:49 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 04:00 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  If Pitt can sustain any success or relevance, it will have big regional games in the ACC the same as when it was a regular national contender as an independent.

This is most certainly not true.

Pitt’s annual ACC games:
- Syracuse
- Miami
- Virginia
- Virginia Tech
- Duke
- UNC
- Georgia Tech

Pitt’s games as a contending Independent from ‘75-‘83:
- Penn St (9/9)
- West Virginia (9/9)
- Syracuse (9/9)
- Temple (9/9)
- Army (9/9)
- Notre Dame (6/9)
- Navy (6/9)
- Boston College (5/9)

It most certainly is true, for people that have a feel for the history of the school. Army, Temple, Navy, and BC were never big games, regional or not. Navy is a nice game, not a big game, primarily because of respect of the opponent and ease of travel to Annapolis. Really only PSU, ND, and WVU were big games, and back then, it was in that order. Syracuse and Pitt were never good at the same time so never rarely competing for anything during the same season and a rivalry has never taken off on the football side, but they are considered a traditional opponent for each other.

Virginia Tech, from the shared time in the Big East, is a much more desirable game and feels more like a rivalry than Temple, Rutgers, Army, or even BC. Geographically, it is the same distance from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia as it is Charlottesville.

Ok, and Pitt played PSU/WVU annually, plus Notre Dame 6/9 years.

So how does this

Quote:if Pitt can sustain any success or relevance, it will have big regional games in the ACC the same as when it was a regular national contender as an independent

add up when, as of 2027, they’ll have played PSU 4/15, WVU 4/15, & ND 6/15 as 15-year ACC members?

(05-23-2020 09:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 09:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 08:50 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Both fit the institutional profile of Big Ten schools, but the athletic value to the northeast and linkage to PSU is overstated at best or simply untrue.

Thing is, though, since adding Rutgers and MD, B1G revenues have gone through the roof. So they certainly haven't hurt the B1G in any discernible way.

It has helped to create an interesting dichotomy however. If you examine revenues in the Big 10 it is clear that the top 5 schools do exceedingly well in ratings, attendance, and revenue. It is equally clear that the bottom 5 schools drag all averages way down. What is thinning in the Big 10 is the middle. So while they are very healthy and certainly in no immediate danger of losing status it is clearly but slowly becoming a conference of have and have nots by SEC and Big 10 standards, certainly not when compared to the PAC and ACC.

Maybe over time, the discussion of revenue can be reviewed for what the Big Ten got out of heading further east: back into the homes of Big Ten school alumni no longer within the old footprint, and getting away with taking advantage of cable billings by sticking flags in densely populated regions whether those within the region cared about the Big Ten or not. What the Big Ten failed to handle moving east was actually taking programs that actually had deep or traditional ties with any of the Big Ten schools, or each other.

And, I get it. I know the money is so good for the Big Ten when it picked up a big NY metro state school. However, just as much as that pay day was so big, images such as this and this? That won't be forgotten, either. You don't get that from schools who have football pedigree up in these parts. You don't get that from programs who consider the opponents rivals, either.

There simply isn't a region for football as fractured or gutted of its traditions more than the northeast. There were plenty of us up here who were very involved with the local scene, even if there wasn't a conference banner over many of us. Our "schools" robbed us of our heritage and traditions. And, quite honestly, our state houses let it go too far, because, and I agree 100% with an earlier post: having gotten the regionalism right, our local and state economies would be feeling much better because there was localized interest, as well as regional.

It falls on the ACC, too. It seemed so hellbent on ridding itself of its lesser Big East competitor, its not like it succeeded in adding the right combination of programs that really controlled the northeast. And, yeah, that means not all roads up here run through Happy Valley. The ACC goofed on WVU.

If this theory played out, where would the rest of Pitt sports be playing?

