|
Replies: 32
| visibility 507
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 44906
Joined: 2012
|
New Story: Money Crunch: The cost of doing business in big-time college athletics
Apr 17, 2016, 8:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Head Coach [943]
TigerPulse: 99%
24
|
Re: New Story: Money Crunch: The cost of doing business in big-time college athletics
Apr 17, 2016, 9:17 AM
|
|
Clemson is getting too big for their britches. They need to step back and see what can be done to bring in bigger dollars then taking more money from the students. Im excited for the future of Clemson but not at the expense of squeezing more out the students. Hope they can figure it out. Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3408]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: New Story: Money Crunch: The cost of doing business in big-time college athletics
Apr 17, 2016, 9:25 AM
|
|
Sounds like it's time to rework our deal with Nike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [256]
TigerPulse: 92%
14
|
Sounds like it's time for the ACC to up their game
Apr 17, 2016, 9:35 AM
|
|
And quit depending on FSU and Clemson to provide all the TV revenue for everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [71]
TigerPulse: 63%
8
|
Clemson also makes an assload of money off of Duke
Apr 17, 2016, 10:00 AM
|
|
UNC and others in basketball, both in NCAA tournament money and that side of the television deal. The complaining about this never ends and it's always so overblown and not factual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [814]
TigerPulse: 94%
23
|
Not really
Apr 17, 2016, 10:31 AM
|
|
basketball pales in comparison to football dollars. UNC and Duke contribute significantly less than FSU and Clemson. Like it or not, football rules college athletics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [71]
TigerPulse: 63%
8
|
Yes really. In postseason comparisons, Clemson made the
Apr 17, 2016, 12:02 PM
|
|
ACC an additional $6m for making the playoffs. In the NCAA tournament the basketball teams made the ACC $39.9m to be payed out over the next 6 years (ACC does equal distribution) and last year's was just over $30m to be distributed over its rolling 6 year period. So for a 7 year period - for just the last 2 years alone - the basketball schools made the ACC way more than Clemson did for football. Because the ACC was a power broker and is contractually one of the Big 5, the majority of other football revs distribution for the playoffs and bowls is fairly set for the next decade no matter who finishes where. So in basketball for the most part you kill what you eat in the postseason, in football it's a socialistic society.
On the TV deal, football has a lot of emphasis these days but when that was done the ACC has one real power - FSU - and Clemson as an intriguing up and comer. Also the conference has to raid the Big East and get ND aboard to make it worth a huge deal for ESPN (or anyone else). And to think having the best basketball league - which we don't really participate in - wasn't important is asinine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [775]
TigerPulse: 94%
22
|
Re: Yes really. In postseason comparisons, Clemson made the
Apr 17, 2016, 12:17 PM
|
|
I agree with you...most people don't realize how much money Clemson also makes off of ACC basketball. It is earned because of how much Clemson & FSU have made for the football side of the conference!
What D-Rad and all the other ADs need to do is too aggressively push Swofford too get off his #### and ink a lucrative deal for an ACC Network...now is the time to strike with how well the ACC has done the last 2 years in all major sports. Swofford is NOT doing his job by delaying this opportunity!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [71]
TigerPulse: 63%
8
|
NCAA basketball tournament has always made a ton of money
Apr 17, 2016, 12:40 PM
|
|
and has almost always been paid out based on games played (which is influenced by wins) and has nothing to do with the football deals. CBS and Turner (and CBS previously) didn't and don't give a crap about the football side when it comes to the NCAA Tourney. CBS and Turner just extended the deal a couple more years to go to something like 2030.
Haha, tv media companies and cable distributers are in a brittle and nasty battle these days on value and cost. The ACC starts a channel now and it goes off an abyss, much like the PAC12N has been for its conference. Less exposure, no real extra money (at least in comparison to the exposure lost) and so forth. That train left the stable for a channel anytime soon, but Swofford and Company should get credit because there is a clause that increases our deal with ESPN if a channel is NOT launched. I think the deadline is in 2017/18 unless they both agree to push it back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [107405]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [71]
TigerPulse: 63%
8
|
Most of what you wrote backs up my point, the ACC football
Apr 17, 2016, 1:07 PM
|
|
money's are contractually set based on the conference being a power broker, not dependent on Clemson's now top dog status in college football. And the ESPN deal and and college football playoff were set before Clemson reached the level of program we are now. I love where Clemson is and where the conference is, but to continually complaining how we're not getting ours is ridiculous.
We made the conference an additional $6m for making the playoffs this year. The basketball schools this year made the ACC an additional an additional $6.4 million annually for the conference for the next 6 years (just under $40m total). Basketball money outside the wins gets distributed to all the conferences as well, but there are way more conferences in D1 basketball that it gets distributed to compared to football. So to not acknowledge that Clemson sucks from the teat of the basketball schools is just wrong.
FSU is the football school who had kept the conference afloat. Clemson was next leg down that helped a great deal with it. The basketball schools who didn't want to break up and held firm in the TV deals deserve a hell of a lot more credit than they get around these parts. And while yes I've seen the analysis that the football property vs basketball property is an 80/20 split, that is recent reflection and while fun and exciting to read, its not the full story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [107405]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2006
|
a lot going on in this thread, but as a conference the acc
Apr 17, 2016, 1:17 PM
|
|
appears to receive 4x+ more $s from football than basketball.
basketball appears to contribute ~20% of the whole? if you think that doesn't pale in comparison, that's fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [71]
TigerPulse: 63%
8
|
So what do we want, conference finish determines payout?
Apr 17, 2016, 6:51 PM
|
|
FSU and the attractive tv markets got screwed in getting us this deal then. My point is (and I don't concede that Clemson is owed more than others because the team happens to be playing good under this contract) I'm so sick of reading how we're owed something we're not, that the basketball schools suck our money. If it wasn't for UNC GT and UVA turning down the B1G money and UNC turning down the SEC we'd be playing Kansas State and have an even shittier financial and conference situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [107405]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2006
|
what are you going on about now? i responded to
Apr 17, 2016, 7:11 PM
|
|
another poster that mentioned football monies & basketball monies, people not realizing how much clemson receives - it's pretty straight forward[1/15th share basketball, 1/14th for football]. his comment, most people don't realize how much money Clemson also makes off of ACC basketball. It is earned because of how much Clemson & FSU have made for the football side of the conference!
i supplied a breakdown for him and anyone else that cared about that ~number(s) from a conference look.
you got involved with some minutia about a basketball conference[6-8 schools, 13 over 2 years] generating equal or more money than 1 football school, that one being clemson.
what the hell does that matter to what i was pointing out to orangeman?
it's a conference - we go to business as a conference with football generating about 80%+ of the take home.
am i happy for and do i personally appreciate the basketball schools' contribution from the ncaa tournament? sure - absolutely, it all adds up.
if you have an issue with other posters not giving acc basketball its ~20% due, please feel free to take it up with them individually or en masse - but, i'm not one of those.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Legend [145135]
TigerPulse: 100%
67
Posts: 34571
Joined: 2010
|
I think this pretty well sums it up...
Apr 17, 2016, 7:26 PM
|
|
"you got involved with some minutia about a basketball conference[6-8 schools, 13 over 2 years] generating equal or more money than 1 football school, that one being clemson." ~ dsp
Thanks for saying what I was thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17238]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 11003
Joined: 2007
|
apples to oranges. What is the value of the ACC's contract
Apr 17, 2016, 7:11 PM
[ in reply to Yes really. In postseason comparisons, Clemson made the ] |
|
with ESPN w/o Clemson and FSU in the conference. Yes, the basketball schools generate revenue through success in the tournament but that is also a little disingenuous. The basketball tournament is the NCAAs revenue generator and the member college have allowed the NCAA to capture that revenue while they take nothing from football. If the NCAA generated operating revenue in a proportionate manner basketball revenue would be as insignificant as it is in the tv deals. For a point of reference the Big East basketball deal is worth $40 million per year. ACC tv revenue is around $200 million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [107405]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2006
|
the cfp distribution this year was $51mil per power 5 conf.
Apr 17, 2016, 7:32 PM
|
|
$79 million to each of the remaining 5 conferences - notre dame[independent] has an individual distribution.
the power 5 & ND have the big money tie-ins to the Orange, Rose & Sugar.
all that is separate and on top of the individual bowl payouts, playoff participation & also a payout for APR.
it's lucrative to the conferences and then you start adding in the tv revenues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4506]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6492]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Re: New Story: Money Crunch: The cost of doing business in big-time college athletics
Apr 17, 2016, 10:35 AM
|
|
Businesses across the country and around the world have cost reduction teams and projects to stay competitive, while their Marketing teams still try to generate additional revenue from sources outside the business, .
IMHO students should not be a target for new revenue.
Serious consideration should be given to capital projects that will not generate new revenue or pay for themselves in a reasonable time period. If they can’t, then don’t pursue them.
