Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
Author Message
Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
When an article contains something that is patently false, can you believe what you read?


The ACC is in the middle of its own TV rights deal with ESPN that is locked in until 2036. Unless it adds Notre Dame as a member, its payout in that deal -- reported at $17 million annually per school -- remains static.


This statement by Dodd is false.

See the below:


May 21, 2021
Andrea Adelson
ESPN Senior Writer
Facebook
Twitter
Facebook Messenger
Pinterest
Email
print
The ACC distributed a record $497.2 million for the 2019-20 financial year, the highest gross revenue ever reported for the league, according to tax documents released Friday.

The revenue increased more than $42 million over the previous year -- thanks largely to its increased television and postseason bowl revenues. Television revenue increased from $288 million the previous year to $332.8 million, as the ACC Network launched in August 2019.

Postseason bowl revenue totaled $124.9 million, with Clemson making the College Football Playoff and Virginia playing Florida in the Capital One Orange Bowl. The league distributed an average of nearly $32.3 million per school among its 14 full-time members.

EDITOR'S PICKS

SEC sent schools $23M each for virus losses
244dAlex Scarborough

Pac-12 sees slight revenue increase in 2019-20
243dKyle Bonagura
For the first time in history, each school's distribution topped $30 million. Clemson, with its CFP appearance that season, received the highest payout at nearly $37 million. Notre Dame, a member in all sports but football, has a different distribution and received $10.8 million for the 2019-20 fiscal year.

The 990 form released Friday shows revenue generated between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020 -- the timeframe before Notre Dame joined the ACC as a football member for the 2020 season as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Notre Dame resumes its football independent status for the 2021 season.

The Pac-12 released its financial information Thursday, reporting nearly $403 million distributed to 12 schools. Its per-school average ($33.6 million) is slightly more than the ACC's.


The SEC, meanwhile, distributed $657.7 million for the 2019-20 fiscal year.


Now is this an oversite on Dodd's part or deliberate lie designed to push a narrative?
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2022 09:30 PM by Statefan.)
01-18-2022 09:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,142
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 176
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 08:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 07:00 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The article also states the following:

“Expanding the playoff to 12 teams creates the possibility of at least one team playing 17 games in a single season. That remains a non-starter with ACC coaches because of health and safety concerns.”

NON STARTER sounds like a strong word....

It is a "possibility."

For it to be a possibility you need the following circumstances:
1) A team not ranked in the top 4 but in the top 12 played in a ccg
2) They win their first round game where they may or may no be a favorite
3) They win their 2nd round game where they will be an underdog
4) They win in the semi-finals where they will also almost certainly be an underdog

It will happen eventually, but it is highly unlikely in any given year. It might be 20 or 30 years before it happens.
Looking back to the beginning of the BCS era the wild 2007 year is the only time that would be remotely possible. Although prior to 2010 only a few conferences had CCGs so there weren't many who fit in category 1.

16 games is problematic as is. That’s what they are telling you by non-starter. And it is very likely the SEC CCG runner up will be playing 16 games pretty much 50% of the time.

The difference between 14 and 16, especially +2 very high level games, is GINORMOUS. If I’m a betting man, I’d bet they go to an 11 game schedule (60%) or the CCGs get axed (40%).
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2022 09:40 PM by RUScarlets.)
01-18-2022 09:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 09:22 PM)Statefan Wrote:  When an article contains something that is patently false, can you believe what you read?


The ACC is in the middle of its own TV rights deal with ESPN that is locked in until 2036. Unless it adds Notre Dame as a member, its payout in that deal -- reported at $17 million annually per school -- remains static.


This statement by Dodd is false.

See the below:


May 21, 2021
Andrea Adelson
ESPN Senior Writer
Facebook
Twitter
Facebook Messenger
Pinterest
Email
print
The ACC distributed a record $497.2 million for the 2019-20 financial year, the highest gross revenue ever reported for the league, according to tax documents released Friday.

The revenue increased more than $42 million over the previous year -- thanks largely to its increased television and postseason bowl revenues. Television revenue increased from $288 million the previous year to $332.8 million, as the ACC Network launched in August 2019.

Postseason bowl revenue totaled $124.9 million, with Clemson making the College Football Playoff and Virginia playing Florida in the Capital One Orange Bowl. The league distributed an average of nearly $32.3 million per school among its 14 full-time members.

EDITOR'S PICKS

SEC sent schools $23M each for virus losses
244dAlex Scarborough

Pac-12 sees slight revenue increase in 2019-20
243dKyle Bonagura
For the first time in history, each school's distribution topped $30 million. Clemson, with its CFP appearance that season, received the highest payout at nearly $37 million. Notre Dame, a member in all sports but football, has a different distribution and received $10.8 million for the 2019-20 fiscal year.

The 990 form released Friday shows revenue generated between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020 -- the timeframe before Notre Dame joined the ACC as a football member for the 2020 season as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Notre Dame resumes its football independent status for the 2021 season.

The Pac-12 released its financial information Thursday, reporting nearly $403 million distributed to 12 schools. Its per-school average ($33.6 million) is slightly more than the ACC's.


The SEC, meanwhile, distributed $657.7 million for the 2019-20 fiscal year.


Now is this an oversite on Dodd's part or deliberate lie designed to push a narrative?

No. He is simply stating facts, which is that the TV deal over its term averaged $17 million per school as reported. Now Notre Dame playing 5 games bumped it a little, but that increase has not been reported. However its been estimated that bumped it to an average $18 million per school. And it isn't known how much the ACC network makes.

Dodds is known to troll, but this is not a troll job.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2022 09:37 PM by bullet.)
01-18-2022 09:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 09:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 09:22 PM)Statefan Wrote:  When an article contains something that is patently false, can you believe what you read?


The ACC is in the middle of its own TV rights deal with ESPN that is locked in until 2036. Unless it adds Notre Dame as a member, its payout in that deal -- reported at $17 million annually per school -- remains static.


This statement by Dodd is false.

See the below:


May 21, 2021
Andrea Adelson
ESPN Senior Writer
Facebook
Twitter
Facebook Messenger
Pinterest
Email
print
The ACC distributed a record $497.2 million for the 2019-20 financial year, the highest gross revenue ever reported for the league, according to tax documents released Friday.

The revenue increased more than $42 million over the previous year -- thanks largely to its increased television and postseason bowl revenues. Television revenue increased from $288 million the previous year to $332.8 million, as the ACC Network launched in August 2019.

Postseason bowl revenue totaled $124.9 million, with Clemson making the College Football Playoff and Virginia playing Florida in the Capital One Orange Bowl. The league distributed an average of nearly $32.3 million per school among its 14 full-time members.

EDITOR'S PICKS

SEC sent schools $23M each for virus losses
244dAlex Scarborough

Pac-12 sees slight revenue increase in 2019-20
243dKyle Bonagura
For the first time in history, each school's distribution topped $30 million. Clemson, with its CFP appearance that season, received the highest payout at nearly $37 million. Notre Dame, a member in all sports but football, has a different distribution and received $10.8 million for the 2019-20 fiscal year.

The 990 form released Friday shows revenue generated between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020 -- the timeframe before Notre Dame joined the ACC as a football member for the 2020 season as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Notre Dame resumes its football independent status for the 2021 season.

The Pac-12 released its financial information Thursday, reporting nearly $403 million distributed to 12 schools. Its per-school average ($33.6 million) is slightly more than the ACC's.


The SEC, meanwhile, distributed $657.7 million for the 2019-20 fiscal year.


Now is this an oversite on Dodd's part or deliberate lie designed to push a narrative?

No. He is simply stating facts, which is that the TV deal over its term averaged $17 million per school as reported. Now Notre Dame playing 5 games bumped it a little, but that increase has not been reported. However its been estimated that bumped it to an average $18 million per school. And it isn't known how much the ACC network makes.

Dodds is known to troll, but this is not a troll job.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

USA Today reported $17 million in 2012 and it has been parroted by morons ever since.

"it's payout ---- remains static" is a lie.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2022 09:43 PM by Statefan.)
01-18-2022 09:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,410
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 486
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 08:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 07:00 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The article also states the following:

“Expanding the playoff to 12 teams creates the possibility of at least one team playing 17 games in a single season. That remains a non-starter with ACC coaches because of health and safety concerns.”

NON STARTER sounds like a strong word....

It is a "possibility."

For it to be a possibility you need the following circumstances:
1) A team not ranked in the top 4 but in the top 12 played in a ccg
2) They win their first round game where they may or may no be a favorite
3) They win their 2nd round game where they will be an underdog
4) They win in the semi-finals where they will also almost certainly be an underdog

It will happen eventually, but it is highly unlikely in any given year. It might be 20 or 30 years before it happens.
Looking back to the beginning of the BCS era the wild 2007 year is the only time that would be remotely possible. Although prior to 2010 only a few conferences had CCGs so there weren't many who fit in category 1.

