Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
search
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!
W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000
YOUR BALANCE
Debunking an ACC vs Big 12 article that gets the money wrong
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 4
| visibility 886

Debunking an ACC vs Big 12 article that gets the money wrong


May 28, 2012, 11:46 AM

This guy needs to get his facts straight.

His post is here: http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2012/05/tv-contracts-acc-vs-big-12.html


1- Media analysts quoted by Chip Brown estimated FSU and Clemson to be able to rake in between OU's expected take (5m/yr) and UT's (15m/yr). This schmuck simply goes " I think they'd get 2m". Also even if 2m is all they get that is 2m they don't get in the ACC. 20m over 10 years? Yeah that adds up.

2- He tries to equate the backloading figures. They are not equal. Leaks have given the figures that the ACC deal is gonna be starting at 14 and get to 17 in 2021.

Leaks have also said the Big 12 will be at 20m as early as 2015. His figures for 20m are selling the Big 12 5m short. Assuming the leaks are accurate (which they seem to be since the leakers were right about the final amounts back in february) instead of a 1.6m gap it's a 6.6m gap in 2015. His averages for the Big 12 payout are also 1m shy of the 20.9 I remember the SBJ releasing. So he's inaccurate again.

The guy is once again dead wrong and flying with bad assumptions to slant the argument his way.

3- He neglects the fact that the Big 12 cuts a check of less than 1m per school to fund the league office and the ACC divides the pie by 15, not 14, slices to pay the league overhead.

So instead of the Big 12 at 19.6 and the ACC at 17.1 its closer to 20.9 vs 15.9 AND the Big 12 isn't as backloaded as the ACC.

4- He neglects to adjust the Big 12 deal for at least 1.5m for a title game (every game except the ACC or CUSA/MAC gets this. He also neglects to add FSU and Clemson's value to it. That would give a minimum bump of 1m and thats conservative on it.

So minimum 23.4 vs 15.9 without including tier 3. I have seen estimates of minimum 5m. He estimates 2m. To prove my point let's use his figure.

25.4 vs 15.9 with very little benefit of the doubt given to the Big 12 side of things. If we allow for a 1m larger tv bump and a 7m tier 3 deal you could end up with 31.4!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

good post... you are right on***


May 28, 2012, 11:48 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"I've been working since I was 15 continually until now. I worked 40 hours a week at 15, when it wasn't even legal for 15 year olds to work that many hours."


But Dude, it is just too far away.***


May 28, 2012, 11:55 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

someone got their feelings hurt***


May 28, 2012, 12:06 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'd guess somewhere between your figures and his lies truth.


May 28, 2012, 1:00 PM

Though I would have figured Clemson or FSU to add 35 to 40 million each to the Big's TV take. That would be 3+ mil/school.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 4
| visibility 886
📰 E-Mail News Alerts

TigerBoard POTD

Mama was half Comanche and hell-on-wheels.

by A1ASauce®

Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic