New ACC TV Deal Expected to add $1-2 Million per School
I don't know what to think about this. The article suggests we're looking at a minumum of $1-$2M additional per school, but will have to extend the existing contract another 3 years. It seems to me that arbitration would be more productive than that deal.
4 months ago
SailorNole
438 comments
7 recs |
Email
PrintComments
No thanks.
Sounds like a pretty crappy deal to me. But nothing shocks me anymore when it comes to the ACC brass.
'Gentlemen, it is better to have died a small boy than to fumble this football.' John Heisman
The ACC wants more than this.
Here’s an interesting article from the same source five months ago.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/09/26/Colleges/ACC.aspx
Key bits:
The opportunity to reopen its 12-year, $1.86 billion deal with ESPN was a significant factor in the ACC’s decision to expand with Syracuse and Pittsburgh, Commissioner John Swofford told SportsBusiness Journal. The ACC signed that media agreement in May 2010, but subsequent rights-fee deals signed by the Big 12 and Pac-12 were considerably richer than the ACC’s.
"The marketplace certainly has changed since we did our deal," Swofford said.
…
When asked if he anticipates the ACC’s per-school revenue of $12.9 million a year to increase from the current deal, Swofford said, "The simple answer is yes. We expect to do better than our schools staying even."
…
Officials representing ACC schools wouldn’t say exactly how much more money they expect, but industry executives suggest that the ACC’s new contract could increase in value by as much as $2 million per school per year, which would make the overall conference deal worth nearly $210 million a year.
The conference, of course, expects to do better, and it will use other conference deals as a gauge. The Pac-12 and Big Ten are at the top of the list, with media deals that average close to $21 million for each school annually. The SEC’s deal averages out to $17.1 million per school per year. Even the beleaguered Big 12, which is trying to weather its latest round of defections, receives more per school than the ACC on average…
…
A new deal… that would put the ACC’s 14 schools on par annually with the SEC schools would have to pay the conference $240 million a year, although industry experts question whether the ACC’s football can command that kind of money….
But Syracuse and Pittsburgh bring respectable football and elite basketball programs into the ACC, while also introducing new markets. Pittsburgh represents the nation’s 24th-largest TV market, while Syracuse ranks 84th. "We really like the way these schools close the geographical gap," Swofford said of the distance between the ACC’s base of schools in the south and Boston College. "That’s a real plus for us."
One way for the ACC to convince ESPN to increase its rights fee would be to offer more rights in exchange. It’s likely that ESPN would want to extend the ACC’s deal by several more years, sources said.
"We’re going to sit down with ESPN and renegotiate as partners," Swofford said. "We’ll see where that leads us, but we’re confident it will lead us to a good place. If we couldn’t agree—and that would be a big ‘if’—it could go to arbitration."
The anonymous ‘industry experts’ being quoted in these articles seem to be presenting the basic ESPN case. Everything they said in September is what they say now. The difference is that September’s article also presents the conference’s view.
It raises an eyebrow to see the renegotiation of rights on the table. The ACC would appear to be maxed out on rights it can trade to ESPN for more money this time. But it raises the possibility that, if the network is not very forthcoming, the league could want some rights back.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 10, 2012 7:01 AM EST up reply actions
We're pretty lucky we didn't lose money with the addition of Syracuse and Pitt
But basically we did, if we extend three years. Clearly, the increase would be not for the two new schools, it would be for locking in what is now a bargain basement rate for three more years. I’m wondering if the ACC is looking to agree to this just to avoid the embarrassment of adding schools and losing money per school.
I’ve yet to have explained to me why it was so necessary to snap up SU and Pitt now, and how it “strengthened” the ACC. I’m hoping this move was made now because the ACC knows FSU and Clemson are on the way out, and needed to make sure they were stable in that case and didn’t have to go through the shenanigans the Big 12 and Big East went through. Otherwise, why now?
This definitely proves my assertion that there was no great money in ACC expansion. They are all or nothing for ND. Only ND can change this conference’s financial fortunes.
I hope to God FSU is trying to get out and into the SEC. The ACC is going to be EXTREME second class citizens in the revenue game, without the independent revenue streams that will allow Texas and OU and even Ok St (T. Boone) to compete in that landscape.
This is a very, very bad situation, unless you think that FSU can compete nationally while being outspent wildly by schools that already have inherent advantages.
We constantly talk about how Miami is doomed by their financial situation. But in 5-10 years, that’s going to be like the guy in the double wide ridiculing the guy who lives in a single wide.
by LouC on Feb 7, 2012 4:40 PM EST reply actions 8 recs
Would like to hear the ACC protagonists' viewpoint on this.
There were some individuals advocating pretty heavily for the ACC’s play on expansion with SU and Pitt, and diminishing any concerns about financial shortfalls in prior threads. Acted fairly confident that this would pan out favorably or competitively with other leagues.
I’m like you, though — I cannot see how this isn’t the harbinger for the end of either (a) our membership in the ACC, or (b) our membership in college football’s elite.
Note that this conversation should strictly be limited to the FINANCIAL realities. I’m not going to waste any time discussing with someone that is going to argue that we can remain elite while collecting $20M less in revenue, because that’s basically just stupid. If someone can make a case that we’ll be within, say, 10-20% of the revenue streams of the SEC or other major players then let’s hear it.
We just got More money, not less.
LouC
We’re pretty lucky we didn’t lose money with the addition of Syracuse and Pitt
We were never going to lose money, as I said at the time. I was right. Those who predicted we would lose money were wrong.
arrdub
Acted fairly confident that this would pan out favorably or competitively with other leagues.
It does. The payout per schools in the ACC is now about equal to payouts in the Big 12 (15m) and close with the payout in the SEC (17m).
And if expansion had not happened, we’d be making less. The move was worth making. In addition to making more money, the league also made itself more stable and created a lucrative geographic footprint. The expansion to 14 opens up possibilities for an ACC Network, another source of revenue. It opened up possibilities for events in NYC, a major media center, to build the conference brands. (And it also went a long way toward elbowing the BE out of the picture as a competitor.)
You can still make a case that Florida State would make more money in the Pac-12 or B1G or SEC. But the fact remains that (1) until you get a bid, being in another league is only a wish, and wishes don’t pay the bills; and (2) the ACC, the league we’re a member of, just bettered its position in every way.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 8, 2012 3:46 AM EST up reply actions
That would help the ACC close a fairly significant annual revenue gap with other major conferences. The Pac-12 and Big Ten each are distributing close to $21 million per school a year. The SEC’s deal provides $17 million per school,
We can expect the SEC to at least equal what the PAC-12 is getting very soon. 21MM ’they’re getting > 15MM we’re getting.
"Defensive lineman and its depth separates southern football from rest of the country".
by PeachTreeNole on Feb 8, 2012 7:37 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with you on one point
I think this move was primarilly to bury the Big East. I think the ACC feared that the Big East would beat the ACC in their upcoming TV deal, and now that’s not going to happen. I think that’s actually the impetus of the timing, and I think that’s probably the best move in that consideration. The ACC has to play defense at this point.
To claim that gets us “about equal” is totally disingenous however. You are comparing the ACC post expansion deal to the SEC pre-expansion deal. The SEC will be over $20M per school a couple months from now. You are also ignoring the fact that the SEC teams retain and sell their third-tier rights, which the ACC schools can’t do. The Big 12 does as well. Depending on the team, that’s an additional $5-$10 million.
So you’re talking $14-15M for ACC schools, capped, versus $25-$30M for prominent SEC and Big 12 schools. Explain how that is “about equal” please…
And how does the expansion to 14 open up possibilities for an ACC network? The ACC does not have the right to start an ACC network, unless they negotiate it into this new contract. The word is that’s what the SEC will try to do…I’ve heard NOTHING about the ACC going in that direction.
There is no “can still make the case that Florida State would make more money”, that is a rock solid, incontrovertible fact, and the money’s not close.
I also agree that until we get a bid from another conference, all I can do is bitch about it, and I will. Somehow I want to believe that this message will start to spread if people would open their eyes though, and some pressure would come to bear on FSU decision makers.
And yes, I will concede that the ACC strengthened their position. Just like you would if you scrambled from the bottom deck to the top of a sinking ship. It is negligible to bump up $1-$2M a year, when other conference teams are bumping up $5-15M a year.
by LouC on Feb 8, 2012 9:25 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
LouC, this post pretty well states it.
As someone who has, at this site, defended the moves the ACC, I will emphasize a general theme you put here: I was (and am) defending the ACC in terms of making solid, business-oriented defensive moves. Too many posters here seem to base their arguments on realignment as “the ACC football refs suck, let’s get out of this conference.” That’s just plain silly.
There is a way to defend what the ACC has done without suggesting that FSU should be joined at the hip with the conference. In fact, to your credit here, you do that by pointing out that part of the impetus for grabbing The Cuse and Pitt was to “bury the Big East,” and become the dominant college athletic conference in the East. Maybe adding the Orange and the Panthers is not Alabama and Florida, but is a hell of a lot better than adding Memphis. FSU fans should be pushing for the continued strengthing of the ACC, while keeping our own options open, not suggesting insanity like moving to the Big 12 (if they gave us an offer), something that is pure lunacy.
If, at some point down the line, the SEC gives us an offer and it makes sense, we should absolutely take it. Until then, I am not sure what the ACC haters are suggesting we do, get out of the conference and just sit around as an independent, hoping the SEC grabs us up at some point?
'Scuse me while I whip this out..."
by GoNolzOhio on Feb 8, 2012 9:52 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Yes, I'm totally willing to back off my opinion that the ACC should not have expanded
or not now.
My main point is that a lot of people acted like that was some sort of solution or way to keep up with the Jones. I said it wouldn’t be, and it is showing that it isn’t.
Is it the best they could do? Probably. Especially for the conference, who knows that they could lose schools? Definitely.
But does it change the landscape for FSU? Negligibly.
No one said expansion changed the landscape.
Personally, I think it did. But not in terms of payout. The big thing we got was league stability. That’s no small thing when the Big 12 is being held together with dollar bills and spit while the Big East is a smouldering wreck.
But we’re getting more money and we’re fully capable of winning championships, just like we win recruits, any year we get our act together.
It’s good money. It’s competitive enough.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 2:07 AM EST up reply actions
Please tell me you kept reading this thread...
Lou and others make the point that it is not REMOTELY insane or lunacy to consider a Big 12 offer if it were to come along. Insulting the idea, along with those seriously considering the concept, does not have any impact on its sensibility compared to sticking with the ACC. This is especially true if our goals as an institution are for a return to normalcy for FSU’s football program—normalcy meaning ‘being in the national spotlight’ and ‘being in contention for BCS bowls and the national championship yearly.’ In fact, the only objections I have heard to accepting an offer from the Big 12 are:
1) The Big 12’s academics aren’t as good as the ACC’s.
2) The travel and time zone for many games would be different and potentially inconvenient compared to the ACC.
3) The ACC is stable.
4) We might get Notre Dame in the ACC someday.
5) The current SEC and other contracts are out of whack, and the ACC can do better with Pitt and Cuse added in.
But objection one could be made about the SEC, objection two is easily countered by the additional presence we would build in Big 12 states for recruiting (Texas being a five-star hotbed) and the media markets we would become known in, and objection three is obviously false if we’re worrying about landing Notre Dame and considering seriously the SEC. Objection four, of course, is based on just as big a pipe dream as an SEC bid in the face of the gentleman’s agreement. Notre Dame, is not leaving independence and its own TV contract behind any time soon, and certainly not for the small-fry-give-up-all-your-rights TV plan the ACC would present.
Objection five is wishful thinking, too. Sure, there are additional markets to plunder in PA and NY. But we’re not talking about TV football markets that Pitt and Syracuse own. They are second tier football programs that will bring squat in the way of viewers. I anticipate the ACC will get more of the same in renegotiating its rights. I’d love to be wrong and see them land some crazy PAC-like numbers, but I don’t live in that sort of fantasyland.
The one quality objection I’ve heard is that if we leave the ACC to compete in the Big 12, we are gambling that the playoffs will happen and hurting ourselves by not having an easy run at top dog in the ACC. But that objection, while true if the BCS sticks around in its present form, certainly doesn’t give odds on the gamble. I’d say we have a good shot of a playoff within the next decade. Enough that I’d want to try to get ahead of it and be in a stronger league before we start finding RPI in football has suddenly become crucial…not that it doesn’t make any difference now (witness the two SEC teams in Nawlins).
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping it will produce a different result.
I guess there's only one thing to do about the ACC...win the whole ****ing thing.
Plus
I understand the “academics from a university president argument,” but one should consider what football does for a university. It brings money, attention, applications go up (raising the quality of students because you get more to choose from?), etc.
It would be interesting to see what affect football success might have on academics. For those who think FSU is better off academically now than pre-ACC – well, we also became elite just before joining so which was it, football or conference affiliation? A lot of big FB schools have strong academic reps: UT, uf, OSU, Mich, etc. I’d be interested in looking at this more…
I'm pretty sure you can see the difference quickly
if you look at FSU pre and post dynasty.
I knew people who attended FSU because it was ‘near the ocean’ before the dynasty. Afterward, I knew people who chose FSU over Florida because they thought it was a top tier school solely as a result of its football prominence. FSU’s law school, med school, and business school have all benefited from the school’s perception as top tier as well.
Here’s a study that was done on FU’s success:
http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09330.pdf
Within two years institutional selectivity (US News rankings) improved.
I guess there's only one thing to do about the ACC...win the whole ****ing thing.
by seminole on Feb 10, 2012 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I remember reading something about the NC effect
Maybe on that Business of College Sports (or whatever) website. This pdf and that thing (if I can find it again) would be interesting to review.
I recall reading that our first NC corresponded to a big application jump.
And a corresponding spike of around 100 pts in the average SAT score. The football program definitely is a PR arm for the school.
LouC
To claim that gets us "about equal" is totally disingenous however. You are comparing the ACC post expansion deal to the SEC pre-expansion deal.
Oh, I was not being disingenuous. That is very definitely the catch. When you discuss parity with other leagues you are always discussing moving targets. I was working with the number right now because those are the only solid numbers we have. Everything else is conjecture.
You expect the SEC to get a bump that puts its money where the Pac-12 currently is. But that’s hardly a foregone conclusion. It’s hard to see how adding the Aggies and Missouri shakes loose that kind of money when the ACC just pulled in far more TV-viewing households with Pitt and Syracuse than the SEC can touch.
Recall too that the SEC negotiated its current media contracts at a favourable moment in the economic cycle. The ACC negotiated its after an economic bust that led to payments being below market value. The SEC is not heading into post-expansion renegotiation at the same kind of moment it did before, and it’s facing negotiators who know they paid an unintentionally premium price the first time around.
To be sure, the SEC has its brand. Two SEC teams just played for the national title, with the winner notching another title for the SEC’s streak. The ACC had, well… Virginia Tech and Clemson. Even so, the TV numbers say more people watched Florida State beat Notre Dame than either of those games. And TV audiences weren’t much interested in that all-SEC national title game this year. And say what you will about the ACC bowl record: each of those bowls, win or lose, represents a pay day for the league. The ACC had quite a number of them, and it just added two more teams.
The SEC will get a bump, but it may not be off to the races as a result of renegotiation, any more than the ACC is off to the races because it.
And whatever happens, contracts expire. I like Florida State’s chances of winning some crystal footballs in this decade better than I like Kentucky’s or Vanderbilt’s, regardless of what kind of bump their payouts get. If we make good on that potential, the next contract will give us more to smile about.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 2:00 AM EST up reply actions
ok..
Oh, I was not being disingenuous. That is very definitely the catch. When you discuss parity with other leagues you are always discussing moving targets. I was working with the number right now because those are the only solid numbers we have. Everything else is conjecture.
That’s a pretty big catch. Enough to make the comparison meaningless. They are not always moving targets, and the SEC number will be done about the same time the ACC number is done.
You expect the SEC to get a bump that puts its money where the Pac-12 currently is. But that’s hardly a foregone conclusion. It’s hard to see how adding the Aggies and Missouri shakes loose that kind of money when the ACC just pulled in far more TV-viewing households with Pitt and Syracuse than the SEC can touch.
I don’t expect the SEC to pull in PAC or B1G money, and if they do it will only be temporary. The PAC and B1G are going to run far ahead in the next few years. However, I’m not concerned with that as much as advantages of our SEC rivals over us, you know, the schools we compete against for recruits and coaches? If the renegotiation puts the SEC at $19-$20 million per school, remember, they still retain their third tier rights, which for example UF gets $10M a year for. So even if the SEC gets a $2M boost (and I’d be shocked if if it was so little), that puts UF at $29M. To our $15 million a year. That doesn’t matter?
And if the media markets of Syracuse and Pittsburgh (and Boston) were so valuable, why is/was the Big East the worst paid? Because there is no interest there in college football, and no interest outside of those markets in those teams. Yes, markets are great when you have a good product. The SEC just took their great product into big markets that already care about the product. The ACC just took a subpar product into bigger markets that have very little interest in the product. If you are buying a BBQ ribs franchise, do you want the territory in Tel Aviv, or Birmingham? Remember, Tel Aviv is bigger.
Recall too that the SEC negotiated its current media contracts at a favourable moment in the economic cycle. The ACC negotiated its after an economic bust that led to payments being below market value. The SEC is not heading into post-expansion renegotiation at the same kind of moment it did before, and it’s facing negotiators who know they paid an unintentionally premium price the first time around.
At the time, the SEC deal was considered exhorbitant and even foolhardy. Based on the ensuing deals however, it is now clear that the deal was drastically undervalued. They do not have a good deal in the current climate, so there’s no reason to expect a dropoff from that.
To be sure, the SEC has its brand. Two SEC teams just played for the national title, with the winner notching another title for the SEC’s streak. The ACC had, well… Virginia Tech and Clemson. Even so, the TV numbers say more people watched Florida State beat Notre Dame than either of those games. And TV audiences weren’t much interested in that all-SEC national title game this year. And say what you will about the ACC bowl record: each of those bowls, win or lose, represents a pay day for the league. The ACC had quite a number of them, and it just added two more teams.
And whatever happens, contracts expire. I like Florida State’s chances of winning some crystal footballs in this decade better than I like Kentucky’s or Vanderbilt’s, regardless of what kind of bump their payouts get. If we make good on that potential, the next contract will give us more to smile about.
Yes they expire, and now it’s going to be 15 years. That’s $150-$225 MILLION in revenue difference between us and the schools we think we compete with by the end of the contract. Conservatively. How do you think things will look then?
And if you consider our expectations even remotely similar to those of Kentucky or Vanderbilt, if that’s what you measure FSU by, then suddenly your satisfaction with this situation makes perfect sense.
And if you consider our expectations even remotely similar to those of Kentucky or Vanderbilt, if that’s what you measure FSU by, then suddenly your satisfaction with this situation makes perfect sense.
Whistle. Yellow flag.
We were talking about payouts. By your logic, Vanderbilt and Kentucky should have Florida State in the rear view mirror in quality of their programs. You pulled a rhetorical joker out of your hat over ‘expectations’ to concoct a phony exit line that makes me out to be saying the opposite of what I really did.
My point stands.
And whatever happens, contracts expire. I like Florida State’s chances of winning some crystal footballs in this decade better than I like Kentucky’s or Vanderbilt’s, regardless of what kind of bump their payouts get. If we make good on that potential, the next contract will give us more to smile about.
Those are my expections.
You’re the guy on the ledge, remember?
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 10, 2012 6:24 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But the Pac deal
Was after both the SEC and the ACC deals. So I’m not sure saying that the SEC deal was “premium” while the ACC was in a “down market” means that the SEC won’t get a lot more now than we do. They are a hotter conference now than they were at the time of their original deal (6 straight NCs). We… well, we did actually get two teams to the BCS for once (of course they both lost).
Also the ACC did not add a lot more viewing households than the SEC added: the state populations of NY/PA vs. TX/MO = 32.2 million to 31.7 million. We have more overall, but the additions were comparable. Arguably, more people in Texas will be watching CFB than people in NY/PA will watch Syr/Pitt.
I’d be happy staying in an improved ACC. But I don’t want to be financially lapped by teams like Oregon St. and Miss. St. If the ACC can’t/doesn’t improve, I would support jumping ship.
You are correct
The good economy/bad economy benefit when the SEC signed is more than offset by the fact that there were fewer players competing seriously for college football programming.
Fox getting serious about college football, NBC’s increased interest, and the fact that the idea of a conference channel was proved viable, all after the SEC deal, quickly changed the landscape. The most recent ACC deal greatly benefited from that, much more than it suffered from a bad economy.
I think the PAC 10 deal and the upcoming B1G deal prove that the good economy/bad economy thing was more of a myth than anything else.
It does. The payout per schools in the ACC is now about equal to payouts in the Big 12 (15m) and close with the payout in the SEC (17m).
I’m still compelled by Lou’s argument with regard to 3rd tier rights and how far that tips the scales out of our favor. Those are static or even historic figures for those other conferences and don’t paint the full picture of the revenue gap in 5-10 years, which would appear to approach the 8 figure mark. That’s not a sustainable circumstance.
Again, maybe you’re right that this is the best the ACC can do. But then, with respect to FSU, uou say “until you get a bid” from another conference like it it is an entirely passive circumstance. The biggest (only?) roadblock to our entry into the SEC is UF. (Somewhat speculative, but do we agree on that point?) if true, that roadblock can be removed via legislative pressure. It’s been used before vis a vis conference expansion (UVa/VT), and that needs to be the model here, for us.
I’m convinced the realities of the financial situation are perilous, and for anyone that buys into that, I think the best course of action is, in fact, to contribute to the biggest fan- or alumni-based uproar possible to affect change somehow, someway.
Of course, the article was speculating about the financial impact of renegotiation.
What if the renegotiated contract totaled closer to $20 million per school and;
-ACC retained 2-3rd tier rights
-ACC expanded Raycom/ACC Digital into an ACC network?
Would those events change the scenery enough so that everyone could agree it’s not too bad in the ACC? (BTW, I’m from NC and LOVE the ACC—everyone in my family attended an ACC school except for one red-headed stepchild who went to ECU). Some of the postings really seem to be SECombie talk.
The contract going much higher was probably unrealistic.
I would have preferred holding 3rd tier rights and having the option for the conference network, or at least the regional networks like the PAC-12 (Clemson/GT/Miami/FSU, the NC schools, VT/UVA/Maryland, BC/Cuse/Pitt) Getting .75/.80 a subscriber in the footprint like the Big Ten isn’t likely, but getting .20-.30 could have been possible, and probably higher in Virginia and North Carolina. It wouldn’t have been the $5-6 million the Big Ten is already getting, but it would be some growth over the next dozen years. $15 million is going to look pretty poor by 2025.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
by Kazoonole on Feb 8, 2012 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, if those things happened, I will shut up
By the way, just so you know, none of those things is going to happen.