(05-23-2020 05:42 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Penn State's heyday:

PSU and Pitt played every year 1935-1992 and played in November or December every year.
PSU and WV played every year 1947-1992. Most games were in October.
PSU and Syr played every year 1944-1990.
PSU and Md played most years between 1960 and 1993.
PSU and Temp played every year 1975-1992 except 1984.
PSU and Rut played every year 1977-1979 and 1982-1992.
PSU and ND played every year 1981-1992.
PSU and BC played every year 1981-1992.
PSU and Ala played every year 1981-1990 (seems like the oddball).

PSU and NCSt played every year 1971-1982. I wonder why they stopped.

They were 1 for 2 deals and while we won several big games, we also took 3 close losses that cost us big bowl games.

In 67 they cost us the number one ranking and the Orange Bowl by less than one score. They knocked us down a bowl peg in 73, 77, and 78 by less than one score but the killing blow was in 79 when we had won the game but the officials put time on the clock allowing PSU time to kick the winning fg 54 yards into a howling 25 mph north wind. I was there, the kick would have been good from 65 - one of the damndest things I ever saw.

NC State used to recruit Pa heavily in the 60's-early 80's. Back then CF stadium only seated 45K and up until 1966 NC State played in a very small, substandard stadium - Riddick which had capacity for about 22K. Over 16 years we played 14 times, 9 at Happy Valley. By 1982 though we had hired an idiot as coach and went to Pa and lost 54-0 so neither side had a reason to continue. Carter Finley sat about 49K by then and we could make more money playing southwest podunk crap U.

(05-23-2020 07:27 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 09:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 09:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 08:50 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Both fit the institutional profile of Big Ten schools, but the athletic value to the northeast and linkage to PSU is overstated at best or simply untrue.

Thing is, though, since adding Rutgers and MD, B1G revenues have gone through the roof. So they certainly haven't hurt the B1G in any discernible way.

It has helped to create an interesting dichotomy however. If you examine revenues in the Big 10 it is clear that the top 5 schools do exceedingly well in ratings, attendance, and revenue. It is equally clear that the bottom 5 schools drag all averages way down. What is thinning in the Big 10 is the middle. So while they are very healthy and certainly in no immediate danger of losing status it is clearly but slowly becoming a conference of have and have nots by SEC and Big 10 standards, certainly not when compared to the PAC and ACC.

Maybe over time, the discussion of revenue can be reviewed for what the Big Ten got out of heading further east: back into the homes of Big Ten school alumni no longer within the old footprint, and getting away with taking advantage of cable billings by sticking flags in densely populated regions whether those within the region cared about the Big Ten or not. What the Big Ten failed to handle moving east was actually taking programs that actually had deep or traditional ties with any of the Big Ten schools, or each other.

And, I get it. I know the money is so good for the Big Ten when it picked up a big NY metro state school. However, just as much as that pay day was so big, images such as this and this? That won't be forgotten, either. You don't get that from schools who have football pedigree up in these parts. You don't get that from programs who consider the opponents rivals, either.

There simply isn't a region for football as fractured or gutted of its traditions more than the northeast. There were plenty of us up here who were very involved with the local scene, even if there wasn't a conference banner over many of us. Our "schools" robbed us of our heritage and traditions. And, quite honestly, our state houses let it go too far, because, and I agree 100% with an earlier post: having gotten the regionalism right, our local and state economies would be feeling much better because there was localized interest, as well as regional.

It falls on the ACC, too. It seemed so hellbent on ridding itself of its lesser Big East competitor, its not like it succeeded in adding the right combination of programs that really controlled the northeast. And, yeah, that means not all roads up here run through Happy Valley. The ACC goofed on WVU.

1. How did the ACC goof on WVa if adding WVa was an existential no for UVa, MD, Duke, GT, and Wake Forest? Those 5 didn't want them for academic and social reasons.

2. Surely you don't mean the right combination to control the Northeastern US includes Rutgers and West Virginia do you?

3. People seem to forget that MD didn't want Penn State in the ACC for decades and that MD screwed the rest of the conference vis a vie Penn State back in 2012.

.

(05-23-2020 09:39 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  If this theory played out, where would the rest of Pitt sports be playing?

The (new) Big East, probably.

The other option for regional competitions would be the A-10, but Pitt could generate a lot more income from the Big East.

(05-23-2020 11:34 PM)Statefan Wrote:  1. How did the ACC goof on WVa if adding WVa was an existential no for UVa, MD, Duke, GT, and Wake Forest? Those 5 didn't want them for academic and social reasons.

2. Surely you don't mean the right combination to control the Northeastern US includes Rutgers and West Virginia do you?

3. People seem to forget that MD didn't want Penn State in the ACC for decades and that MD screwed the rest of the conference vis a vie Penn State back in 2012.

The thing about Maryland is, they aligned well with core members and then enough happened over time to really irk them. It would be one thing if they were consistently like FSU, in wanting football power schools. I don't know what or who they wanted, and maybe that's simply it: they didn't want expansion at all, just more money and the ability to see their old mates more frequently. Yeah, they've done their share of damage in the ACC. And set apart from the northeast.

I think the internal disdain for WVU is either or both overstated and hypocritical. This conference did so much to avoid Miami for years, until it became too evident Miami football could take away from the ACC's success. Even if academically, UMFL favors other ACC private institutions, it didn't extend to its football program, and basketball was pretty much invisible and pretty much useless to the conference. But, now they're together. And I believe there are internal schisms still over Notre Dame's arrangement, too.

It's a conference with decisions that haven't aged well all the time, but are what they are.

Does WVU define the northeast? No (and an OH-H***-NO for Rutgers). But, it becomes very hard to ignore WVU games versus Pitt, Cuse, VT, and others up in these parts.

(05-24-2020 05:41 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 11:34 PM)Statefan Wrote:  1. How did the ACC goof on WVa if adding WVa was an existential no for UVa, MD, Duke, GT, and Wake Forest? Those 5 didn't want them for academic and social reasons.

2. Surely you don't mean the right combination to control the Northeastern US includes Rutgers and West Virginia do you?

3. People seem to forget that MD didn't want Penn State in the ACC for decades and that MD screwed the rest of the conference vis a vie Penn State back in 2012.

The thing about Maryland is, they aligned well with core members and then enough happened over time to really irk them. It would be one thing if they were consistently like FSU, in wanting football power schools. I don't know what or who they wanted, and maybe that's simply it: they didn't want expansion at all, just more money and the ability to see their old mates more frequently. Yeah, they've done their share of damage in the ACC. And set apart from the northeast.

I think the internal disdain for WVU is either or both overstated and hypocritical. This conference did so much to avoid Miami for years, until it became too evident Miami football could take away from the ACC's success. Even if academically, UMFL favors other ACC private institutions, it didn't extend to its football program, and basketball was pretty much invisible and pretty much useless to the conference. But, now they're together. And I believe there are internal schisms still over Notre Dame's arrangement, too.

It's a conference with decisions that haven't aged well all the time, but are what they are.

Does WVU define the northeast? No (and an OH-H***-NO for Rutgers). But, it becomes very hard to ignore WVU games versus Pitt, Cuse, VT, and others up in these parts.

I'm wondering if Rutgers would have been in the Big Ten if Pittsburgh and Syracuse were still available.There were rumors of Pitt being in the Big Ten before Nebraska got in. Certainly there were and still are enough PSU fans in Pittsburgh so the Big Ten might have felt they didn't need Pitt and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Penn State actively tried to block them out of the conference. I certainly would have rather had Syracuse than Rutgers. I felt the Big Ten got stuck with Rutgers after the ACC took Syracuse and Pittsburgh. I've hated Rutgers ever since the Big East gave them a full membership over Temple back in the 1990's. I kind of wish the ACC took Syracuse and Rutgers. Then the Big Ten would have had to have taken Pittsburgh.

(05-24-2020 05:41 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 11:34 PM)Statefan Wrote:  1. How did the ACC goof on WVa if adding WVa was an existential no for UVa, MD, Duke, GT, and Wake Forest? Those 5 didn't want them for academic and social reasons.

2. Surely you don't mean the right combination to control the Northeastern US includes Rutgers and West Virginia do you?

3. People seem to forget that MD didn't want Penn State in the ACC for decades and that MD screwed the rest of the conference vis a vie Penn State back in 2012.

The thing about Maryland is, they aligned well with core members and then enough happened over time to really irk them. It would be one thing if they were consistently like FSU, in wanting football power schools. I don't know what or who they wanted, and maybe that's simply it: they didn't want expansion at all, just more money and the ability to see their old mates more frequently. Yeah, they've done their share of damage in the ACC. And set apart from the northeast.

I think the internal disdain for WVU is either or both overstated and hypocritical. This conference did so much to avoid Miami for years, until it became too evident Miami football could take away from the ACC's success. Even if academically, UMFL favors other ACC private institutions, it didn't extend to its football program, and basketball was pretty much invisible and pretty much useless to the conference. But, now they're together. And I believe there are internal schisms still over Notre Dame's arrangement, too.

It's a conference with decisions that haven't aged well all the time, but are what they are.

Does WVU define the northeast? No (and an OH-H***-NO for Rutgers). But, it becomes very hard to ignore WVU games versus Pitt, Cuse, VT, and others up in these parts.

Like your analogy of Miami (athletics) to WVU. The ACC historically was a very small tight-knit group with a few anti-expansion schools. There was a lot of hesitation on Miami...but the need for a football brand eventually prevailed. WVU would be a good bridge between the Northeast market and Tidewater core. The rivalries with Pitt and VT would be exciting football products.

Given that UMD (who was traditionally anti-expansion) left and Pitt is now a member, WVU very likely has the votes for membership into the ACC. Nevertheless, currently the ACC does not need to expand and WVU already has a P5 home.

With regards to the ACC being “a conference with decisions that haven’t aged well all the time”, I think similar problems occur with every P5 conference expansion. By definition, expansion changes the core of a conference. Because the original ACC was so small with a basketball orientation, its transformation is faster and greater. The fact that football drives 80% of college athletic revenue and the ACC is a P5 conference means that the ACC expansion decisions have actually aged well. Unless you are interested in relegating the ACC to a non-Power conference status, your assertion on previous expansion decisions is way-off base.

(05-24-2020 07:27 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 05:41 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 11:34 PM)Statefan Wrote:  1. How did the ACC goof on WVa if adding WVa was an existential no for UVa, MD, Duke, GT, and Wake Forest? Those 5 didn't want them for academic and social reasons.

2. Surely you don't mean the right combination to control the Northeastern US includes Rutgers and West Virginia do you?

3. People seem to forget that MD didn't want Penn State in the ACC for decades and that MD screwed the rest of the conference vis a vie Penn State back in 2012.

The thing about Maryland is, they aligned well with core members and then enough happened over time to really irk them. It would be one thing if they were consistently like FSU, in wanting football power schools. I don't know what or who they wanted, and maybe that's simply it: they didn't want expansion at all, just more money and the ability to see their old mates more frequently. Yeah, they've done their share of damage in the ACC. And set apart from the northeast.

I think the internal disdain for WVU is either or both overstated and hypocritical. This conference did so much to avoid Miami for years, until it became too evident Miami football could take away from the ACC's success. Even if academically, UMFL favors other ACC private institutions, it didn't extend to its football program, and basketball was pretty much invisible and pretty much useless to the conference. But, now they're together. And I believe there are internal schisms still over Notre Dame's arrangement, too.

It's a conference with decisions that haven't aged well all the time, but are what they are.