I would be curious of what savings have been generated from the AD cost reduction projects over the past 5 years, if any. This should be an objective for DRAD and his, team along with his other objectives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [585]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: New Story: Money Crunch: The cost of doing business in big-time college athletics
Apr 17, 2016, 12:46 PM
|
|
Why not get rid of or reduce the cost of the cleanup contract for Sunday mornings after each home game? Let the students volunteer and those that participate in the cleanup get tickets to the lower bowl for the next game. Not sure what the AD spends on cleanup but they have large crews of people in each lot placing everything in piles for transport. Those that don't help can sit in the upper deck.
Also, is there any estimate of increased funds to Clemson from higher merchandise sales? Who receives that money? The AD? I know Clemson merchandise sales have increased substantially across the country. Just thought there should be additional revenue due to the increased popularity of the Clemson brand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [2]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
Re: New Story: Money Crunch: The cost of doing business in big-time college athletics
Apr 17, 2016, 1:18 PM
|
|
19 sports....why not go ahead and make it an even 20? Add Women's Softball as a sport! Hard to believe that we can't afford a new field with all the construction going on....
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7783]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
It's not that they can't afford it...
Apr 17, 2016, 1:44 PM
|
|
It's that they don't want to. Women's softball won't bring in any money, so it is not a priority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [107405]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2006
|
Re: It's not that they can't afford it...***
Apr 17, 2016, 2:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [140]
TigerPulse: 94%
11
|
Re: It's not that they can't afford it...
Apr 18, 2016, 10:44 AM
[ in reply to It's not that they can't afford it... ] |
|
Not true. Softball is HUGE and it's coming back to the Olympics. Sounds like you're one of those "all women's sports are boring" types. I get it, women's basketball is boring. However, there are some sports that are fun to watch - i.e. softball and volleyball. However softball would bring in the most revenue of all the women's sports...more than golf when they decided to add that and do-away with swimming!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27042]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 33387
Joined: 2009
|
Softball would be by far Clemson's most popular
Apr 18, 2016, 10:48 AM
|
|
women's sport. It's likely we would have a pretty good team too and contend for the ACC and play in super regionals and stuff.
It would certainly be better than our train wreck womens basketball program. Volleyball at Clemson has been popular in the past but they had a horrendous 5-25 season last year and things do not look very good with the new hire.
Let's be honest outside of women's soccer(which was also down for a while before recently), Clemson is not a very strong university for women's athletics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [107405]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [24]
TigerPulse: 97%
3
|
Re: New Story: Money Crunch: The cost of doing business in big-time college athletics
Apr 17, 2016, 6:35 PM
|
|
Why not add a $60 "athletic dept" fee to tuition and eliminate any preferences for lower deck such as Greek blocks, etc. Same amount of $ created. If any additional funding is so desperately needed perhaps D Rad's seats can be sold and he can sit in the upper deck for a few games. I am sure it would be a new experience for him. Although the end game may be to eventually eliminate all student tickets in the lower deck and sell those tickets for a much greater amount. We have sold our Tiger soul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [150]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: New Story: Money Crunch: The cost of doing business in big-time college athletics
Apr 17, 2016, 7:48 PM
|
|
Clemson just does not generate enough revenue. Im not sure where the shortings are but they are 5th is the ACC is total revenue and 39th is the nation.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4346]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Ok. Queshion. What does wake, Pitt and dsyracused bring to
Apr 17, 2016, 8:11 PM
|
|
the table? Since we are wondering who'd what are paying the bills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [156]
TigerPulse: 88%
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17238]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 11003
Joined: 2007
|
Re: New Story: Money Crunch: The cost of doing business in big-time college athletics
Apr 17, 2016, 8:28 PM
[ in reply to Re: New Story: Money Crunch: The cost of doing business in big-time college athletics ] |
|
These lists are virtually meaningless. They are based on voluntary reporting to the department of education. There is no standardization to the reporting. For example, South Carolina includes all Gamecock Club fees and YES charges in the number they report. Clemson does not report IPTAY revenue, other than what is reimbursed from IPTAY to CU annually, in these numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [445]
TigerPulse: 84%
17
|
I'm calling BS
Apr 17, 2016, 7:57 PM
|
|
Nm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2591]
TigerPulse: 92%
32
|
AKA... Bojangles is gonna have to step their game up!!
Apr 18, 2016, 2:31 PM
|
|
Clemson is BIG TIME now baby!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 32
| visibility 507
|
|
|
50