How do you know? IMG and another big hitter are negotiating
On behalf of the ACC. They’re supposedly very good.
Ok, I could be wrong
And I hope I am. But your hope that the ACC gets $20/yr for only first tier rights seems extremely fantastical. I don’t know what you would base that hope on.
There’s just no reason to justify that. But that is a long, long distance from what this article says. This article would have to be extremely, incredibly off base.
The only thing that could get interesting might be arbitration, or the threat of arbitration. But I don’t hold out much hope for that at all. My understanding is they aren’t allow to renegotiate the value of the current 12 teams, they are only allowed to negotiate over how much to add for Syracuse and Pittsburgh. In other words you can’t “get back” money you now think you were shortchanged last time around.
I just don’t see Pitt and SU bringing enough to the table for ESPN to tear up the original contract.
Notre Dame and Penn St, yes the ACC probably gets this kind of deal, but I don’t think SU and Pitt will give them that much leverage.
My post was just a "what if." I don't have a background in this area and have no
Insider info. Wishful thinking on my part with no basis in fact. I really was expecting more than $1-2M, though. The Pitt Rivals board was talking about the current Big East contract being around $6M per school! Ouch!
The article says it's an increase of 2M. The total payout would be about 15M per ACC school.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 2:11 AM EST up reply actions
I'm with you there. I'd like to see some of those right revert to the ACC.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 2:09 AM EST up reply actions
All talk about why a credible team is not in this or that league is speculation.
It’s like wondering why you didn’t get a job you’re clearly qualified for. Unless you saw a copy of email you weren’t supposed to or your worst enemy sitting in the interview committee, you’re guessing.
There’s nothing surprising about being passed over, actually. It’s in the math.
No employer hires every qualified applicant. They have to choose somebody. That means others are not chosen.
And that’s if the employer is hiring at all.
The rest—’It’s a conspiracy’ ‘They don’t like me’ ‘They don’t like people like me’ ‘They were bought off’ ’They’re out to get me’—is easy to imagine. And once in a while there may be something to it. (If they really are hostile to you, you’re better off not working there anyway.) But the truth is the decision was made behind doors and inside skulls you can’t see though.
What you do know is the numbers. More applicants don’t get handshakes than do. That’s how it is.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 10, 2012 6:39 AM EST up reply actions
Lou, love ya buddy, but
Gonna have to take a contrarian view on this. The sacrifice of adding three years to the contract is almost meaningless. The years added are 2024,2025 and 2026.
Assuming the additional revenue kicks in the year 2014, we would get from $10 to $20 in total revenue from this deal before the first additional year kicked in. Maybe more since the numbers quoted were “minimums”. And these numbers are the ones being tossed about right now. Arbitration might make them even larger.
Without the addition of two teams, you can say goodbye to these millions.
Also, a lot can happen before 2024.
The ACC could expand by two more teams.They could lose two teams.Each of these events could trigger another renegotiation.
Hell….FSU might not even be in the ACC in 2024.
One can certainly argue that the ACC should not settle for $1 to $2 million more per year per team, but, it certainly appears to me it beats sitting here in 2012 with no chance of getting a dime more.
The ACC refs suck but I’m not so sure any deal that adds millions of dollars a year to our athletic funds does.
by law74 on Feb 7, 2012 7:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm with the law on this one.
Without adding Pitt & Syracuse (which action I applaud on its own merit), the contract would not have been reopened. So they paid for themselves just with that fact, and excluding the NCAA tourney money both will bring in to the ACC. The SEC at $17M vs. ACC at $15M isn’t that big of a jump per school. I certainly hope it turns out to be more, but the Big East was getting less than half of that.
by SailorNole on Feb 7, 2012 8:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes
Sailor, if you ain’t bashing the ACC, then you’re in very dangerous waters.
The SEC won't be at $17M much longer
If they were, I’d agree with you. We can play ball within 20% like someone said. We will not be able to compete at 50%. FSU is already poor compared to our regional peers.
by LouC on Feb 8, 2012 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
We haven't really felt the effects of our last ESPN deal.
It only kicked in this fall. And now we just got a pay hike.
Let the checks hit the bank. ACC schools will not be poor.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 8, 2012 3:51 AM EST up reply actions
Lou, you're my main man on expansion (and kudoos to the Jim)
But if it weren’t for adding the two schools we’d be 1,2 or maybe 3 millon dollars worse off.
We need to compare that.
If football is king, then the ACC, as presently constituted, will always play second fiddle to the the SEC and the other major conferences.
The conference sucks and everyone knows it. That includes TV execs.
Agreed. The SEC wont be at $17m much longer.
They just added TAMU. Texas is a huge TV market. And Texas loves football. TAMU might not be the number one school in the state but they have the second largest fan following. The SECs TV with espn and CBS will probably go up by 5 to 7 mil
I am not sure about that
When you start with a lower base its easier to pay for yourself. To add 5 to 7 million to the per school payout you are basically saying TAM and Mizzou are worth 110 million between the 2 a year. Sure there is going to be some we just want to make you happy so here is more money but its not going to be that much. TAM for how great of a market it is in only got on TV 6 times once in the last decade.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
The ACC just added more cable-viewing households to its footprint than the SEC did.
The calculations are rough, but Mr SEC put the addition of Texas A&M at around 11 million households. Pitt and Syracuse bring in over 30 million. The ACC upped its cable prowess by 50% overnight.
Cable works by different rules than broadcast. Year-round content counts for more than single-game ratings blockbusters. Lots of people in New York will watch LSU play Alabama for a high-stakes game in football, but how many want to subscribe to the entire SEC season or watch SEC basketball?
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 2:22 AM EST up reply actions
How easy do you think it is to get the ACC network on in NY
When there is only one NY school and the area cares little for college sports other than basketball. And Syracuse games are going to be first tier basketball games 95% of the time anyway. Do you think NY people will be clamoring for a network that will allow them to watch NC State-Maryland basketball?
Read up on how successful the Longhorn Network has been in getting on in Texas.
I was gonna post something similar to this
I’m pretty sure the reason for renegotiation of the contract was the addition of 2 fairly large markets. I don’t think John Swofford is doing a great job of selling the addition of these markets to ESPN though. But, we do not have Larry Scott as commish to we can’t expect Larry Scott like results. I would hope that this is the beginning of negotiations.
Maybe we'll see Syracuse and Pitt in the league sooner rather than later.
Thursday is the deadline for arbitration in the Big East-WVU dispute.
With that coming up, we’re seeing the ACC release its new division alignments, WVU getting out of its game with Florida State, the Big East adding Memphis (making 11 football schools for 2013) with Temple in the queue, and this expansion renegotiation with ESPN come to a settlement.
It’s looking like everyone is getting ready to move on to The Next Thing. It certainly helps the ACC to have precise dollar figures from ESPN if it is thinking of helping Syracuse and Pitt make a faster exit.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 8, 2012 4:26 AM EST up reply actions
Amazing the way the article tries to spin it positively
When it’s clearly a giant fail in every possible way.
LOL
Tell me that when you win 15 million in the Lottery. Annually.
It’s ‘a giant fail in every possible way’!
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 8, 2012 3:54 AM EST up reply actions
I'm watching the money.
That’s what’s relevant, isn’t it?
Florida State is fully capable of competing for national titles and I don’t see anything in this payout hike that hinders that.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 2:25 AM EST up reply actions
Then again
You don’t understand the landscape of college football. Money matters a great deal more than you understand.
Please refrain from making assumptions about what I do and don't 'understand'.
A year ago I predicted the schools the ACC would add in the next round of expansion when many others here were taking it for granted the league would be picked apart. I was right.
In September I said we’d see an increase from this expansion when all the Chicken Littles here were getting greened for saying Pittsburgh and Syracuse would be an expense. And now we’re seeing confirmation of an increase in payout of $2M per ACC school in the most conservative scenario. I was right.
For such a naive guy, I sure so seem to see a lot of news coming before it happens. As I’m not very discerning, I must just be psychic.
The point is simple: we stabilized the league and we’re getting more money, not less. The expansion was worth doing.
If the ACC’s present contract gives ESPN too much in the way of rights—a point I don’t dispute one way or the other—that has absolutely jack to do with this expansion. The rights were ceded before this expansion took place. As the expansion gives the league a shot at revisiting that contract, I’d say things worked out for the best there as well.
And as money matters so much—a concept I now begin to grasp because I’ve had LouC explain it to me from the ledge he says he’s about to jump from—it’s better to be getting more of it than not. End of argument.
You say it’s not as much money as someone else gets? Believe it or not, I understand that part, too. I just happen also to understand that no one is going to throw $40M annually at a team just because its fans decide to go onto a message board and bawl until it happens. Networks don’t pay for that. Sorry.
Now kindly mind your manners, or jump.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 10, 2012 4:05 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I will concede your point
That this expansion and increase is better for the ACC than no expansion and increase. I will retract my implication that the ACC should not have even expanded with Pitt and SU. Yes, something is better than nothing.
And I think you are acknowledging that even so, this small increase is not nearly enough to keep FSU where the majority of our supporters want us to be, and either this TV contract needs to score MUCH more than the numbers are leaking out (in which case I will commend you for keeping your powder dry and having faith), or something really outside the current scenario has to happen.
We’re making progess Abiaka…
What happened when we let Jeff, Chuck & Jody "coach" 5* recruits?
Point being..if we can’t keep solid coaches because other schools outbid us, we wont maximize the talent that is FSU’s “birthright” (i.e. location)
Control the Sunshine State & sooner or later you'll control the country.
My competitors will win a 20+ million dollar lottery annually
They will eventually out resource me.
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 9, 2012 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And your solution for that problem is...
… what? To get your competitors to adopt you?
Good luck.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 10, 2012 3:26 AM EST up reply actions
wow really?
If you can join them enhance their organization/company and share in their insane profits you wouldn’t do everything your power to make that happen? Or are you content to sit back and eventually get hammered because you are happy making 15 million…because It’s a lot of money.
No matter what you say if they make 20M-30M and we make $15M we will eventually be irrelevant.
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 10, 2012 8:44 AM EST up reply actions
this
is freaking pathetic….man i loathe the acc. i really hope we dont get left behind in the big boy world of college footbal and FSU finds some sugar daddy booster like the Fighting Phil Knights of Oregon
Frankly, read Frank.
Be soothed.
Frank the Tank discussed the strengths of the ACC when he was asked about a recent rumour that Florida State and Clemson could jump to the Big 12-.
Choice bit (but don’t miss the rest):
I’ll repeat what I’ve stated many times before on this blog: the ACC is much much much stronger than football-focused fans give them credit for. Believe me–it pains me to say that as someone that would love nothing more than to see Duke get sent to the Southern Conference. The problem with all of the rumors that we’ve seen over the years about the ACC being vulnerable is that they fall into the trap of thinking like a fan… instead of a university president (where the ACC slaps the SEC and Big 12 around in terms of academic prestige even worse than how the SEC and Big 12 beat up on the ACC on the football field). As much as people are obsessed with football TV dollars, the difference between what the ACC receives compared to the average Big Ten or SEC school really isn’t that massive of a gap, especially in relation to the overall institutional revenue that schools like North Carolina, Duke and Virginia bring in. The ACC schools are firmly in the "haves" category.
….
The ACC is significantly deeper than the Big 12 when it comes to the academic, name brand and market values of the institutions from top-to-bottom…. So, while the ACC continues to receive potshots from the fan-based blog and message board crowd, I’ll bet heavily that they’re coming out of this unscathed on the heels of their newly renegotiated ESPN deal.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 8, 2012 5:55 AM EST up reply actions
Frank the Tank is a smart guy, and he's not technically wrong here
However:
1) “the overall institutional revenue that schools like North Carolina, Duke and Virginia bring in” does not apply to us. It’s not like they share that. We are very much at a disadvantage when it comes to that kind of revenue, not just to those schools, but the UFs, UGAs etc.
2) Which other schools besides us and Clemson and Miami expect to compete for national championships, and really, need to compete for national championships? Yes, most of the ACC is going to be perfectly content to maintain status quo, make bowl games, play basketball, and not totally implode. So yes, the ACC as a whole is “safe.”
The problem is that we (and a couple other schools) have a different set of expectations, needs and resources than the majority of this conference.
Frank the Tank is not saying that Florida State will be able compete for national championships with the likes of UF, Alabama, USC, Ohio State, etc. That’s what I care about, not whether NC State is able to maintain some sense of a viable football program.
If Frank the Tank can make the case that yes, schools like FSU, with little institutional revenue and half the TV money of their regional peers, can compete year in and year out for national championships, I’d be interested. I respect his opinion a lot.
Saw this response to the Frank the Tank article, and thought it summed up pretty well
where Frank is not wrong, but may be missing the point slightly. Again, I think Frank the Tank is great, but I don’t know if he’s crunched these numbers. This was written by a “Longhorn Lawyer” in response to an FSU fan that threatened to firebomb the president’s office should they join up with the Big 12 and Texas’ “sweet deal.”
Texas has no "sweet deal" that everybody else in the conference doesn’t share. Texas gets to keep its Tier 3 rights, just like everybody else in the Big XII. Kansas sells its Tier 3 rights for somewhere around $8M/year. Oklahoma is about to sell its Tier 3 rights to Fox for around $6M. For all its bitching about Texas, Nebraska got $3M for its Tier 3 rights in 2010.
Right now, the ACC has control of Florida State’s Tier 3 rights. After it negotiates its new contract for Tier 1 rights, it is expected that the ACC media rights package will only earn its member schools $14-15M/year. That’s for its Tier 1, 2, and 3 rights.
Are you telling me that Florida State couldn’t do a lot better if it kept control of its own Tier 3 rights like every Big XII member (and every SEC member) does now? Are you telling me that Florida State isn’t such a marketable brand that it could sell its Tier 3 rights for at least as much as Kansas or Oklahoma?
Because I just don’t think that’s true. I think rather more highly of your athletics department than that.
Of course, that’s on top of the Tier 1 and 2 deal that the Big XII gets. Before last year, the Big XII completed a deal to sell its Tier 2 rights to Fox and ESPN that totaled $90M/year. The current deal with ESPN for Tier 1 is only for $60M/year, which is obviously undervalued. ESPN is eager to renegotiate before the deal expires in two years so as to finish a deal before NBC gets its sports house in order. If that’s true, and given the Tier 2 contract, the idea of a $190M/year deal is not out of the question.
But being conservative, let’s estimate a $150M/year deal for Tier 1. Together with the Tier 2 rights, that $210M/year, or $21M/year for each member school in the ten-team league. That’s 50% higher than what the ACC media package is getting. And that still allows each member school to market and sell its own Tier 3 rights.
bq. In other words, Florida State could conceivably make twice as much in the Big XII as it is going to make in the ACC.
I think this guy’s math adds up, and it gives an idea of what 3rd tier rights can be worth. At the end of the day, I don’t think that FSU’s administration can stand pat with a $15M/year contract.
So Lou...we are getting 15M for all rights?
meanwhile other schools are getting 17M+ standard TV rights and their 3rd tier revenue? wow, sounds like we are getting ripped off.
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 10, 2012 10:06 AM EST up reply actions
Yep.
The ACC admin may have been smart in the expansion (more stability, more money), but in retrospect they were pantsed in the tv negotiations the first time around.
Well, yes in a way we are getting ripped off because we're FSU
But look at WF, MD, BC, NC St, UVA, etc.
They aren’t getting ripped off, they’re doing great because they are getting paid pretty decently for having football teams that are absolutely irrelevant and basketball that is nearly so.
As a whole, the ACC is not getting ripped off, they are getting what they’re worth. The product is just not worth that much, no matter how good FSU is or glamorous FSU is. There are only 12 FSU games in a conference schedule. 12 Miami games, 12 Clemson games, 12 VT games. Other than that, nobody cares about the football.
It’s just a very weak league in football and has been for a long time. With football the biggest driver, we are helping carry a lot of dead weight, and by the way, we’re also the third best basketball team since expansion.
I think this is a bad deal for us, but not a bad deal for the ACC. It’s what it’s worth as a conference.
You're right, this isn't a bad deal for the ACC.
This is a horrible deal for us…its like caging a lion, declawing it and feeding it tranquilizers every day. Sooner or later, the lion will be a shell of its former self. A cruel reminder of what once was. But if its released now, while it still has its God-given weapons and a hunger in its eyes…run & hide. We either need to be released or the Zoo needs to build us a special habitat & let us hunt!
Control the Sunshine State & sooner or later you'll control the country.
Oh, and everybody please REC this article (at the top of the page, not my comment),
to make sure this sticks on the front page of TN for a while.
This has a lot bigger impact on the future of FSU football than any shiny new recruiting class, no matter how many 5-stars.
Are you suggesting that stars do NOT matter in terms of money?
Somehow I find that notion blasphemous, but you might be right. The two may not be related…
I will need to think about this for a while.
'Gentlemen, it is better to have died a small boy than to fumble this football.' John Heisman
I'm saying there's a correlation between revenue and 5 stars,
and money is causal. You’re eventually not going to be pulling any 5-stars if you’re not pulling in competitive revenue. Ya dig?
yeah, but Ed Reed...
or something. It’s hard to pretend to think like a Miami fan.
"Defensive lineman and its depth separates southern football from rest of the country".
by PeachTreeNole on Feb 8, 2012 7:46 AM EST up reply actions
You're mistake is pretending to think. UM fans don't do much of that.
Official reader of Tomahawk Nation.
I'd say money buys stars, directly or otherwise.
Stars matter, money is the foundation. Curious though how we’re competing well enough in recruiting against schools that can out-spend us so much.
You are more than the choices that you've made, You are more than the sum of your past mistakes, you are more than the problems you create, you are more, You've been remade - Tenth Avenue North
If the PAC-12 can get the kind of TV deal they got
The ACC should manage something in between that and the SEC’s current deal
by Jonathan Loesche on Feb 7, 2012 5:56 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Ha. Need to win a BSC game for several years and then maybe.
by The Elves on Feb 7, 2012 7:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I hope for more than SEC current deal per team/per year.
Won’t happen, but to get 2 mil more a year and still be behind the SEC by 3 million a year would be lame. We’ll see. They need to leverage the crap outta the bball.
Knowing is half the battle, the other half is violence.
Already leveraged it as much as possible
Thank the heavens for the Duke-Carolina rivalry, and added Syracuse. I guess you could add UCONN, but basketball just doesn’t bring in much cash, and ACC basketball is not nearly as attractive as it once was. Adding Syracuse helps some.
The majority of TV licensing for college basketball is now spent on march madness rights. That’s why the Big East was the worst paid conference despite stellar basketball.
do you think the "powers-that-be" in the ACC conference and the member
schools realize this?
'Scuse me while I whip this out..."
To be fair, I'm sure they do
The problem is that we and most of the rest of the ACC have very different goals and circumstances. We do NOT have the institutional revenue that the dominant members of this conference have.
And we have far different goals than them. They want a safe place to play football while the basketball team is practicing. As long as they aren’t in Big East style chaos from a football perspective, and can continue to play basketball prominently, they are satisfied.
Those are NOT our goals. We don’t have a 50,000 seat stadium, and we don’t consider eight wins a great diversion while waiting for basketball to start, and we actually NEED the money.
Under the circumstances, the ACC has served most of its members well enough. But that does not mean we’re ok. We are ok if we have the same goals as them. But we don’t.
okay. I was just asking to make sure you weren't "off the reservation"
like I think some posters around here seem to be, the ones who suggest the powers-that-be that I referred to are baseketball junkies who have NO idea (or maybe just don’t care) that football drives the bus in terms of revenue.
I still think you might go a bit too far with regard to the other schools’ goals. That is, I don’ t think anyone in a position of authority at the ACC or in the members schools has the lattitude to think “[we] want a safe place to play football while the basketball team is practicing.” The revenue streams are such that you either put football first, or you are finished as an athletic conference. I will state here what I stated elsewhere: the positions of authority we are talking about do not self-select for fans of basketball. They self-select for fans of money.
That being said, I look at this the way I look at management positions I have had (and do currently have) in my chosen field: yes I love this company. Yes I want this company to do well and strengthen its position in the market. But am I looking elsewhere? Always!
'Scuse me while I whip this out..."
Agreed, as long as we are stuck here, we want it to be as good as it can be
And yes, I won’t equate what I think is clearly a poor track record of leadership for the ACC with them being stupid or “not caring about football.”
However, a fundamental problem is that you do have to recognize the importance of football to the athletic budget and athletic support to FSU is much, much greater than these other schools. We do not all have the same goals, and FSU is in the minority.
Say what you want, FSU is much more at risk than most of the other schools because A) we don’t have the independent financial resources of these other schools and B) our football needs require greater sums of money to compete at the minimum level acceptable to their fans.
I could not, and would not argue with the last 2 paragraphs,
and ultimately may be the reasons why we do end up in the SEC (which I see as the only other conceivable option).
The probably not-controversial alternate scenarios here would be:
1)In the current environment, the ACC lands ND as part of an expansion to 16 teams.
2).The ACC (with or without ND) along with the SEC, Big 10, and Pac-12, expand to 16 teams, seperate from the NCAA and form a new entity. In this case, I would imagine the whole kit and kaboodle is blown up and rewritten (t.v. contracts included).
'Scuse me while I whip this out..."
Another possibility
What if the ACC and SEC worked out a scheduling arrangement like the B1G and Pac-12 just did?
It could happen.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 12:24 AM EST up reply actions
Why would the SEC do that?
Three of their schools already play, and unlike the B1G and PAC, they cover the same geographic area. The B1G and Pac do it to get exposure in a different part of the country.
Plus, the ACC has announced a 9 game conference schedule, so something like that isn’t going to happen. SEC and ACC schools have plenty of history, if they wanted to play each other they can and do.
Here's why both might want to do it.
The ACC and SEC footprints do not ‘cover the same geographic area’. There’s overlap, sure. But with a scheduling agreement the SEC would get more exposure in the Northeast and the ACC more exposure in the Central time zone. That’s worth having, for each.
It bypasses the silly and risky aspects of expansion. Instead of the SEC trying to add a team in Virginia or the ACC trying to add a team west of the Mississippi, they can just agree to let their teams play each other.
The 9-game conference schedule is no barrier to this. Everyone is going to a 9-game conference schedule. Pac-12 is there and the B1G is going there in 2017. It didn’t stop them from making an arrangement. Why should it stop the ACC and SEC?