Does WVU define the northeast? No (and an OH-H***-NO for Rutgers). But, it becomes very hard to ignore WVU games versus Pitt, Cuse, VT, and others up in these parts.

Like your analogy of Miami (athletics) to WVU. The ACC historically was a very small tight-knit group with a few anti-expansion schools. There was a lot of hesitation on Miami...but the need for a football brand eventually prevailed. WVU would be a good bridge between the Northeast market and Tidewater core. The rivalries with Pitt and VT would be exciting football products.

Given that UMD (who was traditionally anti-expansion) left and Pitt is now a member, WVU very likely has the votes for membership into the ACC. Nevertheless, currently the ACC does not need to expand and WVU already has a P5 home.

With regards to the ACC being “a conference with decisions that haven’t aged well all the time”, I think similar problems occur with every P5 conference expansion. By definition, expansion changes the core of a conference. Because the original ACC was so small with a basketball orientation, its transformation is faster and greater. The fact that football drives 80% of college athletic revenue and the ACC is a P5 conference means that the ACC expansion decisions have actually aged well. Unless you are interested in relegating the ACC to a non-Power conference status, your assertion on previous expansion decisions is way-off base.

Stop perpetuating the 80% lie.
Those numbers are not accurate.

UNC’s 28 sports – 13 men’s and 15 women’s – continued to be sustained by the football and men’s basketball programs. Those two sports generated 62.3 percent of the total revenue ($67,127,867) and operated at a $32,406,688 surplus in 2018-19, which was down from $37,774,385 in 2017-18.

The football team finished with $39,942,191 in total operating revenue and a surplus of $16,528,127, while the men’s basketball team added $27,185,676 in total operating revenue and a surplus of $15,878,561.

(05-24-2020 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 07:27 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 05:41 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 11:34 PM)Statefan Wrote:  1. How did the ACC goof on WVa if adding WVa was an existential no for UVa, MD, Duke, GT, and Wake Forest? Those 5 didn't want them for academic and social reasons.

2. Surely you don't mean the right combination to control the Northeastern US includes Rutgers and West Virginia do you?

3. People seem to forget that MD didn't want Penn State in the ACC for decades and that MD screwed the rest of the conference vis a vie Penn State back in 2012.

The thing about Maryland is, they aligned well with core members and then enough happened over time to really irk them. It would be one thing if they were consistently like FSU, in wanting football power schools. I don't know what or who they wanted, and maybe that's simply it: they didn't want expansion at all, just more money and the ability to see their old mates more frequently. Yeah, they've done their share of damage in the ACC. And set apart from the northeast.

I think the internal disdain for WVU is either or both overstated and hypocritical. This conference did so much to avoid Miami for years, until it became too evident Miami football could take away from the ACC's success. Even if academically, UMFL favors other ACC private institutions, it didn't extend to its football program, and basketball was pretty much invisible and pretty much useless to the conference. But, now they're together. And I believe there are internal schisms still over Notre Dame's arrangement, too.

It's a conference with decisions that haven't aged well all the time, but are what they are.

Does WVU define the northeast? No (and an OH-H***-NO for Rutgers). But, it becomes very hard to ignore WVU games versus Pitt, Cuse, VT, and others up in these parts.

Like your analogy of Miami (athletics) to WVU. The ACC historically was a very small tight-knit group with a few anti-expansion schools. There was a lot of hesitation on Miami...but the need for a football brand eventually prevailed. WVU would be a good bridge between the Northeast market and Tidewater core. The rivalries with Pitt and VT would be exciting football products.

Given that UMD (who was traditionally anti-expansion) left and Pitt is now a member, WVU very likely has the votes for membership into the ACC. Nevertheless, currently the ACC does not need to expand and WVU already has a P5 home.

With regards to the ACC being “a conference with decisions that haven’t aged well all the time”, I think similar problems occur with every P5 conference expansion. By definition, expansion changes the core of a conference. Because the original ACC was so small with a basketball orientation, its transformation is faster and greater. The fact that football drives 80% of college athletic revenue and the ACC is a P5 conference means that the ACC expansion decisions have actually aged well. Unless you are interested in relegating the ACC to a non-Power conference status, your assertion on previous expansion decisions is way-off base.

Stop perpetuating the 80% lie.
Those numbers are not accurate.

UNC’s 28 sports – 13 men’s and 15 women’s – continued to be sustained by the football and men’s basketball programs. Those two sports generated 62.3 percent of the total revenue ($67,127,867) and operated at a $32,406,688 surplus in 2018-19, which was down from $37,774,385 in 2017-18.

The football team finished with $39,942,191 in total operating revenue and a surplus of $16,528,127, while the men’s basketball team added $27,185,676 in total operating revenue and a surplus of $15,878,561.

Please, Carolina's football profit numbers are closer to the top of the G5 than the P5. Get real.

(05-24-2020 08:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  Stop perpetuating the 80% lie.
Those numbers are not accurate.

UNC’s 28 sports – 13 men’s and 15 women’s – continued to be sustained by the football and men’s basketball programs. Those two sports generated 62.3 percent of the total revenue ($67,127,867) and operated at a $32,406,688 surplus in 2018-19, which was down from $37,774,385 in 2017-18.

The football team finished with $39,942,191 in total operating revenue and a surplus of $16,528,127, while the men’s basketball team added $27,185,676 in total operating revenue and a surplus of $15,878,561.

Please, Carolina's football profit numbers are closer to the top of the G5 than the P5. Get real.

The 80% is supported by the breakdown of TV rights on basketball and football. Ignoring the ACCN, Notre Dame gets a 1/5 share of TV revenue from the base deal with ESPN.

Other revenues vary by school. UNC, like Syracuse, Duke and Louisville, generate revenues from basketball similar to their football programs. For most schools, the 80/20 number is probably pretty close to accurate.

Finally, according to Equity in Athletics, UNC's athletic revenues were $105 million for 2018-19. That is solidly P5.

(05-24-2020 08:46 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 08:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  Stop perpetuating the 80% lie.
Those numbers are not accurate.

UNC’s 28 sports – 13 men’s and 15 women’s – continued to be sustained by the football and men’s basketball programs. Those two sports generated 62.3 percent of the total revenue ($67,127,867) and operated at a $32,406,688 surplus in 2018-19, which was down from $37,774,385 in 2017-18.

The football team finished with $39,942,191 in total operating revenue and a surplus of $16,528,127, while the men’s basketball team added $27,185,676 in total operating revenue and a surplus of $15,878,561.

Please, Carolina's football profit numbers are closer to the top of the G5 than the P5. Get real.

The 80% is supported by the breakdown of TV rights on basketball and football. Ignoring the ACCN, Notre Dame gets a 1/5 share of TV revenue from the base deal with ESPN.

Other revenues vary by school. UNC, like Syracuse, Duke and Louisville, generate revenues from basketball similar to their football programs. For most schools, the 80/20 number is probably pretty close to accurate.

Finally, according to Equity in Athletics, UNC's athletic revenues were $105 million for 2018-19. That is solidly P5.

While what you say is true, Louisville is a leader in revenue production within the ACC, the other 3 are not. Louisville's Gross Total Revenue exceeded 140 million. If Syracuse, Duke, and North Carolina, and others had the success in football revenue production that Louisville has had the ACC would be in a much different position than it is today. So to toss Louisville into that listing is a disservice to the Cardinals since their basketball program makes a % of their overall revenue in which Football is highly successful as a money maker. That means Louisville is producing well in both sports. I'd say moving forward should basketball every find itself independent of the greedy clutches of the NCAA schools like Louisville will separate themselves even more from the majority of the field of the P5. They may not be an elite academic program but they will be elite athletically in terms of earnings, if not in titles.