This year’s Georgia team would have been a prime candidate. They lost the SEC CCG. Probably would have been a 5 seed in the proposed 6+6 format…they would have been favored in the CFP first round. Then played the #4 CCG winner (B12 champ) in the quarter-final round. Beaten Alabama in the semifinals…then had to play a 17th game. If the NFL is an example, then the scenario will not be rare.
01-18-2022 09:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CarlSmithCenter Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 931
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 86
I Root For: Ball So Hard U
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 08:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 07:00 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The article also states the following:

“Expanding the playoff to 12 teams creates the possibility of at least one team playing 17 games in a single season. That remains a non-starter with ACC coaches because of health and safety concerns.”

NON STARTER sounds like a strong word....

It is a "possibility."

For it to be a possibility you need the following circumstances:
1) A team not ranked in the top 4 but in the top 12 played in a ccg
2) They win their first round game where they may or may no be a favorite
3) They win their 2nd round game where they will be an underdog
4) They win in the semi-finals where they will also almost certainly be an underdog

It will happen eventually, but it is highly unlikely in any given year. It might be 20 or 30 years before it happens.
Looking back to the beginning of the BCS era the wild 2007 year is the only time that would be remotely possible. Although prior to 2010 only a few conferences had CCGs so there weren't many who fit in category 1.

Couldn’t the ACC just go to 9 games, but have the all 14 teams play the 9th game on CCG weekend, with both the division champs playing each other and then the 2nd-7th place teams in one division playing their counterparts in the other that same weekend? The title game is then the 12th, not 13th game before the playoff, so play 2 on Thursday, 2 on Friday and then two lead-in games on Saturday before the CCG.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2022 09:45 PM by CarlSmithCenter.)
01-18-2022 09:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,100
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Fresno State Texas A&M
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 05:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 03:34 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 03:05 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Reiterates the opposition based on the number of games, but also ties it to roster issues due to COVID and the portal, with some interesting quotes from Narduzzi at Pitt and Clawson at Wake.

Quote:The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last [sic] the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship.


Article Here From CBS Sports

Thanks for sharing, I found the Clawson comments especially interesting -

"The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship. In 2020, rostered athletes were granted an extra year of eligibility due to COVID-19. As such, coaches do not have to strictly adhere to the 85-man limit in 2022; however, they must find a way to pare their rosters back down to 85 ahead of the 2023 season.

"How the hell are we going to get to 85?" said Clawson, who has been named to the American Football Coaches Association board of trustees. "Our rosters are getting thinner and thinner. We have less control over them, and the NCAA isn't giving us any relief.

"What they've done is done a great job of opening up the outflow valve. And they haven't helped us at all with the inflow valve."

I am very curious how the players lost to the transfer portal does compare to other leagues, which the article says isn't currently known. But it does seem clear that the other P5 conferences, being for the playoff, apparently aren't having the issues attracting players that Clawson and the ACC are under this market-based system where players have more freedom to make a change to a program that offers more appeal to them.

I'd be willing to wager that teams from all conferences are having problems with the number of players in the transfer portal. Free agency is new, lots of players are using the new found tool. It's hard to tell whether this is good or bad, but it's changing the responsibilities of coaches...they need to learn to re-recruit their players.

I can’t speak for all programs but Fresno State has been pretty fortunate in terms of transfers.

4 players have left all second string players
2 players so far have come to Fresno. One was a starting slot receiver at Cal.

I didn’t expect it but so far it seems teams in the upper half of the G5 have benefited from the transfer portal. Fresno has had a handful of key players arrive via the transfer portal including Haener and so far hasn’t lost a key player.

I do think the transfer portal is playing a role in these negotiations.
01-18-2022 09:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,100
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Fresno State Texas A&M
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 09:44 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 08:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 07:00 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The article also states the following:

“Expanding the playoff to 12 teams creates the possibility of at least one team playing 17 games in a single season. That remains a non-starter with ACC coaches because of health and safety concerns.”

NON STARTER sounds like a strong word....

It is a "possibility."

For it to be a possibility you need the following circumstances:
1) A team not ranked in the top 4 but in the top 12 played in a ccg
2) They win their first round game where they may or may no be a favorite
3) They win their 2nd round game where they will be an underdog
4) They win in the semi-finals where they will also almost certainly be an underdog

It will happen eventually, but it is highly unlikely in any given year. It might be 20 or 30 years before it happens.
Looking back to the beginning of the BCS era the wild 2007 year is the only time that would be remotely possible. Although prior to 2010 only a few conferences had CCGs so there weren't many who fit in category 1.

This year’s Georgia team would have been a prime candidate. They lost the SEC CCG. Probably would have been a 5 seed in the proposed 6+6 format…they would have been favored in the CFP first round. Then played the #4 CCG winner (B12 champ) in the quarter-final round. Beaten Alabama in the semifinals…then had to play a 17th game. If the NFL is an example, then the scenario will not be rare.

Georgia is a great example but is also rare. The team has to be the second team in their conference and not a champion while also be good enough to make the Championship game. I don’t think that combination will happen too often.
01-18-2022 09:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #29
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 09:39 PM)Statefan Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 09:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 09:22 PM)Statefan Wrote:  When an article contains something that is patently false, can you believe what you read?


The ACC is in the middle of its own TV rights deal with ESPN that is locked in until 2036. Unless it adds Notre Dame as a member, its payout in that deal -- reported at $17 million annually per school -- remains static.


This statement by Dodd is false.

See the below:


May 21, 2021
Andrea Adelson
ESPN Senior Writer
Facebook
Twitter
Facebook Messenger
Pinterest
Email
print
The ACC distributed a record $497.2 million for the 2019-20 financial year, the highest gross revenue ever reported for the league, according to tax documents released Friday.

The revenue increased more than $42 million over the previous year -- thanks largely to its increased television and postseason bowl revenues. Television revenue increased from $288 million the previous year to $332.8 million, as the ACC Network launched in August 2019.

Postseason bowl revenue totaled $124.9 million, with Clemson making the College Football Playoff and Virginia playing Florida in the Capital One Orange Bowl. The league distributed an average of nearly $32.3 million per school among its 14 full-time members.

EDITOR'S PICKS

SEC sent schools $23M each for virus losses
244dAlex Scarborough

Pac-12 sees slight revenue increase in 2019-20
243dKyle Bonagura
For the first time in history, each school's distribution topped $30 million. Clemson, with its CFP appearance that season, received the highest payout at nearly $37 million. Notre Dame, a member in all sports but football, has a different distribution and received $10.8 million for the 2019-20 fiscal year.

The 990 form released Friday shows revenue generated between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020 -- the timeframe before Notre Dame joined the ACC as a football member for the 2020 season as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Notre Dame resumes its football independent status for the 2021 season.

The Pac-12 released its financial information Thursday, reporting nearly $403 million distributed to 12 schools. Its per-school average ($33.6 million) is slightly more than the ACC's.


The SEC, meanwhile, distributed $657.7 million for the 2019-20 fiscal year.


Now is this an oversite on Dodd's part or deliberate lie designed to push a narrative?

No. He is simply stating facts, which is that the TV deal over its term averaged $17 million per school as reported. Now Notre Dame playing 5 games bumped it a little, but that increase has not been reported. However its been estimated that bumped it to an average $18 million per school. And it isn't known how much the ACC network makes.

Dodds is known to troll, but this is not a troll job.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

USA Today reported $17 million in 2012 and it has been parroted by morons ever since.

"it's payout ---- remains static" is a lie.

Not necessarily a lie, he could just be mistaken.

IIRC, the ACC distributed about $24 million in media money per school in 2019-2020, about $32.5 million overall.

The ACCN helped boost the number. The numbers always lag behind, we'll get 2020-2021 numbers sometimes in May.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2022 10:03 PM by quo vadis.)
01-18-2022 10:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 09:39 PM)Statefan Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 09:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 09:22 PM)Statefan Wrote:  When an article contains something that is patently false, can you believe what you read?


The ACC is in the middle of its own TV rights deal with ESPN that is locked in until 2036. Unless it adds Notre Dame as a member, its payout in that deal -- reported at $17 million annually per school -- remains static.


This statement by Dodd is false.

See the below:


May 21, 2021
Andrea Adelson
ESPN Senior Writer
Facebook
Twitter
Facebook Messenger
Pinterest
Email
print
The ACC distributed a record $497.2 million for the 2019-20 financial year, the highest gross revenue ever reported for the league, according to tax documents released Friday.

The revenue increased more than $42 million over the previous year -- thanks largely to its increased television and postseason bowl revenues. Television revenue increased from $288 million the previous year to $332.8 million, as the ACC Network launched in August 2019.

Postseason bowl revenue totaled $124.9 million, with Clemson making the College Football Playoff and Virginia playing Florida in the Capital One Orange Bowl. The league distributed an average of nearly $32.3 million per school among its 14 full-time members.

EDITOR'S PICKS

SEC sent schools $23M each for virus losses
244dAlex Scarborough

Pac-12 sees slight revenue increase in 2019-20
243dKyle Bonagura
For the first time in history, each school's distribution topped $30 million. Clemson, with its CFP appearance that season, received the highest payout at nearly $37 million. Notre Dame, a member in all sports but football, has a different distribution and received $10.8 million for the 2019-20 fiscal year.

The 990 form released Friday shows revenue generated between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020 -- the timeframe before Notre Dame joined the ACC as a football member for the 2020 season as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Notre Dame resumes its football independent status for the 2021 season.

The Pac-12 released its financial information Thursday, reporting nearly $403 million distributed to 12 schools. Its per-school average ($33.6 million) is slightly more than the ACC's.


The SEC, meanwhile, distributed $657.7 million for the 2019-20 fiscal year.


Now is this an oversite on Dodd's part or deliberate lie designed to push a narrative?

No. He is simply stating facts, which is that the TV deal over its term averaged $17 million per school as reported. Now Notre Dame playing 5 games bumped it a little, but that increase has not been reported. However its been estimated that bumped it to an average $18 million per school. And it isn't known how much the ACC network makes.

Dodds is known to troll, but this is not a troll job.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

USA Today reported $17 million in 2012 and it has been parroted by morons ever since.

"it's payout ---- remains static" is a lie.

Its not a lie at all. It may not be precise wording since it has a fixed escalation, but the ACC is stuck in a contract that goes for more than another decade. In 2012, they were in the early years and it was below $17 million. Everybody else is going to be getting market rates, which have been rising rapidly.

Seems like you have a persecution complex. If people say the Big 12 has a $20 million contract it is true, even if it has escalated to $24 million by now. People are talking about the average of the contract.
01-18-2022 10:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 09:37 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 08:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 07:00 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The article also states the following:

“Expanding the playoff to 12 teams creates the possibility of at least one team playing 17 games in a single season. That remains a non-starter with ACC coaches because of health and safety concerns.”

NON STARTER sounds like a strong word....

It is a "possibility."

For it to be a possibility you need the following circumstances:
1) A team not ranked in the top 4 but in the top 12 played in a ccg
2) They win their first round game where they may or may no be a favorite
3) They win their 2nd round game where they will be an underdog
4) They win in the semi-finals where they will also almost certainly be an underdog

It will happen eventually, but it is highly unlikely in any given year. It might be 20 or 30 years before it happens.
Looking back to the beginning of the BCS era the wild 2007 year is the only time that would be remotely possible. Although prior to 2010 only a few conferences had CCGs so there weren't many who fit in category 1.

16 games is problematic as is. That’s what they are telling you by non-starter. And it is very likely the SEC CCG runner up will be playing 16 games pretty much 50% of the time.

The difference between 14 and 16, especially +2 very high level games, is GINORMOUS. If I’m a betting man, I’d bet they go to an 11 game schedule (60%) or the CCGs get axed (40%).

lol, colleges aren't giving up the 12th game and conferences aren't giving up the CCG. $$$$$$$$$$ is king. Just the Big Ten- they aren't going to have a 11 game schedule with 9 conference games and have 5 road games and only have the ability to have 6 home games for the season. That's financial suicide.
01-18-2022 10:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
Of course it's a lie and told on purpose. Otherwise that means Dodds is too stupid to do a little research before he opines. This is the TELEVISON only part of the ACC annual distribution over the past six years for which there is a IRS form 990.

13/14 $178 M – $12.3 M
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...iscal-year

14/15 $219.9 - $15.1 M

https://www.espn.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/...in-2014-15

17/18 $277.2 - $19.2 M

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/daily-pr...9033702591

18/19 $288 – $19.86 M (Covid – No ACC Basketball Tourney)

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...iscal-year

19/20 $ 332.8 – $23 M (ACC Network Starts in mid-year without Comcast)

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...42-million

This “Static” Contract that Dodd refers to seems dynamic to me. It has increased 86% in just six fiscal years ending June 2020. Of course that does not fit several narratives. Nor does it answer the question why some reporters will compare the future distribution estimate of Conference A, with the actual distribution of the last fiscal year of Conference B. Funny how an apples to apples comparison is so difficult.

Let's look at what Dodds said again:

The ACC is in the middle of its own TV rights deal with ESPN that is locked in until 2036. Unless it adds Notre Dame as a member, its payout in that deal -- reported at $17 million annually per school -- remains static.

Did the lazy bastard get his information here? https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...presidents This article by another hack is dated 2013? Maybe it was the sloppy article in Forbes in 2012?

Now we all remember that 2012 deal being reworked in 2016? Don't we? Or is it just me that actually remembers a damn thing? Remember all the happy happy, joy joy or a deal that was worth $20 million per school in 2016? But here in 2019/20 we are already $3 million beyond that with partial ACC Network money.

Give me ******* break. 03-puke
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2022 10:40 PM by Statefan.)
01-18-2022 10:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #33
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 03:05 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Reiterates the opposition based on the number of games, but also ties it to roster issues due to COVID and the portal, with some interesting quotes from Narduzzi at Pitt and Clawson at Wake.

Quote:The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last [sic] the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship.


Article Here From CBS Sports

Gee, CFB was just fine before the players could get NIL and the requirement for a sit out year to transfer...

03-idea

No mention of the power/revenue grab by coaches and realignment. That is at the core of why extra games are played because of the bigger conference sizes and championship games.
01-18-2022 10:44 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
Some of you guys need to put your thinking caps back on your head and realize that a number of lies are being told.

1. Why does the ACC always understate revenue? Any of you ever realize that? The ACC has done it for decades (This in NC Local Goverment Regulated Accounting- Modified Accrual)
2. Why does the B12 always over state revenue and state future revenue as if it is realized today? (This Accrual and Enron accounting)
3. Why do article like this often presage an article about how wise MD was in leaving the ACC while the same week an article will appear in the Baltimore Times explain how dumb MD is and how their fans are being lied to?
4. Why does revenue matter more than cost?
5. Qui Bono my friends, recognize who benefits. Who benefits by creating dissention in the ACC? Who benefits by blaming the ACC for raising questions about obvious football problems? Look past the usual suspects. It's not the SEC my friends. The SEC is pretty straightforward. Look at the other actors.
01-18-2022 10:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 10:44 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 03:05 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Reiterates the opposition based on the number of games, but also ties it to roster issues due to COVID and the portal, with some interesting quotes from Narduzzi at Pitt and Clawson at Wake.

Quote:The average ACC program has lost 10.4 players to the portal since the beginning of last [sic] the 2020 season, according to 247Sports' tracker. It is not known how that compares to other leagues.

ACC coaches are concerned that level of churn is unsustainable with the annual limits of 25 signees in recruiting and 85 total players on scholarship.


Article Here From CBS Sports

Gee, CFB was just fine before the players could get NIL and the requirement for a sit out year to transfer...

03-idea

No mention of the power/revenue grab by coaches and realignment. That is at the core of why extra games are played because of the bigger conference sizes and championship games.

I have never seen a coach write himself a check.

The coach gets paid like he does because he can be **** canned and ruined in a moments notice by some dumb ass on his team. He therefore properly looks to protect his family. Decent employers who know they might have to fire a good man who has done nothing wrong then pay the coach more in case they have to **** can him in order to assuage their conscience. He is paid like he is because he loses his private life and the private life of his family. He is also subject to all sorts of legacy entanglements after he is fired, or retires.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2022 10:53 PM by Statefan.)
01-18-2022 10:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #36
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 06:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with ACC concerns about the scholarship limits. With the transfer portal gushing players, IMO an increase in scholarships is warranted.

That said, I'm not sure why the ACC has mentioned what its coaches want. A coach's job is to coach. Playoff expansion is an upper-level decision, IMO.

Historically scholarships were decreased from 105 to 95 and then to 85.

A cut lower to 75 I'd say is in order. Managing through injuries is what a walk-on program is for.
01-18-2022 10:51 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CarlSmithCenter Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 931
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 86
I Root For: Ball So Hard U
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 10:51 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 06:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with ACC concerns about the scholarship limits. With the transfer portal gushing players, IMO an increase in scholarships is warranted.