Shared history is not a barrier, either. One reason the Pac-12 and B1G made the deal so easily is because they do, not because they don’t, share a lot of history. (See ‘Bowl, Rose’.)
If anything, shared history and regional overlap contribute to fan interest in the games.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 2:41 AM EST up reply actions
The SEC isn't going to do it because they currently play 3 of the top 6 ACC schools
without an agreement. The ACC adding games vs. LSU/Alabama/Auburn is worth more than the SEC adding games vs. Miami/Virginia Tech/North Carolina
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
Dont think you will see it happen
With 14 teams you all but need to play 9 conference games to make sure everyone is happy read everyone gets UNC/FSU/Clemson/Pitt/VT every few years. With 12 you can keep everyone happy with just 8.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
True dat.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 8, 2012 3:56 AM EST up reply actions
So this just adds some money and maybe some years?
I would hope the ACC would get SOME of what it originally gave up back – i.e., rights to games. IIRC, we gave up almost everything, while the Pac held onto quite a few rights. Enough to play some live events on its networks.
I have watched several BB games on the ACC Digital Network, but I would hope that the ACC would get back some stuff so it could air more events (even non FB/BB ones). Also, with a few live things held back we might be able to start that real (not just digital) ACCN I’ve been wanting.
It seems like lacrosse, track, soccer, baseball, volleyball, tennis, golf, etc.
Would make for PLENTY of programming for an ACC channel. Forgot ice hockey. At any rate, the ACC is premier in most all of those sports. Seems like there would be some interest there.
I expect we'll see something like that.
One goal of expansion to 14 was to get increased inventory for media content.
And we got it—for an Eastern seaboard footprint that includes some big cable markets.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 8, 2012 3:58 AM EST up reply actions
Who the hell is going to watch any of that?
Especially in the northeast market?
And again, our TV deal does not allow it for the duration of the contract. Do you understand that? Our TV deal with espn gives them all rights for everything.
Actually, LX, soccer and hockey are HUGE in the northeast.
And the ACC rocks in lacrosse! BC is also strong in hockey. Very strong.
Huge, but nobody watches it on TV.
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 9, 2012 10:29 AM EST up reply actions
Not sure about that
As I say elsewhere (below? above?), the BTN shows some hockey, men’s gymnastics, women’s soccer/LAX, etc. programming. There is some interest in the MW so I think it’s likely there would be at least as much interest in the E/NE (where the competition in these sports is often of a higher quality – consider the ACC’s women’s soccer).
I understand the interest level, but the ACC only has 3 schools in the NE. Is there LAX on tv now? how does it do?
Comparing Big 10 network/Midwest to the ACC is impossible, even for LAX and womens soccer. The Big Ten is composed of mega schools, with monster alumni and fan bases, with expansive athletic programs that have, Hockey, LAX, Men’s/womens gymnastics. ACC just doesn’t have that, Big 10 can show whatever they want because the fan base will tune in for the school.
I just have a very hard time believing that people will tune into Mens Gymnastics/lax/hockey between the few schools that have it on the ACC network because they love the game in the NE.
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 9, 2012 10:49 AM EST up reply actions
No one in the Big Ten watches any of their other sports either.
They’re getting paid because every school has multiple football games on BTN. Their deal goes ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ BTN for the other 3-9 games that week. That led to the alumni bases screaming at their cable/satellite companies to give in and pay the .80-$1.00 per subscriber fees and stick it on basic cable in the midwest. The ACC isn’t hardcore enough about football to do the same. Outside the footprint, they’re content with lower #‘s and being on the sports pack because there isn’t a critical mass to force the issue. The PAC-12 Big Ten thing is likely an effort to get on basic or higher fees in the West.
LIke half a dozen cities in Michigan saw App State beat Michigan in 2007 on TV. By the end of that season, it was pretty much the opposite.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
Some of the ACC is hardcore enough about football to demand access.
And a LOT of the ACC area is rabid enough about roundball to ante up for the cable access. There are more than a few LX and soccer fans in that footprint, too!
Some of the ACC? name schools...Clemson, FSU, Va Tech, all would be 2nd tier fan bases compare to the big 10s big 3...
Michigan, Wisconsin, OSU all live for those college teams
Greatness courts failure.
Pretty much any fan base is second tier to Michigan.
They have more living alumni than any school. OSU is not far behind. Wiscy, not so much. In addition to the schools you mentioned, NC State has a great fan base and love football. UNC has a pretty good football following. Ive been to games in Raleigh & Chapel Hill, and they have solid turnouts. Pitt is a fairly strong football school as well. I think most people underestimate them.
Your anectodal opinions of going to a game at Duke and UNC are not relevant
Make a case for that turning into real money.
Besides, we all agree that an ACC network would work in the state of NC. That’s not enough.
And UNC's "pretty good football following"
Would result in the third WORST attendance in the Big 10. Would you say Purdue and Minnesota have pretty good football followings? Because they draw more fans than UNC.
Do you understand why the Big 10 network works, and the ACC network probably doesn’t?
The ACC does NOT have a good or popular football product overall. It just doesn’t.
Clemson, FSU, Va Tech, UNC and NCSU
All have followings in the top 35 nationally. Not elite, but not exactly peanuts. UM and MD also post decent gates. I’m not saying the ACC pulls like the Big 10 or SEC, but half of the conference is in the top 50 in attendance.
2011 NCAA Attendance Report Data (2/1/2012)
17 Clemson
18 Florida State
23 Virginia Tech
34 NC State
35 UNC (was remodeling stadium part of year)
45 Miami
47 GaTech
48 UVA
50 Pittsburgh
56 Maryland
That’s 9 ACC schools in the top 50 in attendance for 2011, admittedly a “down” year in the conference with UNC & UM awaiting word of sanctions, UM sucking and our early 3-game skid. These numbers are not mediocre. Notre Dame was at 14, USC at 19 (the highest PAC 14 school, I might add), Michigan State was 20th, Oregon 28th while WVA was 32nd. This “hard” data backs up my anecdotal observances.
by SailorNole on Feb 9, 2012 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That is simply not enough context to form an opinion.
What is the average attendance for each league?
More important to TV deals — what is the VIEWERSHIP associated with each team? Our top attendance team, Clemson, may put butts in seats, but they’ve actually been proven to be a horrible TV draw.
The point is that we have 2 teams with better
average attendance than the highest-attended PAC 14 stadium, and a third school basically tied with the PAC 14’s highest ranked attendance. These figures would suggest we could hope for a deal closer to the PAC 14’s, and that our “product” isn’t as bad as some seem to think.
Why are we being compared the pac 12 now?
On a per game basis Pac 12 out draws the ACC
Greatness courts failure.
We're up in total attendance, though
And at 75% of total attendance of the B10 and 12. Better than we might’ve thought.
Per game is definitely pulled down by WF, etc. tiny stadiums.
They have tiny stadiums for reasons. 4 teams not cracking the top 60 is remarkable
Total attendance in 2010 is misleading if comparing to the pac 12 only had 10 teams.
Greatness courts failure.
what figures?
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 9, 2012 10:14 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly
Their Alumni bases screamed… We as in the ACC doesn’t have that Alumni Base.
Greatness courts failure.
And keep in mind...
A network only shows very low level games, not premiere games. North Carolina vs. Elon, Maryland vs. William & Mary.
No premiere games on an ACC Network, or else you won’t get money for your first tier rights games. How many fans are going to demand those games? A network would get good carriage in NC, Florida and SC. Everything after that will be an uphil slog.
Virginia & the DC area, too.
The Washington Post writes about the ACC—mostly MD, UVA and VPI—quite a bit. But I take your point that many ACC schools are smaller than the Big Ten schools and most don’t have the football following or alumni bases of those schools.
Didn't we give ALL of that away, though?
Even if you were completely serious and not even a smidgen sarcastic… IIRC our TV deal included everything.
ESPN has been televising ACC content since the first year of the network in 1979-80. Highlights of the new agreement include:
• Football on national TV: Regular-season action on Saturday afternoon and nights, primetime Thursdays, Labor Day Monday and the ACC Football Championship Game;
• Men’s basketball on national TV: The most games ever across the ESPN networks, highlighted by both regular-season matchups of the storied Duke-North Carolina rivalry each year; for the first time, full national telecasts on all games televised on an ESPN platform (had been local market blackouts on handful of telecasts); a new weekly Sunday franchise on ESPNU; every regular-season intra-conference game and the entire conference tournament produced and distributed via ESPN and Raycom Sports;
• Women’s basketball: A record number of women’s regular-season basketball games and the addition of the entire conference tournament;
• Olympic sports: An expanded commitment to the league’s 22-sponsored Olympic sports with regular-season and championship telecasts, highlighted by baseball, softball, lacrosse, and men’s and women’s soccer;
• Syndication: Syndication rights for ACC football, basketball and Olympic sports action for over-the-air and regional cable network distribution in ACC markets and beyond via an agreement with Raycom Sports and through potential sublicense agreements with other national outlets;
• Digital media: Exclusive ACC football, men’s and women’s basketball, and Olympic sports games as well as simulcasts on ESPN3.com. Live ACC games, including football and basketball, on ESPN Mobile TV;
• ESPN 3D: Live ACC action on ESPN 3D, ESPN’s newest network and the first 3D network to launch in the industry;
• Additional outlets: ACC action on ESPN International, ESPN GamePlan, ESPN FULL COURT, ESPN Classic and ESPN Deportes; and extensive content rights for ESPN.com.
[Other bits:]
- With exclusive rights to every conference-controlled football game, ESPN will…
- As the exclusive rightsholder to all conference-controlled men’s basketball games, ESPN will…
- ESPN will expand its coverage of regular-season women’s basketball across its platforms and televise the conference semifinals and championship for the first time on an ESPN network. In addition, ESPN will sublicense games to Raycom Sports [including packages for ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN3.com, Syndication].
- ESPN will televise more of the 22 ACC-sponsored Olympic sports than ever before, increasing its coverage to include regular-season and conference championship events.[including packages for ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN3.com, and maybe even the rights to championships of any minor sport ESPN wants to show]
http://www.theacc.com/genrel/070810aaa.html
I didn’t really see a number of games per year or anything – but language like “exclusive” and “every.” So, have we kept anything back for our own network? And Lou said that the contract doesn’t allow us to start an ACCN – if so, are we changing that?
Because of our footprint, I think an ACCN is one way we can maybe one day catch up to (perhaps even surpass?) the SEC in revenue. But if we shut ourselves off from the possibility of a network, and/or give away rights to all athletic events… well, isn’t that dumb? Even if there isn’t enough interest NOW for a network, what about in 5 years if FSU has returned to the FB elite, CU continues to improve, and UM improves? But if we shut out a network until for 12-15 years… sheesh.
Exclusive sounds like no ACCN until this deal is over.
Swofford is an idiot for agreeing to that in 2010, well after the success of the Big Ten Network. The least he could have done is leave some sort of out if the schools vote to form a network.
The SEC can talk about it because the schools themselves still own their 3rd tier rights. It’s a question of getting Kentucky basketball, Florida/Alabama/LSU football to buy in on the idea of a group network instead of selling their own stuff individually.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
This is correct
And I’m not sold on the revenue potential of an ACC network anyway. I’m not even convinced and SEC network is a cash cow, although it will certainly generate some revenue.
Still
What exactly IS the ACC Digital Network? Is it run by ESPN, or does it pay ESPN for the right to show some games? Shockingly, I’ll be able to use it to watch Duke vs. UNC on my phone tonight at 9pm!
Any insight about this thing, and if it means there is hope for an actual network?
I know that RayCom has produced a lot of ACC content.
And I seem to recall Swofford’s son was the head of Raycom, but other than that I have no insight on the machinations of ACC sports television. ACC markets-Charlotte, RTP, greater DC-are all growing gangbusters, though. Have to think that the future is bright.
ACC Digital Network
http://www.theacc.com/genrel/101711aaa.html
From the announcement:
The Digital Network is a joint venture between Raycom Sports, the conference’s long-standing broadcast and marketing partner, and Silver Chalice Ventures, a digital media company focused on building innovative new media properties for sports fans. The ACC Digital Network is the latest banner under the expanding ACC Network brand, the official multimedia platform of the conference.
….
The Digital Network will provide regularly scheduled programming throughout the week and heavy game day coverage featuring full pregame and postgame highlights, news and analysis.
In addition to its home on theACC.com, the ACC Digital Network will be viewable through a variety of other platforms including the ACC’s official iPhone, Android, and iPad applications; the Conference’s official social destinations; TheACCDN.com; and local, regional and national new media sites. The ACC Digital Network will also work to secure major distribution partners on national VOD, OTT and IP-Connected platforms.
….
The content will be free to users, supported by sponsorship and advertising. An official platform of the Atlantic Coast Conference, the network offers marketers a powerful and unique opportunity to reach a targeted and highly engaged audience both regionally and across the country.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 12:40 AM EST up reply actions
We may well handed ESPN too many rights. No argument there.
It’s not my field. And that agreement was reached before everyone saw what the Pac-12 was able to do. One force behind realignment is the fact that everyone saw that and wanted a piece of it.
But it’s in the nature of a contract that you can’t re-do it just because you see you could have negotiated a better deal. Whether or not it was a strategic mistake, we’re stuck with it. Getting more money per school, as announced this week, is still good news. We’re not getting what Pac-12 schools get but we’re making the best of it.
And whether or not that was a strategic mistake, we’re only stuck with it for the length of the contract. That’s not a death sentence. The ACC is a well-paid league for the duration of the contract, it has ways of making more money if its teams do well, and as soon as the contract ends it can start getting things to work more like they should—with one of the most attractive media footprints in college sports.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 12:36 AM EST up reply actions
Are the figures in that article all-inclusive?
PAC $21
B1G $21
SEC $17
BIG12 $15
ACC $14.5
In the ACC, we won’t have additional CBS revenues (SEC) or conference network revenues (PAC, B1G, Texas, SEC? — not sure) to add to our stream like the others. We don’t have a deal with Sunshine that approaches UF’s, either. If these secondary revenue streams are not considered, then you can basically just throw this whole analysis out because it’s not comparing apples-to-apples.
As to the dispute about whether the ACC could do better…. I’m not sure. Maybe adding SU and Pitt was their best move. However, if these assumptions are correct about the gap between its revenues and other conference’s revenues are accurate, then I am quite sure that if they can’t do better (i.e., add ND), then we need to take every measure available to pave our own way out. We have definitively NOT pulled out all the stops in that respect.
They are, but remember
The Pac 12 and B1G number grows every single year because of their networks. So they aren’t locked in. They will be pulling in $30 million+ five years from now if not sooner. B1G also has a first tier contract coming up, they may be at $30mil in a couple years.
The SEC doesn’t have a deal that can grow every year THANK GOD. However, those schools abilities to sign individual deals accomplishes much the same thing, although only for some schools. But they’ll be well over $20 when they finish negotiations from this last expansion, and schools like UF, UGA, AL, etc will add millions more from third tier rights.
We are going to be lapped.
When we joined the ACC they had the highest payout, which was good at the time because it made up some of our financial disadvantages. We still have all those disadvantages, but now our conference affiliation is another one, and a very, very bad one.
Someone explain to me how FSU competes at half the revenue, I’m all ears. The days of $5M/yr head coaches and seven figure assistants accross the board is coming.
I say it again, this site has been great about highlighting what Miami has in store because they can’t compete financially. How are we going to be immune to the same thing? Because we can get a few more kids in school than they can? Miami is going to be much closer revenue wise to us than we will be to UF, Alabama, LSU, USC, TX, Ohio St. etc.
I’m more than willing to be talked down off the ledge, so somebody start talking.
I get that you want us to be in another conference. I really do. As long as we're wishing...
I wish Bill Gates would will all his money to Florida State. Then we wouldn’t need a conference. If we find one useful for scheduling, we can create our own, like Texas, out of a handful of peons we can smack around.
If, that is, we decided we wanted to keep playing football at all.
That’s my wish.
Now back to reality.
Florida State plays in the ACC. We just got a significant payout hike in a league that isn’t swooning like the Big East and that just added two respected schools.
That’s good news, and it’s reality.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 8, 2012 6:31 AM EST up reply actions
Why is changing conferences an impossibility?
I’ve noted elsewhere that we have the capacity via the legislature to directly influence the single biggest roadblock to joining the SEC.
It's not an impossibility
In fact, I STILL believe we will be part of a 16 team SEC. I still think things line up that way and it makes a ton of sense. Ultimately, I’ve never believed that UF will be able to block us. The SEC wouldn’t let one school screw up what they wanted to do, any more than Tennessee was able to block the expansion that will kill the UT-Alabama rivalry game, one of the biggest rivalry games in the South in history.
The obstacles are:
1) Does the SEC have more to gain by taking other schools ahead of FSU?
2) Do the decision-makers at the top at FSU want the change? The leadership at FSU frankly may not care if we have merely good football and 50-60,000 people in the stadium if they can academically be associated with and benefit from schools like UNC and UVA. I wouldn’t trade the UNC Football program+UNC Academics for FSU’s Football program+FSU academics, because FSU sports is what I care about most. Obviously, FSU leadership probably don’t feel the same way.
My position is that the ACC hasn’t radically changed FSU’s academic reputation or fortunes, and that aspect of the deal was seriously oversold. I think the failure of our football team will have greater negative consequences than any academic effects of leaving the ACC. But I obviously have different priorities.
3) Can the SEC and FSU get married without a political firestorm. Look how damn hard it was for TAMU to the SEC, when both parties wanted in. The SEC is sensitive to not wanting to have a rep of destroying a conference. FSU is going to have to publicly come to them. It’s possible that the public relations nightmare for both sides keeps this from happening. However, I think the 14-team expansion actually smooths this a good deal. The ACC can lose FSU and Clemson and still remain a viable conference, which was certainly much more a question when it came to Big 12 or Big East facing their defections.
by LouC on Feb 8, 2012 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm with you on the limited ability of UF to block us.
I understand the gators need to be petulant, but, as I noted elsewhere in this thread, money is money. If power conferences move inexorably to 16 teams each, UF is going to have to deal with the inevitable. I think the remainder of the SEC will be less and less tolerant of said petulance.
'Scuse me while I whip this out..."
Academics don't want it and they run the show
Texas AM is the exception and they where coming from the Big 12 not exactly known for their academics in the first place. The president of Mizzou was basically blackmailed to make the SEC move. And the Mizzou move was more get away from Texas then it was get into the SEC their fan base expections and wants was always the Big 10 until the SEC came knocking. They pro SEC cam at Mizzou was able to convert the pro Big 10 crowd with no problems by making it get out of Big 12.
There is just not that big of a pro SEC movement at FSU. The money is close enough. While it sucks the refs suck its not a reason to bolt. UNC is neither running rough shot or preseved to be running rough shot over the league. Its more like it would be cool to be in the SEC.
The ACC is not the Big East or Big 12 in other words. Unlike those 2 the ACC was not a made for TV marriage of any kind. Its like minded Universities with a similar culture and goals.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Feb 8, 2012 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I disagree that FSU and Clemson share a similar culture and goals with the rest of the ACC
And do you really think trailing by $10-15 million will be “close enough”?
I agree with your assessment of how the FSU administration feels about it though.
by LouC on Feb 8, 2012 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
To be more clear
What culture, goals and characteristics do we share with Boston College, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina and UVA?
I see some cultural similarities with VT, Clemson, and history with Miami.
I do think it’s a pretty cohesive bunch, we’re just in the minority.
Universities that are either AAU, trying to be AAU or soild undergrad
They share a desire to be the best collection of major sport playing undergrad schools with soild to awesome research.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Feb 8, 2012 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You and LouC are awesome with your insight on the subject.
TN is thankful for you guys…What a community
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 8, 2012 11:39 PM EST up reply actions
Pitt is an AAU member.
And Syracuse was until a year or two ago. Solid additions!
Every league is chasing the Pac-12 an B1G right now.
If this is the best we can get, I’m fine with it, as I’ve said. But is it the best we can get? I share the impression of the commenter who said the article looks like a ‘first offer’ leak from the ESPN side.
$15M per school is too far under market value. ESPN is paying for the extra conference games with the addition of Syracuse and Pitt but it still doesn’t look as if the number of eyeballs in the footprint are being adequately considered.
As I understand it, ESPN negotiates directly with the ACC first but this can be mediated at the request of either side if it proves difficulty. If that doesn’t work it can go to non-binding arbitration. If there’s still no agreement… the ACC is open to the market, isn’t it?
Arbitration will take into account the amounts offered to other leagues, the exclusive nature of the contract (it has a monetary value that merits compensation), the content offered by the ACC in all sports year-round and the market value of the ACC footprint. The ACC draws well on TV and the footprint encompasses major population centers.
Looks to me like a a fair settlement would come to at least $18M per school.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 4:29 AM EST up reply actions
The contract does not go to the open market
And all that ESPN is going to do is pull up the ratings for Syracuse football, both in NY and national.
Little story, the last time FSU played Syracuse, I happened to be in NY city for a wedding. FSU-Syracuse was one of the ABC regional choices. NYC received the USC-ASU game instead of the Syracuse game, against the ACC’s most glamorous opponent. That’s how many eyeballs Syracuse draws in NY, that they showed a West Coast game instead.
I grew up in NY state, a couple hours from Syracuse. You are way overestimating how much interest there is, and that’s when Syracuse was decent.
The contract actually can go to the open market. The news reports don’t say this because that’s not the immediate fallback. But as I understand the process, it’s there if you follow the process all the way through the built-in fail sequence.
1. Direct negotiations (ACC-ESPN)
2. Negotiation through a mediator
3. Non-binding arbitration
4. Deal off. Open market (without ESPN)
If I’ve got that right, we don’t want it to go to the open market. For things to reach that point a lot of fail has to happen, and it’s probably best that the ACC not let thing go that sour with ESPN. But it can happen.
The non-binding nature of the arbitration also works against the ACC. The ACC benefits more from binding arbitration, where market value is taken into account and ESPN’s deals with other leagues set precedent. But apparently that’s not a possibility here. Non-binding arbitration lets ESPN walk away if they don’t want to pay what arbitration rules to be a fair price.
—
I never ‘overestimated’ how many people in NY watch Syracuse because I never estimated it in the first place. I spoke of the figures for total cable households. The figures are arrived at roughly based on state borders. The measure if of potential. A network selling cable services starts with figures like this in marketing services to a pool of potential subscribers.
The addition of Texas A&M brought 11 million cable households into the SEC while the addition of Pittsburgh and Syracuse brought in three times that for the ACC. (I don’t recall the figure for Missouri but do remember it’s a considerably smaller pool of households than Texas A&M brings.)
Let’s add another figure to this list: West Virginia brought 2 million into the Big 12-.
You speak of the level of ‘interest’. But what is that? Is it measured in fan intensity or number of subscribers?
Let’s look at both.
West Virginia has great fan intensity, so let’s say the Mountaineers deliver 95% of their 2 million households for the Big 12-. Texas A&M delivers 80% of its 11 million for the SEC. Poor lowly Pitt and Syracuse, with their tepid fan support in regions where pro sports rule, deliver only 40% of their 30+ million households for the ACC.
Who wins?
Well, if you’re giving a Spirit Award, the Mountaineers run away with it and the Aggies are the runner-up.
But who gets the cash prize? The ACC.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 10, 2012 5:07 AM EST up reply actions
If the ACC can get an ACC network on the first cable tier on 40% of it's footprint
The ACC schools could freakin buy the SEC.
No argument there. But I think that’s a total pipedream.
It's interesting following this debate I'm undecided as of now.
But I’ve seen this 30+ million household figure thrown out several times now. Where does this number come from?
The total population for NY and PA is 31 million. That’s every man woman and child from newborns to 100+ years of age.
So I guess the question is…how you define “household”?
I think one problem is
some of us don’t accept your 10-15 million deficit figure until we see where the dust settles. As I’ve posted elsewhere there are other monies involved in the conference payout where the ACC does well and makes up for some of the TV gap.
Academic standards affect athletics, too. This really shows in the issue of partial qualifiers.
The issue of partial qualifiers has led to conference realignments.
A decade ago the Big East allowed its schools to sign an unlimited number of partial qualifiers. The ACC allowed each school only four—two men and two women.
This gave Miami a recruiting advantage over Florida State. The Hurricanes could sign athletes the Seminoles could not. So Florida State did everything it could to pave Miami’s way into the ACC. It levelled the field in recruiting. And Miami welcomed this. Donna Shalala wanted the higher standards.
(Do the restrictions have anything to do with the falloff in Miami’s recruiting and on-field performance since joining the ACC? It’s an interesting question.)
Years ago, South Carolina left the ACC over limits on partial qualifiers. The Gamecocks didn’t want limits on signing them. The league did.
One of the sharp disagreements in the Big 12 between Nebraska—Tom Osborne, specifically—and Texas was also over partial qualifiers. Osborne wanted limits on signing them and Texas didn’t. The league went with Texas and today Nebraska is in the B1G.
The situation leads to some ironies. The University of Texas is a respected research university—AAU member—but academic standards don’t really mean much at UT when it comes to recruiting athletes. Florida State has a more modest academic reputation—it’s not yet an AAU member—but its academic standards for signing athletes are higher than at Texas. It goes with being in the ACC.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 5:49 AM EST up reply actions
One minor correction
It was Texas that wanted to ban partial qualifiers and Nebraska that wanted to keep them.
This is part of why I never thought WVU looked as good as others. Once in the ACC I think they would have took a major step back because of who they could sign. I think they are going to take a step back in the Big 12 for this reason.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Feb 10, 2012 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You're right. My bad on the data. Thanks.
I conflated two situations: the dispute at the time (involving Prop 48, JUCO transfers and the rest) with the general positions of the conferences Nebraska and Texas are in now.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 10, 2012 11:59 PM EST up reply actions
The FL legislature will back the gates, not us.
The Gators’ grip on the legislature is as strong as the republicans’.
by Renegade_Rider on Feb 9, 2012 5:37 AM EST up reply actions
Does VT have a stranglehold on the Virginia legislature?
I imagine it’s a similar circumstance. You don’t need 51% to make things happen. You need a solid block.
From what I've seen in the 2 years I've been in VA
Everyone says that there is a UVA bias due to their law school, but I don’t know many VaTech people to get their take on it.
I’d be interested to learn how the VA legislature reached an agreement. Anyone know?
by Renegade_Rider on Feb 9, 2012 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
My understanding is that UVA & VPI share the same Board of Regents.
And that the board pushed hard for VPI to be included in the last expansion when Syracuse was the desired option. UVA & VPI certainly have a competitive relationship, but Virginia has so many good schools that I find it hard to believe any one could exert their will. William & Mary has been around as long as Harvard, and there are a bunch of very good liberal arts schools in the DC area and Georgetown, etc, as to pumping out very good lawyers. That being said, it was in the state’s best interest to get VPI into the ACC as the revenue from the conference was much greater than what they were getting from the Big East.
by SailorNole on Feb 10, 2012 12:05 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
FSU competes by recruiting flagala and making great coaching hires, not expensive ones
Work smarter not harder applies here.
As Bud has mentioned before, money is good at fixing your mistakes. Reduce the amount of mistakes your program makes and you’ll be fine.
Now step away from the ledge :)
by vickers8 on Feb 9, 2012 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I appreciate what you're saying
But that’s a recipe for a lot of disappointment. Don’t make any mistakes, when your competitors can afford to. Acheive the same results with unproven, under the radar staff. And oh yeah, hit that lottery over and over, because the staff moves on to more lucrative pastures.
That’s kind of taking the position that hope and luck is an actual strategy.
Believe me, I want to be talked off the ledge.
by LouC on Feb 9, 2012 10:20 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
AGREE.
Not even the best talent evaluators hit every time. We can’t expect to find the next Saban every time a Jimbo leaves. Even promising coaches who have had proven success at lower tiers don’t always continue that success in the big boy conferences.
Give me enough money to hire the best guys available – and enough to buy them off if they fail, to go get the next Next Big Thing.
LOL you just want everything huh??
I hate to break it to you man but we do not have the boosters or administration to get us that kind of money. The sooner you come to terms with that the sooner the sky will stop falling.
All the more reason to maximize what we get from our conference.
Official reader of Tomahawk Nation.
by Jamil Dawson on Feb 9, 2012 11:06 AM EST up reply actions
Now there's an idea no one's mentioned before.
: ^
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 10, 2012 5:35 AM EST up reply actions
Please read the comment in its context.
I.e., the present conversation/topic/debate at hand.
The lottery is all luck
Being able to effectively evaluate coaching ability is far less luck.
And it’s not like FSU is going to be bankrupt, we just may not have the lucrative revenue other schools have. We can and will make mistakes, but like I said before we must be more mindful of them.
We're not the only program evaluating.
Even if we could land a young, inexpensive, great staff every few years, why would they stay when they can make more $ at programs of equal or greater prestige. Very few multi-million dollar companies can thrive when losing most of their upper managment every few years to their chief competitors.
Official reader of Tomahawk Nation.
by Jamil Dawson on Feb 9, 2012 11:15 AM EST up reply actions
Who is "effectively evaluating coaching abilty"?
When we can no longer afford to retain a proven, elite head coach, are you putting that faith in our AD? Why?
The speculation in these posts are incredible...
Our AD has only had to make one HC hire so far and it was a pretty good one.
What makes you think Jimbo is going anywhere? Is it all about the benjamins? Maybe he wants to build a dynasty. Maybe he doesn’t want to uproot his family again. Maybe he likes Tallahassee. Maybe he knows he has a good thing going here and has no desire to try and do the same thing else where.
Who knows?? You certainly don’t.
by vickers8 on Feb 9, 2012 12:02 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Cutcliffe said no to Tennessee
And stayed at Duke. There are a lot of variables to each individual. Quality of life isn’t a cart hitched to a money horse.
by SailorNole on Feb 9, 2012 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Assertions about the rules of labor markets (supply, demand, wages) are not speculative.
I’d be happy to point you to resources that can enlighten you on the discipline, but rest assured that this discussion is grounded in fact.
I think you’re still geting too hung up in personalities (like Jimbo) rather than looking at the long-game, from the perspective that Institution X is going to be faced with recruiting/retaining elite talent (talking about coaches, not players) with sub-par resources. The personalities involved in our circumstance inevitably WILL change and then all you are left with is a resource-strapped program.
Even if you want to talk about Jimbo, specifically, we know that:
- We’ve already had to up the ante on multiple occasions to retain him.
- He has a sick child and I would guess his foremost priority in this world is to raise funds towards research into a cure. Do you think he will turn down a multi-million dollar raise that can help him in this capacity because of loyalty to Florida State?
And I have criticisms of Spetman, sure, but I’m not talking about him, either. Again, if he proves himself to be among the premier talents in his field, he will ALSO become subject to a bidding war to retain his services. This is just furthering the underlying assertion that MONEY is central to maintaining and growing the success of an athletics program.
With Regard to Jimbo's son...
Lets face Tally is not known for their incredible medical facilities. If something is serious, you go to Shands or Mayo.
Greatness courts failure.
Worst case scenario
Florida State is stuck in the ACC and the ACC is stuck with an ESPN deal that pays it less than market value and gives ESPN too many rights. As a result, schools in the Pac-12, B1G, SEC and maybe even the Big 12- get richer than Florida State.
Kentucky easily lures away Jimbo Fisher with all its riches. Stoops goes to Oregon State, where the real money is, and Trickett goes to Purdue, where they’re using their excess Franklins to roll cigars. The Seminoles football team finishes in the middle of the ACC pack and watches the Virginia Cavaliers go on a tear. (Money equals championships, right? Well, in an impoverished ACC, that’s a school with money.) Not that anyone else cares who wins the ACC championship, of course.
Then, in the mid-2020s, something amazing happens that no one foresaw.
The ESPN contract expires.
Suddenly the ACC can talk to any network it wants. Did I mention that the ACC now stands with the Pac-12 in having more population and viewing households in its footprint than all other leagues? ESPN has more competition than it has seen since it launched—just as a sadder-but-wiser ACC goes to the table aware of its worth and determined to protect its interests.
A deal is signed. ACC schools are now going to be as rich as their West Coast brethren. The league plays catchup.
And it does.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 10, 2012 5:31 AM EST up reply actions
Blech.
10+ years of mediocre football. We just got out of that!
I think one problem is that we have to have strong ACC FB to command awesome TV $$$. Under-financed like that, I doubt ACC FB looks very good in 10 years.
Okay, in my mind, i just punched you in the face...repeatedly.
Do you know why? Acting like watching us suck for another 10 years so MAYBE the ACC gets with the program is the worst thing ive ever heard anyone say and you’re fortunate i dont have the ability to ban you.
Control the Sunshine State & sooner or later you'll control the country.
LOL relax, no need for that
But yes, the idea that the ACC can cash in after a decade and a half of suckitude…that’s not realistic.
ACC will get nothing but worse due to the revenue disparity. We already saw that subpar football cannot monetize the NE market. It’s already been proven.
I know. Hyperbole...im not actually for violence.
I’ve just never had my jaw hit the floor so hard.
Control the Sunshine State & sooner or later you'll control the country.
LouC
Someone explain to me how FSU competes at half the revenue, I’m all ears.
We’re not stuck at half the revenue. This is just the ESPN deal. You’re comparing revenue from one source (ESPN) in the ACC against revenue from all sources in other leagues.
this site has been great about highlighting what Miami has in store because they can’t compete financially
And reality has been great at showing us Miami can get recruits anyway.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
ESPN/Disney owns all ACC rights
What other revenue stream is the ACC picking up to match CBS/SEC 3rd tier/PAC12BigTen networks/Fox contracts with the Big XII/Pac 12?
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
With all due respect, I don't think you know anything about this issue
The ACC HAS NO OTHER TV REVENUE SOURCE. If you don’t even know that, then you don’t understand the baseline realities necessary to disucss this.
ESPN owns EVERYTHING in ACC rights. First, second and third tier. This is it, and this is it for 15 years or whatever it gets extended to, with additional opportunity to monetize (short of another expansion with ND).
If you think Miami is going to compete for national championships with 3 star players, again, you’re out of you depth in this conversation.
by LouC on Feb 8, 2012 9:33 AM EST up reply actions 5 recs
See my comment in the thread just above about market value.
I understand that the ACC is unique in granting an exclusive contract to ESPN. I also understand that there’s room to change that—or be better compensated for it—in this renegotiation.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 4:36 AM EST up reply actions
And reality has been great at showing us Miami can get recruits anyway.
Miami, based in the heart of the most fertile recruiting ground in the US, is getting recruits worthy of an upper- to mid-level ACC team. And that’s until their coach (if successful) gets an offer that the athletics program can’t match. Sorry, but that’s not my aspiration. Their class was not on the level of ours or UF’s in terms of blue chip proportions. They got a decent ranking this year based on having a massive class. The per capita quality was sub-par.
Seems like we’re arguing a couple different fronts here. To be clear:
(a) Maybe the ACC did the best it could do. Yay for the ACC. However, I’m not worried about the ACC’s well-being, I’m worried about our own, and the benchmarks I use for comparison are generally external to our present conference.
(b) Can a team be competitive with a significant, multimillion dollar revenue shortfall? This is, I think, the underlying assumption in your argument, that we’re doing “well enough” in the ACC and the gap won’t impact the on-field product. I disagree rather strongly on this point. LouC is talking about the days of 7-figure assistants coming, but THEY ARE ALREADY HERE. The coaching salary and facilities arms race is in full effect, and we are looking a lot more like the USSR than the US of A. (“of A” added to US for uber-patriotic emphasis. Screw the commies.)
© Does FSU have to remain in the ACC? You take it as a static variable, I say no. We are still in the ACC because our administration has been content to play wait and see. Again, i think the situation is perilous enough that all measures need to be taken to either force a better deal within the ACC as its premier football product, or, otherwise, to manufacture a swift exit.
by arrdub on Feb 8, 2012 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Does FSU have to remain in the ACC?
I do not ‘take it as a static variable.’ I take it as present reality. Florida State is in the ACC.
We are still in the ACC because our administration has been content to play wait and see.
No, we are in the ACC because we accepted a bid to join it, and have not since been invited to another conference. You do not know what administrators have been ‘content’ to do, what phone conversations have taken place. Your picture of ‘contentment’ is a fantasy based on what you imagine. You don’t know.
You speak of ‘manufacturing a swift exit’. If you know how Florida State may manufacture a swift bid to the Pac-12, I’m sure I’m not alone in hearing how it is done. Please feel free to enlighten us. I’d be happy to forward a copy of your post to President Barron. (Think about adding a PS telling how to manufacture a swift bid to the AAU while you’re at it.)
Until you do that, I will stick to my current belief that talk of ‘manufacturing a swift exit’ is also fantasy. The reality is that conference changes are very often difficult. No one gets a bid from another league because they decided to ‘manufacture’ one.
It’s always best to operate on a reality basis. It’s not always pleasant, I admit. But the other ways just don’t work.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 5:03 AM EST up reply actions
We could pitch the FL market to the Pac!
Add in a small, unofficial Eastern Division (FSU and 3 others) and they get another regional network! Yeah, I know – not gonna happen. ;)
Why we joined is unimportant.
Why are we still here after the massive changes in the landscape? I agree with arrdub. Based on what we have (and haven’t) heard from the administration, I’d say they are content. That’s fine with me as long as they have the cojones to make a move once it becomes necessary.
Official reader of Tomahawk Nation.
by Jamil Dawson on Feb 9, 2012 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
And to be clear
Despite all the lofty talk of academics and basketball, when we joined the ACC it got us the highest payout per school. At that point it actually served to cut into the difference our regional peers like UF and UGA had. Joining the ACC was a lot about money, even if people don’t want to admit it.
by LouC on Feb 9, 2012 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Let's ratchet down the rhetoric and get to the heart of this.
I’m taking a “mea culpa” on that as well, mind you, just thinking neither of us wants to waste time on the proverbial internet pissing match.
At the heart of this conversation, I still see some disagreement re: the significance of revenues. I have not seen an argument that makes any type of case against what seems to be an undeniable fact (as illustrated in articles like this). Holding up Miami as the standard bearer for tight-revenue programs does nothing to persuade me, and I think that is reasonable. I think it’s fairly clear that, short of some massive change in their financial wherewithal, they are not and will not be an elite program going forward.
Asking in all sincerity:
- Where do you see FSU’s revenues in 5-10 years if we remain in the ACC, if no further conference expansion/machinations take place? (I do not foresee the ACC’s contract expanding appreciably, meaning we are going to be at or close to the figures quoted in that article. Any ACC Network or, more specifically, our ability to reap significant revenues from it apart from the ESPN contract, seems highly improbable. I think this will hamstring our ability to compete in the coaching and facilities markets, especially given our existing limitations, including the lack of fully endowed scholarships.)
- On the other hand, where do you see revenues for a program like UF, or even a 2nd tier program in the SEC like South Carolina rising to? (The SEC is going to get a substantial bump. I cannot see any way that they will persist as a 3rd tier revenue generator when they are clearly ESPN’s crown jewel. As a consequence, I believe UF will practically be lapping us, and even a program like South Carolina will have substantially more resources available.)
- Bringing all of this together, what do you see as being a sustainable gap in revenues? (This is spit-balling more than anything, but I cannot see how a >20% shortfall can be a sustainable business model in anything like this where you are competing in the same labor market.)
- Last, do you anticipate any wholesale changes in the landscape of college football that will somehow mitigate the current concerns of revenue streams? (I do not anticipate a separation of the AQ teams or a re-drawing of conference affiliations in any type of unified or equitable manner. Conferences will probably continue to expand to the ~16 team mark, and a +1 type of framework might be added to the championship model, but the revenue streams will generally persist as they do today with conferences going head to head for contracts with networks.)
Moving on to the issue of whether anything can be done about shopping conferences, the answer I have for that is political will. See Exhibit 1A:
We have plenty of connections in and to the FL legislature that would allow us bring this issue (UF’s opposition to us joining the SEC) to floor in order to be resolved or at least debated. Conveniently enough, the soon to be speaker of the house in FL happens to be a former FSU quarterback’s brother, so we’ve got that in our corner as well, but the real power we have is the overlap of donors between athletics boosters and political parties. If our booster organization decides to make this is a political matter, it can become one.
The public message from Dr. Barron and the broader FSU administration has been that they seem content to remain in the ACC, hence my characterization as “wait and see.” Irrespective of their true desires, I know PR concerns necessitate this message in order to remain in good graces with our current partners, but public opinion (including my own) does not need to be driven by these sensitivities. I highly doubt that any political machinations would be entirely veiled, however, so that further builds my suspicion that the administration is not actively pursuing alternatives to ACC affiliation. There are currently no proxies or public voices highlighting this concern, and that is troubling.
Further on the public opinion front, short of knowing people in high places and top-down agendas, political will usually comes about through public outcry. Public outcry sometimes starts at the grass roots level, and I consider myself to be one blade of grass in this conversation.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem fixated on pushing down any such outcry, and I am not quite sure what your motivation or reasoning is. I believe I have been transparent as to my motivations, which are a desire to remain competitive in the sports market, which in itself can be leveraged into academic growth and prestige if properly leveraged. Alternately, I have not seen any great benefit to either our sports programs or our academic prestige via our membership in the ACC. Thus, the decision about athletic affiliation seems to be relevant only to one small arm of the broader organization, should be based on revenue generation, and that is clearly an area of struggle.
/Novel.
by arrdub on Feb 9, 2012 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I agree about the "public outcry"
About 1.5-2 years ago I made a statement that a playoff was inevitable. I got shot down very quickly with lots of excellent sounding reasons.
Now even the Big Ten – once a major opponent of even a +1 – is discussing a 4-team playoff, and as Ohio State AD Gene Smith put it, “The fans have been loud and clear.” And Smith and the Michigan State AD are using the word playoff (and even tournament), not just +1 (which could be an unseeded extra game, thus not really a "playoff per se).
What the public wants obviously has a lot of sway.
Nailed it
My thing is, if you believe that academic reputation and class supercede being a national football power, and ACC membership advances that, then just say that. If the non-sports benefits to the university offset a football team that plays for 9 win seasons and shoots for final rankings in the top 25, then fine. I think this is where FSU administrators are.
What I’m trying to combat are the people that seem to be trying very hard to be willfully ignorant of the facts, and think that we will be able to have both. If we are where I think we are going to be in a decade in terms of football (about what UNC is in football today), and that suits everyone’s desires, then I’m simply in the minority.
However, what I think is that people will be freaking out, and we’ll have a half empty stadium, and there will be NOTHING we can do about it. THAT’s what I try to raise the alarm about, that the realities of the game have changed fast, and people don’t realize the stakes.
And I appreciate your voice.
I’m behind you here. We need to find a way to close the money gap, whether that’s hopping to the SEC or MAYBE a new Big 12/16, or having a viable ACCN. One way or another we can’t sit back and let the money deficit get irrecoverably out of hand.
Honestly I love football
It’s great. But I will always and forever believe that the most important mission for Florida State University should be academic excellence. If the football program had to be shut down and we somehow got to the academic level of Harvard or Stanford I would make that trade any day all day.
The Funk Phenomenon.
Follow @willdabeast215
by willdabeast on Feb 10, 2012 2:49 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
+1
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 11, 2012 2:03 AM EST up reply actions
And that is something Sandy D'Alemberte and the BOT completely failed to do, imo.
I believe I have been transparent as to my motivations, which are a desire to remain competitive in the sports market, which in itself can be leveraged into academic growth and prestige if properly leveraged.
We had an amazing opportunity in the 90’s. and let it slip through our fingers.
2012 is the Year of No Excuses.
by PeachTreeNole on Feb 14, 2012 9:59 AM EST up reply actions
Just wondering but how often does athletic excellence actually lead to academic growth?
Honest question because the best schools in the country that I can think of off the top of my head had Academic excellence before the advent of insanely popular college athletics.
The Funk Phenomenon.
Follow @willdabeast215
by willdabeast on Feb 14, 2012 10:40 PM EST up reply actions
I think it can carry you a certain length of the way
based on schools that win consistently getting larger numbers of applicants, boosters more willing to support both athletic and academic endeavours, those sort of things. It’s not enough to get you to AAU status or a top 50 Public or something like that.
Boise State’s gone from a glorified community college to a regional university, primarily because of their football. Their next moves will take more than just football, though.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
That's what I thought I think we've already been carried as far as we can by Football
At this point we need true investment in higher education by the State which isn’t coming any time soon. I just don’t think Football is all that important to increasing our academic standards.
The Funk Phenomenon.
Follow @willdabeast215
by willdabeast on Feb 15, 2012 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
On the positive side, alumni giving is up BIG last FY.
FSU pulled in over $49M
UM at $172M
UF at $201
What really hurts is
USF at $81M. They pulled in $32M more than us last year? How?
http://chronicle.com/article/Sortable-Table-Money-Raised/130782/
That's really bad.
I will say they seem to be stepping up their game they’ve been calling me for the first time in the 10 years since I graduated.