That said, I'm not sure why the ACC has mentioned what its coaches want. A coach's job is to coach. Playoff expansion is an upper-level decision, IMO.

Historically scholarships were decreased from 105 to 95 and then to 85.

A cut lower to 75 I'd say is in order. Managing through injuries is what a walk-on program is for.

If you cut 10 football scholarships at 130+ FBS schools you are going to have to cut a significant number of female athletics scholarships or fund other men’s sports to comply with Title IX. That seems like a logistical and political hot potato.
01-18-2022 11:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,686
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
The first rule change needs to be to allow two spring exhibition games, 1 vs FCS and 1 vs FBS. (This takes care of the economics for schools that need buy games).

Scheduling standardization:
Week 1: OOC
Week 2-10: Conference schedule. Division Champs determined.
Week 11: OOC.
H:H or H:H:N series only. No regular season buy games.

Playoff: 16 teams. Top 11 division champs. 5 at large. Each P5 conference gets to host and retain TV rights to one first round game (replaces CCG revenue). G5 with highest ranked champion the prior year gets to host a game. Conference of the prior year’s 2 finalists get to host a second game.

Week 12: Round of 16
Week 13: Round of 8
Week 14: Round of 4
Week 15: Championship
01-18-2022 11:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GreenFreakUAB Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,814
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 276
I Root For: UAB
Location: Pleasant Grove, AL.
Post: #39
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 11:13 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The first rule change needs to be to allow two spring exhibition games, 1 vs FCS and 1 vs FBS. (This takes care of the economics for schools that need buy games).

Scheduling standardization:
Week 1: OOC
Week 2-10: Conference schedule. Division Champs determined.
Week 11: OOC.
H:H or H:H:N series only. No regular season buy games.

Playoff: 16 teams. Top 11 division champs. 5 at large. Each P5 conference gets to host and retain TV rights to one first round game (replaces CCG revenue). G5 with highest ranked champion the prior year gets to host a game. Conference of the prior year’s 2 finalists get to host a second game.

Week 12: Round of 16
Week 13: Round of 8
Week 14: Round of 4
Week 15: Championship

...not bad... I know it's an 'oversimplification', but as is always stated, the 'lower divisions' have a multi-week playoff each season, which doesn't seen to affect them (NDSU seems to be humming along each year...) and the time between Thanksgiving and New Year's is typically 'off-semester/quarter' (if anybody still DOES quarters), so minimal classroom time lost (if that's still a concern at this point...)

...and I have always thought the spring season could allow for a FBS/FCS 'exhibition' type game to take place - would be more interesting than the little or no contact 'scrimmages', and fans would dig seeing a 'real' game in the spring (the last few seasons proved it can be done pretty easy...) - it wouldn't count for either team, but just a money maker.

Finally, someone noted to REDUCE schollys... while it might make a player think twice before hitting the TP, with less positions readily available elsewhere, I highly doubt the coaches would go for it... but if something like that DID happen, someone else mentioned the female sports would have to ALSO reduce schollys... would that be required, or could you just keep what you had, even if there were MORE female schollys? I guess I'm just wondering, since the Title IX thing was to bring female schollys up to equal the # for men's, so it shouldn't be a big deal to have MORE on the ladies' side if the school is ok with it? (boy, that was a long way around the graveyard... sorry, y'all 03-drunk )
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2022 11:40 PM by GreenFreakUAB.)
01-18-2022 11:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #40
RE: Dodd: Inside the ACC's rejection of College Football Playoff expansion
(01-18-2022 11:02 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 10:51 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(01-18-2022 06:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with ACC concerns about the scholarship limits. With the transfer portal gushing players, IMO an increase in scholarships is warranted.

That said, I'm not sure why the ACC has mentioned what its coaches want. A coach's job is to coach. Playoff expansion is an upper-level decision, IMO.

Historically scholarships were decreased from 105 to 95 and then to 85.

A cut lower to 75 I'd say is in order. Managing through injuries is what a walk-on program is for.

If you cut 10 football scholarships at 130+ FBS schools you are going to have to cut a significant number of female athletics scholarships or fund other men’s sports to comply with Title IX. That seems like a logistical and political hot potato.

Just add 1 men's sport to maintain balance.

Easy enough to do.
01-19-2022 12:39 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.