The Funk Phenomenon.
Follow @willdabeast215
So,
I’m extremely miffed that I write a 1,500 word essay – in very diplomatic terms, mind you – and Mr. Windclan appears to have completely ignored my questions.
I think an outline of motivations and expectations are a reasonable ante for continuing this dialogue.
One reason you see SEC schools living large is not because their contract is so much more lucrative than other league’s, but because they take in a BCS cash. It’s not the kind of revenue that’s there for a league every year (even the SEC), but it makes a difference. That’s one example.
The league has also launched a cooperative for research dollars of the kind the B1G has been operating for years. Research money dwarfs football money. College presidents This can be enormously valuable in the long haul and the ACC and B1G are the only leagues I know of that have anything like it. That’s just another example.
It is true that ESPN is the sole TV rights holder only in the ACC. No doubt that aspect of the league’s contract with ESPN has its pluses and minuses, but it’s done. By adding quality schools to its inventory, solidifying its footprint in Eastern seaboard markets, and adding nearly 50 million cable households to it, the league has ensured itself a competitive position in the sports landscape, come out ahead from an expansion process that could have destabilised it terribly, and and enhanced its value for the long haul.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
Yow. Lots of typos in that one.
But you know what I mean.
; D
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 8, 2012 6:18 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, that BCS stuff isn't true.
A second bid gets a conference about $5 million, They’re not living large off that extra $450,000 per school
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
by Kazoonole on Feb 8, 2012 7:46 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
To paraphrase Everett Dirkson:
‘Half a million here and half a million there and pretty soon you’re spending real money.’
That amount per school goes some way to paying salaries and bonuses. If one league consistently gets it and another does not, the first league has an advantage.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 5:09 AM EST up reply actions
You've made an argument that agrees with Lou C.
“That amount per school goes some way to paying salaries and bonuses. If one league consistently gets it and another does not, the first league has an advantage.”
You’re talking about $0.5M per team per year as being significant enough to create an advantage for one league over another when even a conservative estimate of the TV money difference that the SEC and Pac12 would hold over us is an order of magnitude higher than that figure.
I think Lou’s estimates are correct: the SEC will see a TV contract north of $20M – probably $23M/team and that’s just for 1st and 2nd tier rights. Factor in 3rd tier rights (variable by school but UF gets $10M/year from Sun Sports for theirs) and FSU is pretty much at Lou’s estimate of a $15M shortfall – annually.
If $0.5M/year makes a difference – then you certainly would agree that $15M makes a Bigger difference, no?
Even if you don’t agree with Lou’s math and think the difference will be just 1/3 of that – that’s $5M/year – still an order of magnitude difference.
Lou, IMO, you’re nailing this topic.
You’re absolute on the money regarding FSU’s diverging interests from the ACC-bloc of tobacco roaders. We do not have institutional sources of revenue like they do and we aspire to compete for NCs in football, not maintain status quo 8 win seasons. To do that, we need to be able to financially compete with the Gators, Crimson Tide, Longhorns, etc.
If money matters in college football – and clearly it does as that’s what’s driving realignment – then it should concern everyone that Oregon State, Washington State, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Kentucky, and Colorado will have more of it than FSU – never mind Bama, UF, UGA, USC, etc. And the gap is only getting bigger each year.
IMO, FSU gets that. They aren’t going to let the program that was key in turning FSU into a national name fade. I think that FSU ends up in the SEC as part of a 16 team conference and I think Clemson comes with us.
by GraniteStateNoles on Feb 9, 2012 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 6 recs
According to most of you we were suppose to be part of a 14 team SEC
What happened? Some of you still don’t want to believe the powers that be actually want to stay in the ACC.
I've made an argument that supports my point.
You seem to think that I’ve been arguing that ‘money doesn’t matter’. Alas, any resemblance of that straw man you created to a real case I’ve been making is purely coincidental.
My point is that not all revenue is up to a network to provide. You’re saying there’s no hope on this side of the fence and I’m telling you there is. There’s quite a bit that a program can control. Florida State still has plenty of advantages that most other schools can only envy. Win your games (and Florida State is full capable of making multiple national champion runs in the period of time covered by the current ESPN contract) and you get more money.
There’s no reason to just sit on the floor and bawl until another league comes save you. Take advantage of the strengths you have. Win.
A contract that is signed is done. Don’t like it? Well, sorry, you’re stuck with it. Maybe Florida State is just going to be stuck with $15M in network money a year for a while in a landscape where schools with comparable or better records are doing handstands if they get $4M. If it and its conference brethren need more money, they can still bring in some meaningful revenue with consistent success.
Do that, and the next deal will be different.
If you don’t want to stick around in that league, winning a few games would be helpful in attracting a bid to leave, too. So we’re back to the same thing.
Control what you can control. Play to your strengths. Be a Mensch.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 10, 2012 6:08 AM EST up reply actions
This
In reality you are going to get more shared revenue from sending more teams and having them going deeper in the Mens tournment. If I remember right each unit of the tournment is worth about a million dollars. We just added 2 teams that should be good for 3 to 4 units a year.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Feb 8, 2012 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Good point
Which would be an additional $285,000.
So both a BCS Bowl and a long tournament run are a nice chunk, but neither is a game changer.
True, but there are very few game changers.
Success comes from winning one game at a time, in this as in most things. The wins add up.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 5:11 AM EST up reply actions
$15 million a year...
would be a game changer for most athletic programs. It would sure pay for an indoor practice facility.
And while ‘not all revenue is up to a network to provide,’ we wouldn’t have to RELY on those sources. Even if FSU going to start hawking Famous Osceola cookies and Wescott Water bottles, and those numbers grow incredibly, they won’t come close to a steady $15 million. Revenue from a conference’s TV rights is in ink, not ether.
I guess there's only one thing to do about the ACC...win the whole ****ing thing.
Here's the site that I found the BCS/March Madness comparison on
They’re about even for the ACC as of a couple years ago.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
Conference payouts are about more than just TV money
In addition to money from the TV deals ACC schools share bowl money, NCAA tourney money, ACC tourney money, ACC championship money and a few other odds and ends. As Jim points out basketball will bring in more NCAA money now for starters. These total monies don’t get as much pub as the TV deals but are one reason the ACC had a higher pay out than the SEC until 2009 when the new SEC TV deal kicked in.
Don't get much pub
because they don’t add up to very much..
You are wrong
NCAA tourney money and bowl money can sure add up. Have you ever actually seen the breakdown from where the SEC and ACC get their money for shared revenues?
I linked it below
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/07/27/bcs-payouts-vs-march-madness-payouts/
It can add up, but the difference between major conferences is not to a significant enough amount to make up an 8 digit deficit in TV money per school. The football bowl money is probably a million or so per school in favor of the SEC (once you add in the secondary bowls (Cotton, Outback, Chick Fil-A, Capital One, etc.) outside the BCS), and the basketball difference two years ago was about 3 million for the ACC, about a quarter million per school.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
It can, but that is just for the Post season revenues no?
Football Regular Season Revenues dominate Basketball revenues…
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 10, 2012 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
Again, you're really not understanding the reality at ALL.
Yes, the ACC could have come out a lot worse, if we and Clemson had left.
However, we would have come out much better. Yay ACC!
I’m not rooting for the success of the ACC at our own expense.
Hey, it could be worse.
Over at the Cemetery Hill blog they’re dreaming of us joining the Big 12- with Clemson.
I would LOVE for this to happen….The Big 12 would become the Big 14 and break into East/West divisions.
Big 14 East: Clemson, FSU, WV, L’ville, ISU, KU, KSU
Big 14 West: Texas, OU, TTU, OSU, TCU, BU, and BYU
Just imagine the fun.
LOVE IT! Hope it happens!
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 1:25 AM EST up reply actions
I don't like the balance of the divisions
They should take Miami instead of Louisville, and switch BYU and ISU. I’m not saying it’s the best thing for the university, but that’s light years better than ACC football. But obviously I wouldn’t really like playing outside our geography like that. But purely from a competitive and TV money standpoint, that’s attractive.
I agree that’s not going to happen and probably shouldn’t. However, I would like to see this rumor get some serious legs. Nothing would earn us an SEC invite faster than the prospect of Texas and Oklahoma bringing their show into the heart of SEC territory every year.
I'd be fine with that balance
We should do pretty well with that set up.
Such a rumor, however, might actually help with the ACC negotiations – the B12 has the side deal with Fox, so ESPN would potentially lose some FSU/etc. games.
You are right, this rumor could help negotiations
ESPN/ABC has a big investment in the ACC and should want to see the ACC stay together as is to keep all FSU games. This article is hardly the final word. And remember when the new ACC TV deal was reached we were in the middle of a bad recession.
I hope it helps. To lighten the mood a bit...
…here’s an article you’ll enjoy for sheer comedy value. It’s Andy Staples, writing in Sports Illustrated last spring about Big East commissioner John Marinatto. He tells of the Big East’s newfound stability and of Marinatto speaking from a ‘position of power’ and having ‘the upper hand’.
You know Staples wishes he had this one back.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/05/26/big-east-rebirth/
Even so, after the laughs, there’s food for thought.
There’s a big risk involved in a conference holding out, driving a hard bargain and daring a major media player like ESPN to walk away. You’d better be sure all conference members are on board with the strategy.
It’s also interesting to read what Staples and Marinatto say about about successive conference contracts ‘resetting the market’. The ACC deal ‘reset the market’, then the Pac-12 deal reset it again.
We are in a situation where the market gets reset constantly. In such an environment, leagues sign a deal and celebrate, then feel short-changed only months later. They expand and hope renegotiations will shake loose some riches that the initial agreement did not.
A media agreement binding a conference for over a decade—that’s a long time to go in such an environment. Over the length of the contracts, almost every school involved gets short-changed. Everyone is going to be doing what we’ve done in the ACC and SEC: make a deal, plan for the increased payouts, then look at a neighbour’s deal inked a few weeks later and say ‘Hey! Wait a minute—!’
The only cure for it, it seems, is for conferences to get more revenue that works like royalties. That, or just have all the appealing TV teams jump into a few well-compensated mega-conferences to form a cartel.
Of course, all this talk assumes the golden college sports goose will keep laying. That’s not a sure bet. If the goose slows down or stops, everything changes.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 11, 2012 12:40 AM EST up reply actions
thought we had a potential sugar daddy?
heir to throne at Berkshire Hathaway and all that?
"Defensive lineman and its depth separates southern football from rest of the country".
How about Sara Blakely! Founder of Spanx clothing?
She could be our Nike/Underarmor savior! Plus, some of our players—notably most of the O Linemen—could use a man bra!
That guy is a nice feather in FSU's cap,
but he’s not a magnate that can bankroll an entire athletics program at this point in his career. Maybe bring him up again in 20 years or so.
It’s not like you own all of their shares as the CEO. He’s got to earn his keep before his salary and options will grow into Buffett-level wealth.
Adopt Florida State, Mr Gates. You know you want to.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 1:27 AM EST up reply actions
ESPN's Side
I’m not going to get worked up over a news story that reads like a press release for ESPN’s offer. When the sides are still negotiating and “anonymous sources” come out to form the basis of a story as to why the deal being proposed would be so good for the ACC, then I’m guessing it isn’t the ACC’s side of the story (“That would help the ACC close a fairly significant annual revenue gap with other major conferences.” “That’s a much more competitive position financially for the ACC.”).
I’ll wait to hear more before I pass judgment.
by whodoes on Feb 8, 2012 1:39 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
^ Yes.
If this is the best we can get, I’ll take it, as I said. But think $15M per school is under market value and I want the league to push that.
This can go to non-binding arbitration, where the market value of the ACC population and footprint would be considered. Also, the exclusive nature of the ESPN contract has its own monetary value and the league deserves fair compensation for that.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 5:15 AM EST up reply actions
LouC
Let’s say Swofford gets it right during this negotiation and actually gets some TV rights back, 2nd tier, 3rd tier, availability of ACCN, whatever it’s called.
How does that impact FSU specifically? Would the money from 2nd and 3rd tier rights be distributed evenly throughout the conference or do the popular TV teams get a bigger chunk?
There are different ways it can be done
The third tier rights could revert to the individual teams like the SEC and Big 12 does. Any team can make the best deal they can.
Or, they can agree to pool their third tier rights and sell them as a package or use them to create a network. The conference has to decide.
It’s hard to know what would be better for FSU, there would have to be studies done. My guess is that day one, FSU could probably make a deal for their rights that would be better than their share of a pooled deal or ACC network. However, the long term potential is probably with a network, or a pooled deal with shared ad revenues. I really don’t know the right call, the accountants would have to be put on it.
Just to give you an idea, when you see ACC football or basketball on Raycom, or basketball on Fox Sports Florida, those are third tier rights, and those stations are paying ESPN for those, not the ACC. Those stations lease those from ESPN. No matter how valuable those rights might get in the next 12 years, ESPN reaps the benefits of that.
Something I forgot...
The Big 10 and Pac 10 reserve third tier rights for the conference. So it can be done either way to good profit, if you have the product.
The other thing is, there isn’t always a better deal to be made. People have to realize that the ACC product just isn’t that valuable compared to other conferences. It covers a lot of markets, and that’s it’s saving grace, however in the markets that are college sports crazy it’s the second class conference, and in the markets where it doesn’t have competition, there is little interest. They have the state of North Carolina all the way. They have the DC metro area, but that’s kind of a push in terms of college/pro interest. And the state of South Carolina is a push.
They cover a lot of ground, but outside of North Carolina they aren’t in a particularly strong demand for their programming. Hell, if it was based on markets we’d all be looking up to the Big East years ago.
I’m just not sure how successful you’re going to be getting an ACC network on cable systems in NY, PA and MASS. Just read how hard it has been for them to get the Longhorn Network on in freaking Texas. They’ll eventually get it on, but it’s going to take time and money and it’s difficult. If you can’t get the Longhorn Network on Texas cable systems, how long do you think it’s going to take to get the ACC on in Manhattan?
If it takes 6, 7, 8 years to get it on, that’s all that time you have to incur the costs of running a network. It’s an extremely uphill battle.
I’m tough on Swofford, simply based on the end results. But I don’t think he could have “just done a better deal”. This conference is not well positioned to monetize.
Giving ESPN an exclusive rights deal merits fair compensation. Either that, or some rights to revert to the league. I hope the ACC pushes on this.
I’d rather let other leagues do their bargaining first, if that can be arranged.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 9, 2012 5:24 AM EST up reply actions
I believe that your valuation of the ACC is wishfull thinking
And that is one of the problems. The value is what the market sets it at, not what we think it should be.
Yes and no
I have read that one of the keys to expansion (for all confs, not just ours) is market POTENTIAL. Not only who is currently watching, but who might be convinced to watch. I agree with Abiaka that the ACC’s markets deserve some extra consideration, if not as much as he says.
It’s bargaining. I take it for granted that the league’s asking price may not be the league’s getting price.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 11, 2012 12:53 AM EST up reply actions
Really? The value is what the market sets it at?
Wow. Whoda thunk?
: ^
The market has been reset since the ACC negotiated its current deal with ESPN. And the league has added value since then. As I’ve said, I’ll take $15M if that’s the best we can get. I wasn’t the one out on the ledge over that. But is it? I think the league is in a position to push for a bigger payout or the reversion of some broadcast rights.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 11, 2012 12:51 AM EST up reply actions
I soooo hope we get a better deal and keep a few rights.
I think Sailor mentioned above that some of the minor sports are pretty big in the NE – even the BTN shows some hockey games, men’s gymnastics, and stuff. Not a ton of it, but some – and the ACC’s minor sports products are awesome. And would likely get better with tv exposure (you don’t think the B10 uses the network in recruiting?).
The digital network is a start, but I want us to be thinking about the future. Maybe now isn’t the time (Lou said he has doubts), but I do think an ACCN should be in the future. And if FSU’s next five years in FB are what we think they should be, then the conf’s football profile will take a step forward. Who knows, maybe to gain a little more interest in the pro-driven NE we should start promoting ourselves as the training grounds for the professionals (based on our draft #s, etc.).
Those other sports are only filler.
WIthout football driving the cable companies to pick up the network, they wouldn’t be aired. ACC does not have that luxury.
Bingo.
This is why the Big Ten Network is a raging success and why the Longhorn Network can’t get on in Austin.
The Big Ten took enough football rights that even Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State were faced with 3-4 games on their new network that no one had in August. That meant that when Ohio State traveled to Indiana and it wasn’t on the former ESPN syndicated channel in Ohio, a few million people got pissed off and complained. The next week, when Michigan played Northwestern, half of the state of Michigan called and started screaming. By the start of the 2nd football season after the creation of the BTN, it was on pretty much every major cable and satellite provider in the midwest.
Texas has one, maybe two football games to show. I love college football as much as anyone, but if a weekend where FSU was only doing PPV or some super selective channel that 8 people get, I’d probably just view it as a bye week because A) the game is probably not against anyone good , 2) It’s only one game and D) I’m probably not going to be interested in paying for a channel that I only watch once every few months.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
Bingo
Nobody in NY watches Syracuse now when it’s on ESPN. Do you really think they’re ringing their cable operators off the hook when they don’t find the Syracuse-Akron opener?
Many people really have no idea how irrelevant college football is up there.
What about basketball?
Plus with the LHN one problem seems to be – despite its status as THE Texas school – the one-team nature of the network. That’s probably why it added some UTSA games this year. I don’t imagine UTSA games are that much more in demand than a lot of ACC teams.
Didn’t I read somewhere just how few viewers need to tune into a bowl game for it to make money? Whatever the number was, it still seemed more than would tune in to watch Temple vs. Wyoming. Sure bowls have less competition, but they are also aired during a low tv season.
I admit I’m optimistic about an ACCN – and it would probably take a while to get on. But I do think it would eventually do well for the conference. I still think the ACC could offer enough original programming (not just sports) to build an audience.
by Invictus13 on Feb 9, 2012 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes. That's a big difference with cable.
Cable operates by different rules than broadcast. What matters is not how many people watch. What matters is how many people subscribe.
Cable needs content. Variety counts, year-round inventory counts. Leagues that can do that have an edge in cable over one-dimensional leagues. Leagues that start out with support in large urban centres have an edge over those that don’t.
And I like what you say about the ACC being able to go places beyond sports. Florida State has a great film school…
These universities have tremendous resources.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 11, 2012 1:20 AM EST up reply actions
So you wouldn't pay a total of $1.20 to $9.60 annually to watch some FSU sports?
Why not swing less than ten bucks a year to support our conference, help it get on cable/satellite, and get to watch more FSU sports (maybe even the circus)?
The channel would cost somewhere between 10¢ and 80¢ a month. I’d pay that to help the ACC close the money gap with the SEC. For less than a single outing at the theater, I’d get to watch as much or as little ACC games as I wanted, 24/7.
by Invictus13 on Feb 9, 2012 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If I could order it solo, sure.
I’m outside of the ACC footprint, though. Based on the other conference networks, that means it will be somewhere up in the 600’s and require me to pay an additional $10-25 per month for a sports pack that will include things like the NBA network, Fox Soccer Channel, Fox College Sports East/Central/Pacific, CBS College Sports, that I probably won’t get much use out of, given that cable/satellite is an absurd cost now.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
Since when do you get to pay for channels like that?
It’s not whether you would pay $1 more a month, it’s whether you could convince everyone in your city to pay that. To watch FSU-Chattanooga and the Leonard Hamilton show.
What you are talking about is raising everyone’s cable bills by $1 for programming that will be watched by between 2% (NY, Mass) and 20% (UNC) of the population. How much do you think it takes for a vocal minority to get it carried? In NC, yes. In Florida, eventually. In NY? Forever.
Or as Kazoonole says, it get’s pushed to a sports tier, which drastically reduces the revenue potential. Even fans are unlikely to pay $120/yr for the low-level programming they would get.
And what happens to the program as we're fighting to get it on the air,
with $10M, $12M, $14M shortfalls adding up every year while we’re waiting on the ACCN to ramp up?
Meanwhile, Auburn upgrades its team jet, adds 60" flat screens and lounge chairs to all of its lockers, and hires individual tutors for all student athletes with the extra $50M they’ve collected.
At some point, kids are not going to be swayed by the Tallahassee night life.
Good point
Although I’ve seen providers and packages before that let you add individual channels. I’m not sure how widespread that is, and whether that becomes more frequent over time. The BTN is offered outside its footprint – is that to individuals or to cable providers (in packages?)? My impression was that individuals could get it (could be inaccurate).
Also, we might consider the fact that if the Pac system is successful enough that the SEC and/or B12 want to follow suit with networks, there would almost certainly become a NCAA Networks Package (or something) that would include all the conference networks. That may or may not be good for us, depending on if providers would pay the same amount per conf or if they, too, would pay different values to each conf. (Or, possibly, there would be regional packages and the prices would be based on the region of the subscriber: in the West, more goes to Pac; in the MW, more goes to BTN; in the NE, more to the ACC.)
The ACC footprint helps here.
A league that covers the entire eastern seaboard is a league whose cable channel will be offered as a choice to subscribers, one way or the other.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 11, 2012 1:23 AM EST up reply actions
Football is important no question but look at the NFL v Big Ten network
The Big Ten Network is in more households in the footprint then the NFL network is in the footprint and this is with teams like the Bears, Packers, Colts, Steelers, and Eagles. If I am not mistaken the Big Ten is not that far off on a national basis compared to the NFL network either. Its having almost year round sports that landed it on the basic tier.
The cable providers are sick of the sports networks at this point especially ESPN. ESPN is now getting about 7 dollars for the family of networks which is close to 30 percent of the whole sale cost when only about 5 to 10 percent watch the channels. To give you an idea on who expensive the sports networks are the TNT, FX and USA of the world are less then 2 dollars and even their bundle packages are less than 4 dollars.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
Of course the others are filler
But the BTN shows a ton of FB replays along with some of the other programming. If the minor sports generated absolutely no ad revenue, I bet they’d put on yet another Big Ten Classic.
SOME people watch the other stuff. I would watch FSU tennis, volleyball, sand volleyball, soccer, etc. Parents would watch. Potential recruits would watch some, too. I’m not saying these sports would drive the network, but they’d be better filler than the BTN’s in many cases. Besides the ESPN family airs similar programming at times. There is SOME interest in it.
I agree that FB drives it and that the ACC is weak. That’s why I said Lou might be right about now not being the time.
Minor sports are NOT big in the NE
Otherwise there would already be channels showing them. Yes, lacrosse is slightly more popular there than other parts of the country, but it’s still incredibly negligible and not viable on television.
The only thing that somewhat supersedes that is school spirit or loyalty, of which the Northeast has none.
LOL. "Big" in a relative way. Compared to in the South.
ESPNU televises the Ivy League’s LAX championship (or, it did last year; not sure about 2012), and the NCAA Championship.
13/14 Syracuse men’s LAX games will be televised this year, one on ESPN, 5 on ESPNU, the rest on TWCS/SNY (local station, I guess?).
Last year ESPN/mostly ESPNU televised multiple LAX matches played by Duke, Virginia, Maryland, Syracuse, Notre Dame (if we can lure them, heh heh), UNC.
Regional Fox and CBS stations aired women’s soccer matches involving ACC teams like Virginia, UNC, ND (still hoping), and the ACC championships.
BC hockey was aired NESN, CBS and NBC Sports Networks (available on DirecTV, Dish Network).
Etc. I don’t think there is a HUGE market for any of these things, but there are clearly audiences or other stations/networks wouldn’t waste their time/money. With the number of ACC schools, alumni, etc., I think it could generate enough interest in its first 3 years.
by Invictus13 on Feb 9, 2012 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So you the future of ACC network relies on filler sports when, because nobody will be demanding it in the NE area for the big ticket items Cuse/Pitt/BC football?
Greatness courts failure.
Damn, I sound illiterate today.
So, the future of the ACC network relies on filler sports, because nobody will be demanding in the NE area the big ticket items, Cuse/Pitt/BC football?
Greatness courts failure.
I think a lot of people on the Eastern seaboard will be willing to subscribe to...
…an interesting, year-round offering of sports from colleges in their region (and time zone).
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 11, 2012 1:28 AM EST up reply actions
Well....
I plan on winning the lottery soon and will help out. You’re welcome
by ganole10 on Feb 8, 2012 6:39 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
LouC, question for you...
How do you expect FSU to compete in the SEC?
In the SEC we would have 6 or 7 schools ahead of us on the resource ladder. We would be somewhere between UGA/UT and USCe. Are you OK with our football program being on that level?
Everyone here agrees that FSU has inherent advantages in terms of recruiting grounds and tradition that can make up for SOME resource shortfalls.
We are going to have to be smart about how we compete regardless of conference affiliation until we have built up an alumni base that will rival other powers… a LONG run scenario if there ever was one.
The immediate issue is that we are talking about allowing the shortfall to expand by a MASSIVE amount via media revenues if we get left behind courtesy of our conference affiliation. If, however, we are able to attach ourselves to a top tier football conference (including the ACC if it adds a ND level partner), then we are assured to be at least in the realm of competitive finances, and we have proven that we can make that work. If we do not, then I genuinely believe we will fall out of relevance.
by arrdub on Feb 9, 2012 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This is entirely speculatory
“The immediate issue is that we are talking about allowing the shortfall to expand by a MASSIVE amount via media revenues if we get left behind courtesy of our conference affiliation. If, however, we are able to attach ourselves to a top tier football conference (including the ACC if it adds a ND level partner), then we are assured to be at least in the realm of competitive finances, and we have proven that we can make that work. If we do not, then I genuinely believe we will fall out of relevance.”
We haven’t even seen the numbers yet. I have a feeling the ACC and SEC TV deals are going to be closer than many here expect…
It's not speculative in that the 3rd tier rights already put us WAY behind.
And it’s not speculative because the last time the SEC negotiated a deal it received a landmark contract far beyond what any other conference had received, and the brand has only grown since that time and further deepened its ties with ESPN.
I’d say it’s much more of a leap of faith to assume that they will NOT get a large increase.
Lou would be the best resource for estimates on that,
but my impression is that their average school is several million beyond us even AFTER our renegotiation and BEFORE theirs.
This is correct
they are at 17M, we would be at 14M-15M. Not a problem.
Unfortunately, that’s before their renegotiation, and a potential SEC Network. And before the schools individually sell third tier rights.
We will likely trail schools like Kentucky and Ole Miss $22-15M, and schools like UF, UGA, AL, etc by a margin of about $30M-15M.
Their current deal is $10 million a year for 10 years. This is like year 3, I think.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
Found a link to this:
It’s 8.2 mil per year, which is a ton. I’m not sure what’s FSU 3rd tier rights would sell for, maybe 5 or so. This is something the ACC should certainly push for in their negotiation and would help even the playing field quite a bit.
6-7 Ahead of us in strictly the financial ladder
but recruiting grounds/tradition definitely are part of resources IMO. If we joined the SEC I would have us 4-5? For sure behind UF, Bama, LSU but then tied with UGA and maybe Auburn is around there too. I couldn’t see us ever getting passed by tennessee, usce, arkansas etc if we are in their conference.
Ok, so if we are 4/5 in our own conference, that means we are rarely going to be competing for MNCs
I think UGA is a fair comparison to us financially and recruiting-wise.
This is where the speculation begins.
I think it is not speculative in any manner to say we’re sunk if we’re not in the same ballpark for revenues as our rival programs. That’s why “pegging” our revenues – as Lou so aptly phrased it – to a group like the SEC becomes such an important consideration.
No one would claim there is a dollar-for-dollar pecking order beyond that; other variables do come into play. But you have to be in the same ballpark to play the game.
Then how does the SEC play the game with the Big 10?
They won’t even be in the same universe in terms of revenue…
(not saying I agree with this line of thinking, just curious…)
I don't know if that's an accurate assumption or not (SEC vs. B1G),
but if that did pan out then the proximity to the best recruiting grounds would be central.
Most recruits are going to end up within a couple hundred miles of their homes, so the schools in your proximity are the ones you need to compete with. That means the SEC for us.
The Big Ten recruiting ground is very fertile
Maybe not quite on the level of the SEC, but there are also more powerhouse teams in the SEC, so perhaps it evens out.
With the money expect the basketballification of football recruting
Basketball recruting is a national instead of state or regional matter. With the resources the Big Ten is going to have (especially the big 5 Wisconisn, Michigan, tOSU, Nebraska and Penn St) they will be able to get who they want from anywhere.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
I think long term, the Big 10 runs away from the SEC revenue wise
The demographics of the SEC just don’t add up the way they do in the Big 10, and I don’t think they will be able to keep up.
However, it’s not nearly as crucial whether you can compete with schools in other regions. There are factors of whether, recruit dispersal, culture, etc that mean that the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 10 are not exactly competing against each other head to head. There are plenty of kids that just aren’t going to go across country no matter how nice the facilities are.
To much a lesser extent, coaching is affected by geography as well. There are many coaches that can coach anywhere, but there are also plenty that play in a certain region. For example, I’m not too worried about Washington coming after Damien Craig, or Eddie Gran for that matter. I’m sure as hell worried about Auburn or LSU.
So while you don’t want to be outpaced by anyone financially, it’s a much more dangerous problem for us to be lapped by UF and UGA than it is for UF to be outspent by Michigan.
If we're talking long term (and not just over the next ten years)...
Then the ACC has more long term TV revenue potential than the SEC. The SEC has a couple big things going for them, namely a lot of storied programs playing in their league, and the most rabid fan base, but the ACC has practically locked up the entire Eastern seaboard.
Swofford won’t be around forever, and sooner or later the ACC will leverage the amount of TV sets in their foot print into their own TV network.
by mcg3934 on Feb 10, 2012 10:44 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I personally don't think TV Sets won't matter if nobody demands the product
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 10, 2012 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
I personally don't think TV Sets will matter if nobody demands the product
I personally don’t think TV Sets will matter if nobody demands the product
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 10, 2012 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
NYC
NYC still has more people watching football on saturday then any other market.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Feb 10, 2012 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But not more than the rest of the country combined
And they’re watching the same as everyone else…the SEC.
They aren’t watching Syracuse, BC and UCONN.
In this the best year the SEC ever had
The boost came mostly from 2 games a higher then normal CCG and the record Bama/LSU regular season game other than this the ratings where about normal.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
I'm just saying those NY households aren't watching
Syracuse and Pitt. They’re watching Alabama, LSU, FSU, Texas, just like everyone else.
Because the SEC has the best teams
What about when FSU rejoins the elite? We’ll be a big draw, and connected to teams in that area (unlike the SEC).
Now if we can get CU, UNC, UM or someone else to step up…
You'll be asking FSU to get back to the elite
with 50% of the resources or less of the other elites…
When FSU was elite before, the ACC had the highest per team payout.
We won’t be elite with a massive resource deficit.
by LouC on Feb 10, 2012 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Partially
Though we reached elite status and maintained it for five years before joining the ACC.
I think we can do it anyway for the near future: decent money, easy schedule, Florida recruiting, great tradition/history. Whether we’ll maintain that 10 years and $100M more for rivals down the road… well, that’s another thing entirely. The key might be if we can outlast the ACC contract and be great when it comes up again.
Agree. The games we can win. We just need to do it.
When it comes to money, we’re OK. Take what the defense gives us and play for field position.
; )
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 11, 2012 1:40 AM EST up reply actions
If money bought championships...
…we’d never had been in the elite in the first place. It would be Texas holding the longest bowl streak in the nation right now, and Notre Dame would have routed us in the Champs Bowl.
Money is important, but you are dangerously close just assuming that whoever has the most money wins the most games. Not so.
That’s no more true of money than it is of recruiting classes. (But on that subject, I notice Florida State is pretty competitive. The recruits don’t seem to mind playing Syracuse.)
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 11, 2012 1:37 AM EST up reply actions
If money bought championships back then..
You assume college football is the same now as it was in 80s and 90s.
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 12, 2012 9:00 AM EST up reply actions
Having money doesn't guarantee national championships
But not having money guarantees you won’t.
Remember, in FSU’s previous dominant run in the ACC, the ACC had the highest per team payout. That helped a lot.
It was a way different game then anyway.
Tell that to Boise State...
Let’s say they joined the Big 12 (I realize the Big 12 would probably never invite them). Sure, they would make more money via the Big 12 TV deal, but they would immediately fall off the national radar because they would be losing 4-5 games every year.
Eventually perhaps
Last year, Boise was a legit team. I think they would have lost 3 games in the SEC and less elsewhere. They didn’t beat Georgia with trick plays or in a shootout. They pretty much shut down the Bulldog offense except for a couple broken plays. Georgia had an 80 yard run and 55 total yards for the rest of the first half. I was pretty impressed with their defensive line. Whether they can maintain that level of defensive talent and effort now that those guys have graduated is the question.
MAC schools can pump out NFL caliber offensive skill players routinely. It’s moving past that to the offensive and defensive lines that separates contenders and pretenders.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
This
The product is not in demand anywhere, and especially not in the NE
Demand is certainly not as high in the NE
But it will grow. College football is a booming sport and the NE market has the most room for growth.
How will it grow? Pitt, BC and Syracuse don't have sufficient alumni or fan bases
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 10, 2012 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
I think we're screwed in the short term
But there is hope for the long term. Factors change. CBB could get more popular. The ACC might make a dent with tourneys in MSG. And who’s to say in 15 years soccer won’t be a third popular college sport, and actually making money? (Not that I expect this.) The ACC rocks in soccer, esp women’s.
If FSU goes on another run, and we always get high ratings, that could generate some ACC buzz.
If things change – CFB becomes more popular in the N, another college sport gets really popular, etc. – the ACC is in a great geographic position. Whether anything like that WILL happen… I dunno.
Yes, hope, and geographically there is potential,
Given geographic potential the BigEast is the real king and the ifs you pin the hope too are too great…
College Soccer being demanded by Americans to watch(let alone every member program having a team), Baseball popularity spiking all unlikely. And then if they do you still have no alumni in those areas. If BC or Cuse women soccer doesn’t get on TV who will bitch and complain?
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 10, 2012 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
Also depends on the ACC's make up
We might land ND and Rutgers (or UConn, whoever). That would help add voices.
Plus if FSU and 1-2 other ACC teams can step up in FB, that changes things a lot. Why is the SEC so popular nationally? It has the good teams right now. uf for all its “brand name” pulled some really low ratings this past year because it was 6-6. As others have pointed out, the NE has a lot of CFB viewers due to sheer population numbers – even if the % of population that watches is a lot lower.
Plus, I still think there is a decent chance that providers will one day offer the CFB Package – which will include all the conf networks. Etc.
All I’m arguing is that the ACC has potential. I’m not guaranteeing that any minor sport will become immensely popular, we’ll dominate the CFB ranks and convert the NE, etc. But we have potential, on multiple fronts.
But would I jump at the SEC or a $35M B12 offer? Probably without much thought (though I’m cautious, so I would think about it.)
That is the thing about the SEC
The brand is the SEC more so then the schools. Bama is the only real tier 1 brand they have. UF which should be one (in the pocket book clearly are one) just has yet to transend to the “brand” level when it comes to ratings.
The ACC has 3 brands that can draw a rating bigger then their record with FSU, Miami and UNC. UNC is a true sleeping giant if they ever get their stuff stright they are going to be huge.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
Which would probably be great for us (UNC)
Great for the ACC, and in the opposite division to minimize the impact on us.
That's a great question
It’s not going to be easy. But we’ve always been at a resource disadvantage to many of those schools. They key is we would be pegged to them. I would definitely take being pegged to 20-25% less than UF, UGA, etc in perpetuity. That is a good deal for us. We have some recruiting advantages, we have some glamour advantages when we’re good, and we have plenty of ground we can make up in boosters.
I am very confident that we can be in the mix with those schools with a small deficit. I am not confident we can compete with a massive deficit, that can keep rising.
Remember, these disadvantages that I predict will knock us down a peg are going to knock the entire conference down a peg. No, we’re not going to start getting beat for recruits by Kentucky. But North Carolina and Maryland will. Everyone is going to be worse than they were, and the conference is already bad. I’d rather win fewer SEC championships than more ACC championships.
Really?
I’d rather win more ACC championships, which means we are going to BCS bowls, which probably also means we will be competing for more National Championships.
You aren't following the trends
The BCS bowl structure is on the way out. The SEC and B1G are not going to allow the current system that limits them to two participants, while unworthy Big East and ACC schools get spots.
by LouC on Feb 9, 2012 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Complete speculation
This scenario is no more likely than a playoff scenario where the ACC champion gets an automatic seed.
Not speculation
You’re not paying attention. It’s extremely unlikely the BCS continues in it’s current form when the BCS contract runs out. Do some reading up on it…
Again, complete speculation.
The next step in CFB may very well be a playoff format where conference champions automatically qualify. If so, FSU is in a great position as being the top dog in their conference as opposed to 5/6 in another one.
Interesting tidbit--slightly off topic.
But I Googled “New ACC TV contract” today and Tomahawk Nation was the third hit. Nice work, people! I’m sure Bud & company love that.
Another item to discuss -- why ND can't be added to the ACC and why this is a double foul against FSU.
Want to add another wrinkle to this conversation to make sure it is considered. The stumbling block in adding Notre Dame to the ACC is apparently the ACC presidents’/institutions’ commitment to “equal partners” in terms of revenue sharing.
I think this should probably be any FSU supporter’s biggest single criticism of the ACC administration. As the premier brand in the conference in the highest revenue generating sport, FSU is already the party that loses the most as a result of this arrangement. The fact that this is also keeping ND out of the conference and thereby threatening its viability as a 1st tier football league makes it all the more harmful to us.
if we’re committed to staying in the ACC, we need to be committed to re-writing the rules to make the conference viable. That means allowing the larger revenue generators to receive a greater share of funds — be it us, Notre Dame, Clemson, or whoever else is expected to carry the conference’s water in the primary sport.
I'm pretty much with your opinion
However I’m not sure that’s the only or biggest stumbling block. If the day came when that was the only thing keeping ND out of the ACC, then I definitely think you work out a deal. The ACC needs ND more than ND needs the ACC, at least for now.
The only thing I’m intractible about when it comes to ND is that they must play a full conference slate, no partial football schedules. After that, everything’s on the table for discussion.
I may be overstating about "only" or "biggest,"
but the reality is that joining the ACC would undoubtedly be a huge revenue hit for ND unless that circumstance is lifted, so it does serve as a primary impediment.
In the meantime, and independent of ND, it’s also something that hamstrings us in that we might be able to get by in the evolving landscape if, say, the Wake Forests of the league were not given an equal allocation of TV revenues. (Not picking on Wake, just illustrating with a team that doesn’t really get the conference much traction in TV deals.)
Disagree
I have no problem with equal sharing (unless FSU gets a larger share, too). Only difference is if ND is allowed to keep its NBC deal and only those TV revenues, and the other ACC schools split the conf tv revenues. ND would still add 4/5 (away) games a year to the ACC (take away a few conf home games, too, but ESPN gets guaranteed ND games), which should improve our contract.
But I’m not for giving them a larger slice of the pie. That seems to cause Longhorn type problems.
I know we discussed the Big 12 above, but I'm afraid this will be lost
Just wildly unsourced rumors, but take a look at these numbers…
There’s a lot I don’t like about it, but we’d have to look real hard at it. And best of all, I’m pretty sure the SEC would invite us before allowing Texas and Oklahoma into their back yard on a regular basis.
Yeah, this would be nice.
The Big 12 provided Clemson and FSU financial projections with estimates of each member’s share of annual revenues in excess of $35 million per team – more than double ACC projections — after the tier 1 TV contract is reworked.
At that kind of money, you've got to talk
The other downside to this, I guarantee we stop playing UF and Miami every year. Not positive which one gets dropped.
Well, if they go back to 12 teams
They may drop from the 9 conference game round robin to 8 games again. If that happened, Jimbo and most of this site would probably face an uphill battle to justify dropping one of the two for an easier game.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
Maybe that would work
Quite an OOC committment though
Yeah I dont believe that number at all or the story for that matter
Who is paying 35 million for the Big 12? They have 2 teams that are makers and the rest are takers. They are basically saying Texas, OU and FSU are worth over a 100 million a year and Clemson and WVU are over 50 million a year.
With an increase like this and travel is an issue? Please.
Clemson and FSU where on ongoing talks when that place was burning down and Texas was talking to the ACC? Please.
If this is true the Big 10 will see 100 million a year.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
That's what I thought as well Jim
But look into it. Their 1st tier is way undervalued right now, as shown by their Tier 2 contract. When they redo their first tier (even without FSU/CU), it’s going to baloon.
Throw in third tier rights to the school, and $30M+ seems very realistic.
I know it seems crazy, but the numbers seem to add up.
Think that is more their Tier 2 rights being over valued
then their Tier 1 being undervalued. The Tier 2 rights where a patch to keep the conference read keep Texas from joining a conference that would break the bank. I am not saying that NBC would not over pay as they need to do something from turning into the CW but it just seems too crazy for them to get a deal worth more then the SEC and Pac 12. Its not even like the Pac being USC and UCLA and everyone else they at least have the Arizona schools, Washington and Oregon that have some value.
With the Big 12 even with Clemson and FSU its 3 brands big gap Clemson KU decent gap WVU Okie St huge gap everyone else.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
Maybe, but a couple things
The PAC 12 deal would be worth much much more, except for what they withheld for their own network. The $21M that gets talked about with the Pac 12 will probably be much greater when their network gets rolling. So I think in the end the Pac 12 is still going to be ahead of the Big 12.
As for the SEC, I agree there is no way the Big 12 should be worth more than the SEC. But the difference is in a couple years the Big 12 can go to the open market with ESPN, NBC, Fox bidding. The SEC doesn’t have that option. Under that scenario, I could see it getting more than the SEC, even though it’s certainly not worth more.
I am all for this move if there really is 35 million at the end of the rainbow
Don’t get me wrong about that. Hell I was the person that first proposed the FSU and Texas tag team. I just have such a hard time believing these numbers. I thought this was basically the high end of what the Big 10 was going to get. If the money is really there you have to go with it. I would rather take Miami with over Clemson just to work out a deal to set up a Tomahawk Channel with the 3rd tier but what ever there (my thinking being FSU and Miami has a better chance of getting on the air together).
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
I'd like to see Miami as well, preferably WITH Clemson
Otherwise, we stand a good chance of losing one if not both of our in-state rival games.
I also think the prospect of FSU, Clemson AND Miami might be enough to scare up an SEC invite.
Do agree with you, the money sounds insane. But that’s how things seem to be adding up…
IF the money is true
It means the market is entirely being driven by the biggest brands. I would argue if that is the case FSU is best served really being in the Big 12 over the SEC. What the Big 12 lacks in any brand depth at all they make up by having a top 3 brand and OU a top 10 brand. The SEC is strong at the 10 to 25 level brand and 25 to 50 level but only Bama is in that top 10 level with UF right in that area.
Lets be honest with the numbers being thrown around it would be Texas, OU and FSU producing 100 plus percent of it, teams like Clemson, KU and WVU as break even to a slight positive and the rest taking value away.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
I do think there is a point though where you ask when the money runs out
ESPN and Fox had to partner on the PAC 12 deal.
And I 100% agree with you that ESPN has to be reaching some critical mass with cable companies.
Does adding NBC to the mix put enough additional cash into play?
I've been half watching that
Until something slips out that the Big XII schools are moving from selling their rights to the conference for 6 years to a number closer to the 20-30 years that the Big Ten does, I’m going to view it as completely unlikely. You’d have to make Texas/Oklahoma agree that they’re sticking around for the long haul before you get very far in.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
Exactly
The Big 12 schools agreed to equal share of certain TV revenues for 6 years. That screams long term commitment. Let me into that whole ponzi scheme.
by fsujd on Feb 10, 2012 2:23 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's not so much the equal share
It’s the selling all rights to the conference. When you do that, you’re not leaving the conference because you can’t take your TV rights with you elsewhere. It’s why the idea of Penn State joining the ACC was laughable, even ignoring that the Big Ten makes much more per school. They would have to negotiate out of the conference (probably in exchange for their part of the Big Ten Network) or lose their TV until some time in the 2020’s.
It’s the only way at this point you can nail Texas down and make them stay in a conference after the last two years. 6 years is a start. I wouldn’t take a phone call seriously until they signed up for at least 25 years, because outside of UT and OU, the conference is inferior in every way to the ACC.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
by Kazoonole on Feb 10, 2012 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly
Texas is a brand to itself. OU is near the top. Every other team no one that matters wants. Their current 3rd most valuable brand is KU and KU thought they where joining the MWC or Big East 9 months ago. WVU is probably their 4th most valuable team.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
You are right they did sell their rights to the Big 12
I believe Pac 12 may have done the same. I read an interview of Clemson’s AD where he discussed Pac 12 deal and schools basically are in for everything, even their on campus revenue, radio, etc. He also talks about how Pac 12 got perfect storm with ESPN and Fox teaming up to keep NBC out of the picture. Says no talk with Big 12.
have to do the assignement of rights in order for network ownership
Its the cheapest way to gain the equity needed to fund the network. No one is going to loan out the money if USC can leave in 7 years because they don’t like the direction or think they can do better on their own. It also makes dealing with the cable owners easier because they can say well we know we will have Michigan and Penn St for 20 years.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Feb 10, 2012 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Wow.
If this has any real legs to it, those numbers would be tempting. Almost irresistible. And with the LHN, there’d probably be room for some other sort of network, right?
And are the 3rd tier rights are involved with those numbers, or would they be open for teams to work out separate deals?
I suspect that includes all three tiers
But there would be options. Make a deal for our own teir three rights (a la UF). Or, what might be more effective, is combine with Oklahoma, OK St., Clemson, TCU and us to bundle our 3rd tier rights either as a package or the basis of a network. You combine Oklahoma (and recently OK St. and potentially FSU) glamour with the population brought to the table by TCU, FSU, Clemson, and all parties probably offset their weakness.
But my guess is that the $35M has to be an estimate of all rights. It almost has to be.
How do you turn something like that down?
Even though I like the ACC footprint better, you do not walk away from 35M. This would secure FSU’s financial future. Endow all our scholarships and provide for all athletic teams. Covering travel with that money is no issue, plus the way it is setting up there will be several teams in our local. Now if the Big 12 will kick in some of our exit fee…What are we waiting for.
Good point
I’d like to see maybe $1-2 million a year (or more) go into the athletic endowment. Commit to that, compound the interest until the job is done. Take care of all scholarships, even do the coaching salaries, etc. From what I gather, it would take a long time (unless we really upped the deposit), but FSU’d get there one day.
Florida State and Clemson would have to be nice to the ACC on the way out.
They’d probably want to come back in six years.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 11, 2012 2:08 AM EST up reply actions
Here's a fun hypothetical
Let’s say there is some action going on with this Big 12 thing…
Now imagine you’re the SEC…what do you do?
You would really love Virginia Tech and NC State. They bring in totally new media markets without encroaching on current member territory. Letting FSU and Clemson go to the Big 12 theoretically might destabilize the ACC enough to get them to jump.
But there’s no guarantee. While they could certainly use the money, NC State, and to some extent even VT, don’t NEED to be at SEC money level to field a football team their fans can live with. Especially with NC St. winning the conference would satisfy them, and they don’t epect to chase national titles. And I think the VT people are probably smart enough to know they’d be in over their head in the SEC.
Now if you go with that plan, you lose arguably your next two most valuable possibilities, FSU and Clemson, who are getting rich, maybe even richer than you. You’re down to Louisville and Cincinatti or something. Meanwhile you have Texas and Oklahoma and TCU planting flags in Florida and South Carolina.
What do you do if you’re the SEC? Go with your less ideal choice, to keep TX and OK and those schools out of your backyard, and prevent being stuck with your 4th and 5th choices?
Or do you roll the dice that you can score VT and NC St. for your fledgling network?
If this scenario materialized, it would put the SEC in a very interesting and tricky position.
Obviously, this is all still speculation, but I sure like the idea of being the object of two competing conferences. Or three, if the ACC decides they’d like to give us a bigger cut, or can pull some Notre Dame strings.
Interesting thing to think about.
The SEC will never get NCST
NCST has the same board and president as UNC.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
Wow...some of you will run with anything
You do realize this 35 million of Big 12 money that is to secure our future is a figure ginned up on some WVU blogger’s post with absolutely no real source to back it up? You do realize the Big 12 has lost one third of its membership in two years? You do realize the ACC deal has not been finalized and that the linked story is not the gospel? You do realize the SEC will only get the value of what Texas A&M and Missouri bring and not get to renegotiate their whole contract? You do realize the Big 12 and Big East are the two unstable conferences because they practice unequal revenue sharing? FSU will never be in the Big 12.
by fsujd on Feb 10, 2012 2:21 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Let me just reset something here
Since I usually tout the “join the SEC” line, because I think it’s the cleanest, most sensible option. But while I don’t believe in the gentleman’s agreement, I do agree it’s not like it’s totally our choice.
But I don’t want to imply it’s SEC or else. There are other ways to make this right. The only thing I think it NOT an option is to settle on a $14-$15 million a year contract for 15 years.
Here are some possibilities, other than joining the SEC:
1) Big 12 – have to at least consider it for the money, and also as leverage to drive other scenarios
2) Use the threat of leaving for Big 12 or SEC to force the ACC to drive a harder bargain with ESPN. I don’t think it’s totally clear what ESPN might see as it’s best interest, but if it includes an intact ACC, we need to use that. If Abiaka is right and this thing can be pushed all the way to an open market if we play hardball (and I’ve never seen it noted where this is a possibility), then maybe we do
3) Use the threat of a disintigrated ACC to force ND’s hand. I don’t think ND is in any particular hurry to join a conference, but I 100% agree that the ACC is the conference they would join. Does the loss of FSU and Clemson to the Big 12 force their hand? I don’t think so, but the loss of FSU, Clemson and Miami might. Especially if it triggered VT and NC St. to the SEC.
4) Work out a payment distribution that allows the football schools to get paid what they need to compete. This is totally against ACC policy, and is largely credited with breaking up the Big 12. But it’s not exactly the same situation. The ACC doesn’t have a Texas, and the closest it has is UNC, not FSU. In the Big 12, the school with by far the most resources, Texas, was perceived to also benefit the most from unequal sharing. It’s just not the same dynamic in the ACC. FSU is nowhere near the biggest “have” in the conference from an institutional revenue perspective. Schools like UNC, Duke and VA have nothing to fear from extra money for FSU, and a lot to gain by making sure it’s football schools stay relevant.
There’s plenty of things I rail the ACC about, but one thing they are good about is being on the same page and controlling message. If they felt like they needed to make this kind of move, I trust that they could structure it and position it in such away that it didn’t come off as publicly bad as it did for the Big 12.
by LouC on Feb 10, 2012 10:24 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
The problem with the ACC is it has too many smaller schools. Smaller schools mean less alumni. Miami, Duke, BC, and Wake Forest
all have less than 12,000 students. The majority of the other schools have less than 20,000 students. The most of SEC and the big ten schools have 30,000 to 40,000 students. Theres your tv viewing audience.
Some of the SEC schools are smaller then you would think.
17k ole miss, 25k auburn, 21k MSU, vandy 7k, 23k for arkansas. definitely not small schools, but those are not big schools etiher! Only Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, USCe, Kentucky are big.
by Blake Davis on Feb 11, 2012 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I was curious about that point so I Wikipedia'd it.
UK: 27,209
USCe: 29,597
UT: 27,523
UGA: 34,885
LSU: 30,000
AUB: 20,446
Duke, Miami and BC all have well over 12,000 students.
FSU: 40,838
UMD: 37,641
NCSU: 34,767
VaTech: 30,739
UNC: 29,390
UVA: 20,554
GaTech: 20,487
CU: 19,453
UM: 15,657
Duke: 14,756
BC: 14,640
WF: 6,840
Pitt Has 28,823 and Syracuse has 20,407
That’s a LOT of students!
Notable from a tweet about this years ratings:
@chaddscott:
Average TV viewers per game by conference 9/1-11/30 2011:
SEC 4.4M
B1G 3.3M
ACC 2.6M
Big12 2.3M
Pac-XX 2.1M
BE 1.9M
Obviously this is with 2011 conference alightments, but we should most deifnitely be commanding more money than at least the PAC.
by jmnpb996 on Feb 10, 2012 11:24 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Good stat
Also shows you why markets only take you so far.
Would be interesting to see the demographic profile of the viewership.
ACC profile would compare very well against SEC & Big 12, I’d wager.
Yes
I touched on it below. I don’t have the numbers but would imagine the ACC is probably second or third (behind B1G and around Pac) when it comes to advanced/professional degrees. Living alumni is where the ACC is going to hurt. This can be made up of being the major brand in DC area (money area).
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Feb 10, 2012 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I disagree - in the ACC's case, it's a stat that helps make the case for more money than 3rd place
ACC is already a very solid base, and is opening into new markets, and has national brands that could have appeal in those new markets.
We should command money equivlanet to B1G in my opinion. B1G has saturated their market, and has little room for growth. SEC is an untouchable powerhouse, especially if they can parlay Texas markets into viewership.
ACC has a strong SE, mid atlantic base, and is expanding markets into NE. NE market is thoroughly untapped, because the BE is by and large composed of garbage. There is a lot more CFB watched in NE than people realize. There just aren’t fans of regional teams because of the diverse group of people moving into NE and the low quality of the teams.
ACC is a conference with a lot of upside relative to the B1G, yet already has strong viewership. Really should be second only to the SEC
by jmnpb996 on Feb 10, 2012 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Sorry, I can't agree with anything in your post
The Big 10 will blow away the SEC when their deal comes up, I think in 2016.
Agreed
The thing the Big Ten has going for it is that a sizable chunk of their alumni yearly leave the midwest. They have more national appeal because of that. SEC grads don’t often leave the southeast.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
Big 10 has it all
The Big 10 is going to be the king of the hill for the forseeable future. They have the largest living almuni base and will for years down the line. They have a rich alumni base more advanced degrees and professional degrees by far then anyone else. Have much larger cities in the footprint.
This alone means for the same rating the Big Ten game is going to get a higher ad rate then anyone else so a bigger contract. Basically BMW will advertise on a Big Ten game while Kia is on a SEC/Big 12 game.
But, they have a huge ratings on top of this despite playing mostly noon and 3pm games.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Feb 10, 2012 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Absolutely. Over the long term, nobody will outdo the Big 10
Demographics, history, geography make it almost untouchable. It would take some kind of major seismic shift, like Michigan, OSU and Penn St. all getting the death penalty at the same time or something to change the course they’re on.
Well, another 200 years of the current migration trend out of the midwest might do it
That’s not really useful to the current conversation, though.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
Even here they probably win
The sunbelt is already close to or at its limits on the population it can handle due to water supply and the Big 10 has the Great Lakes.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
Not sure the advanced degree thing matters as much
I don’t give money to my grad schools – I give it to FSU. Lots of people are the same, I think. I don’t think there is quite as much loyalty at that stage, and that sports ties are built in undergrad.
Unless you were bringing that up in context of population/television markets
More grad degrees in an area probably means more cable subscriptions (more disposable income).
this
I point this out to say advanced degrees generically means more disposable income to spend on sports.
You go to say Iowa,but go to grad school anywhere else you have more money in the pocket to give to Iowa. If you are an Iowa undergrad you probably end up at grad school at Wisconsin or Michigan anyways living in Chicago at the end.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Feb 10, 2012 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The advertisers like the medium where the viewer can buy high-end
merchandise—bigger, more expensive ads in more expensive spots. Rolex vs Timex—Chevy vs BMW. Higher demographic profile draws better advertiser$.
Population stats
We’ve had some inconsistency in figures about ‘cable households’. My own earlier posts drew on two sources that were apparently counting this figure in different ways. Here’s some raw data from the US Census estimates for 2011.
ACC expansion
New York 19,465,197
Pennsylvania 12,742,886
SEC expansion
Missouri 6,010,688
Texas 25,674,681
Big 12- expansion
West Virginia 1,855,364
Still a lot of variables, of course (out-of-state support, fan intensity, cable services, demographics). But this gives us a solid set of numbers.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 11, 2012 2:27 AM EST up reply actions
PS
The numbers show total population for each state. No attempt is made to define or count ‘households’.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 11, 2012 2:31 AM EST up reply actions
Here's a decent read about TV contracts and the chronology of how things have developed
Slightly slanted, but generally accurate I think
Yeah, ESPN still has a major fight on their hands
The lost the PAC-12 to FOX and I think the Big Ten will sign with FOX as well. How could ESPN undermine those conferences?
It is one thing to throw the hammer down on the Big East, another to the other BCS conferences
by Jonathan Loesche on Feb 10, 2012 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
Agree here
Every sign is the Big Ten going with Fox for the bulk of the package maybe some 2nd tier rights to ESPN. Fox has the Pac, Fox has Big Ten Championship game, Fox is their partner with the BTN. The Pac 12/Big Ten OOC agreement.
ESPN though is getting major pushback from the cable providers. I don’t know if they have enough room to sign another huge blockbuster contract.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
Imagine this scenario
ND joins the ACC, ACC blows up their deal and signs with NBC. Since NBC transformed VS in the “NBC Sports Network” I think they’ll be a big player in the future.
Big 10 goes with Fox. That leaves only the Big 12 with their primary football games on ESPN/ABC.
by Jonathan Loesche on Feb 10, 2012 6:12 PM EST up reply actions
Wow, with this Big 12 rumor mill, I've started reading up more on their TV contract...
They are going to bury the ACC as well in revenue (unless this estimate of the ACC getting $14-15 million is off by 100%).
Right now, their fist tier rights are earning them 50% less than the second tier rights package they just signed. Obviously that is upside down. When they renegotiate their 1st tier rights to be commensurate with the 2nd Tier rights, this “unstable” conference will be absolutely killing. Will be right there with the SEC, B1G, Pac.
The ACC (again, unless they get twice what this report is talking about) is going to be a clear second class league when it comes to money. But still A-Ok in basketball and academics, so there’s that.
Stuff like this makes me doubt ACC leadership
I know we are currently down in football, but to be that far off with our geographic footprint in shocking. Giving up all rights for almost 1/2 price is crazy (and they seem to think they’re “winning” Sheen style in the contracts area).
Awful window
for the rights to come up. They had to do this deal in the worst 16 months for a contract to come up in the last decade or more. Just after the economic meltdown before the Jim Delany announcement that he was looking to expand. The BTN was still having trouble getting on the basic tier. The SEC deal looking to be wildly overvalued. Miami and FSU had their longest combined downturn in 30 years and it was Va Tech plus BC and Wake Forrest and not UNC that took their place.
NBC still under GE ownership and Fox looking to get out of the college football game instead of going full force in it.
There just was not a lot of options on the table at the time. Fox was it and their commitment at the time was just not their. Everyone on this site wanted ESPN over Fox.
The Pac just lucked out on timing. They where after all of this plus they had a Delany’s right hand man. They caught Fox wanting back into the game after seeing the success of the BTN. Even without Scott if the ACC deal came up we would be in line for the Pac deal if the ACC deal came then.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Feb 10, 2012 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The ACC has been star crossed
I don’t think I have seen such a run of bad luck as the ACC has seen in the last 10 years or so. They have done pretty much what its critics claim they don’t do but just have had such bad timing and down right bad luck.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
The only thing the ACC could have done differently was take a chance
And take less money for a shorter term or to retain third tier rights. I am not of the “ACC took a bad deal” department. They got what they were worth in the market.
Good post Jim
Most people forget the ACC contract was negotiated in the worst part of the recession when everybody was pulling back. I think the ACC could have done some things different but if you go back and look at the press prior to the deal being announced nobody thought the ACC would get what it did. Look how much better the Pac 12 did than the SEC just 3 years after they got their “landmark” deal. Timing is everythng in life.
by fsujd on Feb 10, 2012 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I confess I’ve never understood why networks throw as much money as they do at the Big 12.
The league has had two national football brands and one national basketball brand. After that it’s been the sagebrush equivalent of the Big East. And even the Oklahoma Sooners found out what their media value was worth when the school’s president tried wooing the Pac-12 a few months ago.
Lately the networks seem to be paying a premium, willingly, just to hold the league together. Even when its own members aren’t so interested.
Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->
by Abiaka Windclan on Feb 11, 2012 2:42 AM EST up reply actions
QUESTION
Is there anyway to restore the yellow boxes? I accidentally went off the page, and thus all the new posts I had not read are no longer yellow for me.
Don't think so. Sorry.
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 10, 2012 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
LouC/Abiaka
This is as intriguing as the election race!
What have we learned so far? Would love to hear a brief rundown over the points you guys have ceded or bolstered.
'Gentlemen, it is better to have died a small boy than to fumble this football.' John Heisman
The point I've conceded
Is that there was no great reason to hold off the Pitt Syracuse expansion. $2m is $2m.
The point I have not and will not concede, is that at reported numbers, the ACC will earn on the scale of 50% the B1G, PAC, SEC and Big 12. The ACC has signed away ALL tv rights to ESPN, for 12-15 more years, so there is very little room to change this.
FSU can not compete for national titles on half the revenue of everyone else, particularly their regional peers.
Plans for the potential growth of the ACC revenue (making college football popular in the NE, launching a multi-programming network with more than just sports, hoping sports like soccer become national sports, etc) are DECADES away if ever, while the financial disparities will be in place within 24 months.
Waiting for 15 years to reup the next contract as a strategy is foolish, because the ACC is not going to be MORE valuable after 15 years of worse football than it has now. And it will be worse because of the revenue disparity. The Northeast has already rejected sub-par football, see the Big East. They are not going to accept subpar ACC football, made up of almost all teams that they have no regional connection with.
The ACC is doing the best with what they’ve got. However, it is NOT good enough for FSU (and probably Clemson, and Miami unless they are giving up on football). FSU absolutely has to explore all options, including SEC and Big 12 membership, to keep up in the college football arms race.
The only alternative is to wait and hope that everything we know and have heard is wrong. And that is not a strategy.
FSU CAN compete for National Titles with half the money...
By playing their football in a weaker football conference.
I think you think that going to the SEC solves the money issue for FSU. It doesn’t. Not even close. FSU will never be on the same planet in terms of money as Alabama or UF. Or LSU or Auburn. Or even Arkansas. These schools have a 40 year head start on us. That won’t be made up in our lifetime.
Further, Lou, have you thought about what competing in the SEC could do to our fanbase?
Sure, it would energize them short term, as many attractive matchups will be added to our schedule.
However, what happens if we start losing 4 games every year? In the SEC, we would be about the 4th or 5th strongest program. That means we will be like Auburn or UGA. Only competing for championships once every 10-15 years. I think that could have a huge negative impact on our long term football health. Our fanbase is notoriously fickle and will not support a team that is not competing for Titles.
Your solution to me sound like FSU should be the Boise State of the world? But in an area where competing schools will buy out your recruiters and coaches.
However, if we win games with half the resources, and winning recruiting battles we will be unable to retain decent coaching/recruiters because of zero financial power and pissing off people in the same region that will be able to buyout any of best recruiters/coaches contracts.
This doesn’t sound like anything that has happened at FSU while in the lowly ACC…
However, what happens if we start losing 4 games every year?
Or this…
That means we will be like Auburn or UGA. Only competing for championships once every 10-15 years.
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 12, 2012 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
Please understand that schools like Auburn and LSU will always be able to buy our coaches if they really want to
Even if FSU moved to the SEC.
I understand, but we wouldn't be able to even come close to competing like we currently do.
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 13, 2012 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
I don't think that's quite true
I think with SEC money we become a “last stop” even if technically schools have more money than we do. We will be match as high as we need to until it becomes impractical for them. Just because they CAN pay $15M a year for a coach, they wouldn’t. We just have to be able to match them as far as is reasonable.
We will never, ever lack for attendence or enthusiasm in the SEC
I feel confident that our recruiting and brand will keep us in good shape. But if we compete for a national championship every 10 or 15 years, but intersperse it with SEC title runs, we will be a very successful program with a ton of support.
There is no SEC team that would leave for an easier path. Because they are playing games they care about almost week to week. Even when they have 2-3 losses, they care passionately about beating the other SEC teams.
We have no passionate feelings about our ACC games (outside of Miami). It’s hard to explain, but even after UGA loses to Boise St. and USC, the Auburn and Tenessee and UF games are huge for them.
Disagree
We are not like UGA or any other power in the SEC. They have thousands more alumni and are not 3+ hours from their fanbase.
If our program won 1 MNC in the next 50 years (like Auburn), I don’t think our fans would be satisfied with that and I know I would not be.
The ACC pot is split 13 ways right now.
Remove the ACC office or reduce the amount they receive, and things won’t be so bad.
My prediction for 2011 is 12-2 (6-2)
I expect to be in contention for the National Title but a late loss will bounce us out of it. We should finish in the Top 5 and win the whole thing EJ's senior year. Legal_Seminole 01/09/2011
by Legal_Seminole on Feb 11, 2012 12:49 PM EST reply actions
LouC or TheJim
do either of you guys have twitter accounts? Would love to be able to follow updates to the TV deals and expansion stuff through you guys.
Ben, I just signed up for Twitter, mainly to hassle @chaddscott
I’m @louciaccia but I don’t know that you’ll find it informative.
Can someone who is better informed on these types of things...
Tell me how relevant, or even how important, this news is:
Moody’s has downgraded FSU Financial Assistance’s revenue bond rating
I have no idea if this has any meaningful repurcussions, but at least reading this gives you a good idea of what kind of revenue challenges we face.
Athletic department expenses increased to $55.3 million in FY 2011 from $44.5 million in FY 2007 at FSU.
Anybody see that trend ending any time soon? Or see why $30M+ is much better than $15M a year?
Post below RE: Moody's CYA...
was meant to be in reply.
I guess there's only one thing to do about the ACC...win the whole ****ing thing.
I just started looking into the actual dollars and cents.
Our expenses jumped 5 million this year alone. Mainly Salaries ~1.3M, Travel ~1M Game Guarantees ~800K, scholarship expenses $1.2M, ticket sales expenses~500K (marketing, offset by much higher ticket sales >$2M).
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 12, 2012 11:25 PM EST up reply actions
Moody's CYA again
We’re talking about building and maybe borrowing to do it. That’s like Equifax downgrading your personal credit because you are talking about buying a house. What a ripoff!
Incidentally, A1 is the last step for some institutional bond buyers. That is, if our credit goes any worse, some pension funds and other very conservative bond buyers won’t buy our stuff. Our cred’s still really good, nowhere near junk, but it’s still annoying that A) our debt gets less demand because of this b.s. and 2) our interest rate will rise for it as a result.
[grumbling to self about falsely inflated mortgage rates still enriching banksters].
I guess there's only one thing to do about the ACC...win the whole ****ing thing.
Lou C, it is obvious you wnat out of the ACC, I was wondering
why do you think FSU did not join as #14 this time? Do you believe uf blocked us from being invited? SEC wanted new TV markets? Still holds a grudge from 1990? FSU wasn’t interested? What, if anything do you think happened to prevent FSU from making the jump you would like to see? And do you believe FSU will try to get in as #15 or 16, if the SEC expands again? Finally at what point would you accept that it will not happen and FSU is staying in the ACC? Since we are still in the ACC I was curious as to how you viewed the reasons why. Thanks,
Wow, there's a lot to that
First, let me say I have NO sources. This is just my feeling based on everything I read, the history of what has gone before, and what I think logic dictates. I also check myself to try not to be in opposition of facts (although often in opinion) with other commentators who I respect (TheJim, MrSec, FrankTheTank).
First, the easy part is what I DON’T think is happening…
a) I don’t believe we are being blackballed by UF or a gentleman’s agreement with USC, UF, UGA. Simply put, there is no way the SEC and Mike Slive are going to allow a few schools to stand in the way of what is best for the conference and brings in the $$$
2) I don’t think we are out of consideration because we are already in the footprint. Markets are important, but so is content/brand. Look no further than the Big 10 invite to Nebraska.
However, that does lead into what IS happening, in my opinion
a) While markets are often overrated, they are an important factor. Signs point that the SEC may get some kind of SEC network out of their renegotiation, which means they are somewhat more important than I previously was giving them credit for.
The ideal new member for the SEC is Brand+New Market. A school that provides both is going to get the most priority. That still puts several teams ahead of FSU in the desirability department…Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, North Carolina. Maybe NC State.
My contention for a couple years now is that FSU, with the major brand, was going to be one of the best teams available, meaning that the teams that bested us would not be options. I will admit that I thought we were in a stronger position before last summer. I did not think TAMU would make the move, as it was actually counter to their own interests in a LOT of ways, but I underestimated the spite factor. TAMU was getting seriously paid by the previous Big 12 arrangement. Missouri was a little out of left field, but became a factor with the inclusion of TAMU. I don’t think they get looked at alone, but I don’t know.
So with two slots left, the SEC absolutely has to do their due dilligence and make sure they can’t get TX or OK, VT or NC. It’s absolutely possible that if nothing forces their hand, they would be content to wait for years to see if the landscape changed and those teams became available.
2) As for the FSU side, it’s a little tougher to tell. I think FSU would be satisfied to stay in the ACC if the economics allowed it. I really don’t think all the message board tropes (ACC refs, basketball conference, tobacco road mafia) are really a factor here. It’s all about positioning yourself to be a “have”. The ACC is poised to be about half a “have.” Good enough if you have either a strong institutional revenue flow (UNC, Duke, UVA) or moderate expectations as a program (everyone but FSU, Clemson, maybe Miami or VT). FSU is on the losing side of both of those factors, and is regionally in competition of coaches and recruits against shools that will be much better funded.
I think that people at FSU have to be smart enough to look at the economic realities we’re breaking down here. So either they are going to be content to be an ACC level football program, or they are exploring options. It’s very possible there is serious disagreement among FSU decision makers about which coarse is best. All we know for sure is that FSU has consistently signalled that they are happy in the ACC, but are willing to listen.
The other factor is that we have NO idea what may be going on behind the scenes. The ACC is extremely good at locking down info, and FSU is in line with that, and the SEC only slightly less so. It would not suprise me in the least if behind the scenes there were some very solid roadmaps. It’s totally possible that…
- FSU and the SEC have had an agreement in place and have had for some time, and the ACC is aware. Getting the ACC to fourteen schools was part of the process to not leave scorched earth behind on either parties, and avoid nastiness and lawsuits
- The SEC has notified FSU that they will not consider expansion (and FSU) again until the six years that the Big 12 has put together runs out, and they can see where TX and OU stand.
- Notre Dame has told the ACC they are coming, but it’s a multi-year process because it’s an extremely sensitive issue to Notre Dame backers and will have to be sold over time.
It’s also quite likely that none of those things exist, but the way the ACC traditionally embargoes information, it makes almost anything possible.
You did not mention the B12 wild card....
That conference is not going to sit on the number of schools they currently have. Rumors are getting out of financials double or more than FSU is currently getting from the ACC. I don’t think it is a question of if the B12 expands but when and the only direction they have to go is East. They will imho come after some ACC teams and then there is the SEC factor of someday expanding to 16. I am afraid that there will exist in the future a gutted ACC as some feared with the last SEC expansion. FSU better look well to it’s options apart from the ACC…Just say’in.
by Class of '71 on Feb 13, 2012 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, the question was specifically about FSU vis a vis the SEC
But the B12 plays a part. I really have to think the SEC thinks twice about letting TX and OU into it’s back yard like that.
There’s no other credible source (or no credible source at all I guess I should say) on the Big 12 stuff. But there are a handful message board posters across the message board universe from WVU, FSU and the Big 12 that claim some knowledge of talks. There’s some reference to a Big 12 – FSU connection from last fall.
Clemson has denied, nothing out of FSU. BYU and Louisville membership in the Big 12 seems to be stalled for no apparent reason.
I don’t know. Every expansion development has started with message board ramblings that got shot down, and many more message board ramblings also ended up being non-starters.
There are more things that make sense about FSU/Clemson talks than things that don’t. I’ve seen a couple posters post something similar to the following, which to me puts in perspective the folks who just want to treat the Big 12 rumors as totally ridiculous.
“The Big 12 stands to cash in significantly with further expansion, and is looking as schools like BYU, Louisville, and Cincinatti. If the Big 12 office isn’t at least reaching out to FSU and Clemson, they should be fired for malfeasance.”
As for FSU and Clemson, they need to look at the financials involved. Once they compare revenues between conferences, if they aren’t at least listening, the decision makers for both schools should be fired for malfeasance."
There’s a lot of truth to that. Rumors of discussions may not be true, but I suspect the reason the rumor has generated so much buzz is that it totally makes sense.
Here is how I see it...
This is just using total logic. I have no inside info, but……
There is no way in the world I can believe the B12 is going to sit where it is with the numbers it has now. They will keep up with the other major conferences so that means 14 or 16 schools. Next question is….. Are the financial figures they are throwing around sound. I have to think so just looking at the other major conferences minus the ACC. The ACC has painted themselves in a corner with Swoffords financial deals. Now if the B12 expands, where do they go. It has got to be the ACC. Can’t see any school from any of the other conferences leaving. The B12 has taken WVA so the eastward movement is set in motion, they will want to balance out with eastern schools. There will be some that jump on board with the B12 and then you have the SEC eventually moving to 16. The ACC is getting ready to go the way of the Big East. all this is simple logic,I believe it will happen and FSU better position itself t take advantage of the changes that are coming. To get left in a gutted ACC would be a disaster of monumental proportions.
by Class of '71 on Feb 13, 2012 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
I completely agree with the malfeasance quote
Even if we are not in talks with the B12, I’d like to think we have people seriously examining the possibility of such a move. And that those people leak any talks to the SEC, just to see if they need to comparison shop. And to ND to let them know if they want to join the ACC now would be a fine time to make it known.
So what is the best case scenario for FSU?
A.) ND joins the ACC (with Rutgers or UConn); probable increase in TV contract, possible ACCN in the future.
2.) FSU joins the B12 with some other teams (will the conf go to 14, 16?); probable increase in TV contract, possible B12N.
D.) FSU joins the SEC with a second TBD team; probable increase in TV contract, possible SECN – but guaranteed to be behind regional opponents in money, as Bama/uf/etc. have more non-conference related money.
In A and 2, there is a chance we could bring in more conf money than SEC teams. Not a certainty, but a chance. D, though, would at least seem to guarantee that we always stay in their general ballpark. Again, what’s the best option for FSU?
Any of those options probably work
I tend to lean toward 2 as my favorite option, just because it seems safest to peg yourself to your regional peers. The SEC has benefited greatly I believe from it’s tight geographic grouping.
That said, the Big 12 thing intrigues me. Ideally, I’d like to see the Big 12 add FSU, Clemson, GT and Miami. I’m wondering if the financial windfall a conference like that might have is actually potentially greater than that of the SEC? I’m wondering what the cable footprint of those two conferences would be?
While an SEC invite would peg us to UF, UGA, AL, etc, we will always be behind them in revenue. That’s not necessarilly a disaster, as long as it’s close. We’ve always been behind them.
Is there any chance that a Big 12 membership might actually out-earn an SEC membership, therefore equalling the playing field?
I don’t know if that’s possible, or even if it would be worth turning down the SEC if it was. But it’s definitely intriguing.
Take it for what you will...
But the only two people with the Clemson/FSU to Big 12 story, Greg Swaim and Honus Sneed (neither with stellar credibility) are both reporting that talks are heating up. Supposedly revenue and schedule projections are in hand at both schools.
This is probably going to percolate a bit, if there’s anything there. The Big 12 just got through extracting WVA, is still trying to get schedules, and still need a new commissioner. Unlikely for any announcements to come before a commissioner is in.
Saw an interesting post on Orangebloods, not any kind of inside info, just spitballing. If the Big 12 expanded with the ACC schools, potentially the Big 12 and SEC could set up a similar arrangement that the B1G and Pac 12 have. That’s an intriguing possibility, and might allow a framework to make sure the FSU-UF and Clemson-USC games are protected.
If the financial B12 projections are accurate and UT concerns can be put to bed...
FSU leadership would have to be retarded not to take such a deal.
by Class of '71 on Feb 14, 2012 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
I've been talking to a friend of mine who is not an insider
but has a couple connections and is much, much closer to the goings on and is a keen observer.
He basically believes that your description of FSU leadership is more or less spot on.
All I have to base things on is logic. Given just that...
I have to think the B12 will not sit at 10 teams and they will turn to the ACC to add to their conference. If my logic is correct, here are just some of the issues we face…
1. One or more ACC schools will take the B12 up on their offer leaving a gutted ACC
2. If the NCAA has its way and pays players a stipend that could cost FSU close to 1M for all student athletes.
3. Coaching salaries are rising at alarming rates and look to continue doing so.
4. We currently pay for athletic scholarships on a pay as you go basis. Last estimate I heard was over 1M a year. If we could endow ships this would go away, but we never have the extra funds to do so.
5.We just got our credit rating dropped…this is a warning sign that should not be ignored.
6. Booster money more and more has to come to the rescue. Can this be relied on in poor economic times or any time for that matter.
Bottom line is that quality athletic programs have come to rely more and more on added financing. When faced with 35M in TV revenue or 16M in TV revenue, the choice is a no brainer. If we are lead by a bunch who cannot see the forest for the trees or who would rather bite off their nose to spite their face, then we are in a truly sad state of affairs and will someday face the prospect of second class football programs.
by Class of '71 on Feb 14, 2012 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
Speaking of the "instability" of the B12
For argument sake, let’s say we make the jump to the B12 and after 5-10 years the B12 experiences similar problems as they did last year. In the worst case the B12 dissolves, where does that put us? Wouldn’t our brand, football quality, and Florida TV market still have us in a decent position if we were on the open market?
You are speaking very hypothetically, but I get your point..
By adding quality teams the B12 strengthens itself. The Texas issue has to be dealt with and Texas has to come to terms as a responsible member of the conference. Since we are dealing with hypotheticals what if the B12 raids the ACC and takes say Clemson, VT, and Miami for instance and leaves a gutted ACC, what would FSU’s fortunes be like with such a scenario?
I do not think we should just jump into the B12 willy nilly, but we need to study the situation and be ready to go if such is the indication. This is all about FSU’s financial future and whether one wants to admit it or not finances are driving today’s athletic train.
by Class of '71 on Feb 14, 2012 1:37 PM EST up reply actions
I actually think the Texas issue could be mostly put to rest
If they grant their rights for 20 years or something to the conference. I can’t imagine that’s a big stumbling block, as I would imagine any network is going to expect that before getting into the Big 12 business for the type of green the Big 12 is envisioning.
And frankly, a lot of the Texas hate is well overblown by people not too close to the situation. Yes, Texas has definitely made some missteps out of hubris, high school games on the Longhorn Network is a good example.
But the old unequal sharing of tier one revenue was not a Texas-instigated plan, and Oklahoma benefited more than Texas from that arrangement. The Big 12 championship game was held in KC at the beginning, not TX’s choice.
And don’t get me started on complaints about sharing the Longhorn Network revenue. That’s Texas’s third tier rights, and they shouldn’t have to share that revenue under the arrangements of the Big 12 (of which Nebraska and A&M were huge proponents). As I mentioned, there were some content issues that had to be curbed, but the general feeling that they should have to share the revenue I believe was misguided. I don’t hear Ole Miss and Arkansas screaming about UF’s Sun deal, so it has been way overblown.
There’s certainly an arrogance there, and I get that rubs people the wrong way. But distance is our friend in that scenario. But the image that Texas jams through what it wants over the oppostion of it’s peers is I think misguided.
I believe Texas wants the Big 12 to survive and be strong and financially powerful. I don’t disparage them looking at the Pac 10 (and they were taking OK, OSU, TAMU with them) any more than I do Nebraska to the B1G. You have go for that opportunity if it’s there. But when TV stepped up and put money on the table to level the playing field, they held the conference together.
Again, they aren’t perfect by a long stretch, but frankly, they behave in the Big 12 like I think most of us wish we’d do in the ACC, as we are carrying an inordinate amount of the load. I’m not going to hold that against them.
Texas as the ebil empire is just bunk
Agree with you here. If anyone in the Big 12 is to blame its cry baby Texas A and M how they where not the villians in all of this I still do not get.
The big ebil Long Horn Network for example well Texas and Nebraska both all but begged the rest of the Big 12 to go along with a Big 12 network they said no so both looked into one for themselves. Texas spent at least 3 years on the subject and asked TAM if they wanted a part of it and TAM still continued to say no. So Texas gets the ESPN deal that was so much higher than Texas or anyone else for that matter thought they would get and yet they are the bad guys here?
After the deal the stuff around the Long Horn network was nothing more then to get the public in an uproar. The NCAA was never going to allow HS games on the channel so I am still not sure what the crying was about. Yeah I will make a deal where part of it is that I have to try to be the Patriots starting QB this season because there is 0 chance that is going to happen.
Colorado left not because of Texas but because the program was hurting for money and its alumnis all live in California. They more almunis there then all of the Big 12 footprint (except CO obviously). This move was all about this.
Nebraska made Texas a scapegoat but it really was not that much Texas. It was the league continuing to make a south ward push and everyone going along with it. They are still mad that they lost the OU game every year because that is the only game they really cared about. They also have tried to get into the Big 10 off and on now for a 100 years. If you are a school you find reasons not to join the Big 10 not to join because its such a no brainer move. There might be 10 schools at most that would say no to a Big 10 invite.
TAM has the biggest little brother syndrome the world has ever seen. They just hate Texas and will spite them over doing what is best for them. This is why this program will never live up to its potential its a bunch of old boys with a chip on their shoulder.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
Of course the bigger thing
Is that the LHN has been an unmitigated disaster.
by Jonathan Loesche on Feb 15, 2012 9:36 PM EST up reply actions
Mandel has an article on the Pac-12's upcoming networks
Seems like a prudent approach, e.g. securing distribution before starting up. They’ll be in 40 million homes from day one, one basic cable in the Pac footprint and as part of a “premium sports package” in other parts of the country.
As always, football will be the primary sport, but they are expecting interest in Olympic sports programming (due in part to Pac-12 athletes’ successes in the actual Olympics), and will have some “academic” type programming. I think the ACC could offer comparable programming across the board.
As someone noted somewhere recently (here? elsewhere?), the Pac’s football attendance, though higher, really isn’t much different than the ACC’s – and the two new Pac additions don’t help that much (CU averaged about 50k last year, and I think Utah’s capacity is about 49k; not that Pitt/Syr will help our avg). The ACC CG has the second best attendance: SEC 74k, ACC 73k, B10 64k, Pac 59k (B12 typically had the most at 75k or more, but surely the B10’s and Pac12’s inaugural CGs should’ve drawn more interest).
What is it about the Pac that makes it so much more marketable than the ACC? It doesn’t seem to be football interest (based on avg attendance and CG attendance); our Olympic sports probably rival theirs; our footprint is probably better; outside of the Rose Bowl, our bowl ratings seem competitive with theirs (and we usually send more teams to bowls); etc. The only thing that really stands out to me is alumni numbers – based on current enrollments, the ACC seems to be the smallest of the AQ confs (well, we have more students than the 10-member B12 right now, by 10k I think).
So what is it about the Pac – besides maybe a Scott/Swofford comparison – that stands out SO much more than the ACC?
by Invictus13 on Feb 15, 2012 5:06 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Good questions
Maybe it’s also the bad luck of when the contract came up as well.
The Funk Phenomenon.
Follow @willdabeast215
The timing of the contract was probably an issue, I think Jim or Lou mentioned that above
But, and this is just me talking, I think it has to do with competition. The SEC, Big10, Big12, ACC, and BigEast all all crammed into Eastern and Central. That’s somewhere around 60 BCS teams in two time zones. The Pac-12 is the only show in town. Their current 12 teams are the only BCS in two whole time zones, and 8 of their 12 teams are 2 time zones away from any other major conference.
Good points on the time zones/competition
BTW, all, I misspoke about the enrollment numbers above. I had two numbers for most confs, for both current and future members. I used the B12’s current and the ACC’s 14. So, yeah, our current 12 schools have 40,000 fewer students right now than the B12’s 10. And we are way behind the others (B10, P12 over 400k, new SEC will be; new ACC about 333k).
If we can lure ND, maybe we should target Rutgers, lol. Their system has about 56k students. Let’s increase our ACC alum out and get them watching television! ;)
"So what is it about the Pac – besides maybe a Scott/Swofford comparison"
Maybe that is it. One is dynamic the other is “wine and cheese”
Scott is impressive
Very interesting article. I am not a big Swofford fan, he is a mixed bag. The ACC could definitely benefit from somebody with a background like Scott’s and isn’t tied to the old ways of Tobacco Road so much. The ACC’s contract renewal certainly came up at a bad time, but good points about the ACC and Pac 12 being similar in many respects. The Pac 12 has not been a football powerhouse overall, not a leader in football attendance and yet ended up with a super deal. Their network is something to be jealous of.
New leaks
has anybody seen any new leaks on the possible $ fsu is getting in the new contract
nothing since the $14-15M that was posted
To me, the fact that nobody connected to the ACC has come out to deny that as “premature” indicates it’s likely pretty close.
People keep mentioning how much worse travel would be in the Big 12....
Would it really be so much worse if an eastern division is formed? The Atlantic Division of the ACC has already had a Boston College, and just added New York to the travel rotation. FSU already goes to North Carolina at least once a year, and Virginia fairly often with UV and VT rotation. Traveled to Norman as non-conference, and that would be occasional cross-division rotation. Travel wouldn’t be great like the SEC, and maybe a little tougher than ACC, but with the added revenue, would it really be that much worse?
Back-to-back state champions - I'll take it.
by Chris Harrison on Feb 17, 2012 10:37 AM EST reply actions
I don't think the team travel would be all that significant
It would kind of be a bite in the ass for FSU fans in the ACC footprint. If Miami, Clemson and even Louisville came with, that would help.
The idea is to have no more than 5 away games anyway. Depending on how things shook out, two might be between the combination of UF, Clemson, Miami, WVU.
That would be 3 games that are way out of region. But we already have BC/Syracuse in our division good for one far game a year, so it might be a loss of two games a year outside our current footprint.
It would make a difference for those few fans that try to go to every game, or fans that live in Charlotte or DC, but for fans that travel to one or two games a year, I would think they could find something.
But there are a ton of variables based on who else would come in with us and how divisions would look, so it could probably vary from being a big loss to travelling fans to being a slight adjustment.
Are you really comparing going to NC and VA
to Iowa, Oklahoma and Kansas? BC and Syracuse are the only 1,000 mile plus trips in ACC for FSU. Multiple 1,000 mile trips in Big 12. Talk of just 5 away games takes into account football. There is a whole athletic department to consider. Something university presidents have to think about but fans don’t. If we are going to fantasize why not go big and join the Pac 12? They have the biggest TV deal now if that’s all that matters.
OK, take a deep breath
Yes, increased travel costs. It would only make sense if the money well outweighed additional travel expenses. That math won’t be that hard to figure out. But we aren’t taking buses to NC are we? If we’re flying we’re flying. It will be a little longer and more expensive, but obviously that didn’t stop Syracuse or BC from joining the ACC or Missouri from joining the SEC did it? Team travel isn’t that huge a deal any more.
And it’s not like fans are travelling to the other sports.
There are some concerns with playing so far outside your region. However, those concerns might be somewhat mitigated if we bring some neighbors with us.
There’s ways it would make sense, and ways it won’t. No decision would be made without analysis of costs and plenty of mock schedules.
And if the Pac 10 called for us, Miami, Clemson and GT
I would certainly support listening to what they had to say. It would be idiotic not to.
Some time ago I supported a suggestion of a PACC network
A partnering of the Pac and ACC, coast-to-coast college sports, 24/7. Unfortunately for us, they went and formed their own network and deepened their partnership with the B10. Ah, what could’ve been, eh?
So, yeah – if they called, I’d support listening. It would seem a very weird fit, but then again Boise is in the Big East now.
$19.3M, before the upcoming increase, too
Without 3rd tier rights figured in. So, if uf makes $8-10M on those, they pulled in $27-29M (before renegotiations) from sources we’ll reportedly pull in $14-15M from (after renegotiating)? Even adding a little to ours for bowls and such, we can expect to be well behind them. For a very long term contract… woo. hoo.
I’m feeling the ACC love today. Can you tell?
And I don't even see how we get them back
What do we have to offer in exchange? A 20-year contract?
ESPN has no reason to give them up.
I don't know if there is any other way to say it except .....
We are screwed financially in the ACC. At least imho.
by Class of '71 on Feb 17, 2012 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
At the bare minimum, I'd be pushing for some changes in the ACC leadership.
A lot, if not all of the good Swofford managed by inviting in VT, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse for football is squandered by his decision to give ESPN ALL rights for everything for 15 years.
I’d argue it’s a termination worthy mistake.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
Somewhat ACCN related...
A lot of people know about this, but I thought I’d point out that on theacc.com (under Video, then ACC Legends) you can watch old FB and BB (M/W) games. A great one is the 1993 FSU/UM game. UM has Warren Sapp and Ray Lewis, FSU has Ward, Dunn, Brooks, and many more.
I also noticed some parallels between the 93 team and the upcoming 12 team. For instance, in the UM game (halfway through the season) our OL was young and included 4 starting SOs and a JR. We had a 2nd year starting QB (Ward), a talented group of WRs (including Knox, Frier, McCorvey, Vanover), a great SR FB (Floyd), a young RB who got more and more playing time as the season went on (FR Dunn), a good TE (Lonnie Johnson, although a SR not SO), good ST play (return game/kicking, including a new kicking specialist: although a K, not P), and a heavily upperclassmen defense (only two SO starters) that was capable of dominating an opponent.
So, will this 2012 almost-doppelgänger team be able to win the NC as well? :)
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE TOMAHAWK NATION STORE
