|
Replies: 33
| visibility 53
|
Paw Warrior [5029]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [3769]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
thats better....
May 9, 2012, 3:24 PM
|
|
seems as if we are finally catching up
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5029]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Quite hontestly if we want to be the top dogs in the TV
May 9, 2012, 3:26 PM
|
|
deals us, FSU, and Miami need to step up our football games. Luckily it looks like we're all heading in that direction and when it does we'll be compensated greatly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
Re: Quite hontestly if we want to be the top dogs in the TV
May 9, 2012, 3:28 PM
|
|
Yes, in 15 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
Not for long. The SEC is currently renegotiating their
May 9, 2012, 3:27 PM
[ in reply to thats better.... ] |
|
TV deals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4739]
TigerPulse: 95%
37
|
W/Clemson and FSU, the Big 12 would renegotiate theirs also.***
May 9, 2012, 3:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5029]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
The Big 12 is renegotiating theirs now***
May 9, 2012, 3:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4739]
TigerPulse: 95%
37
|
and would again if expanded again.***
May 9, 2012, 3:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
We need to run to the Big 12 TODAY.
May 9, 2012, 4:59 PM
|
|
Not sure why anyone would object.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8013]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
They object because they don't understand.
May 9, 2012, 5:03 PM
|
|
They see $17 mil a year and think it's a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
31
|
So ACC 3.6 Billion 15 years Big XII 2.5 Billion 13 years
May 9, 2012, 3:29 PM
|
|
Basically the Big 12 gets 2 million more per year to show games on FSN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1435]
TigerPulse: 56%
29
|
For those complaining....
May 9, 2012, 4:03 PM
|
|
about bringing Pitt and Syracuse into the ACC, this is exactly why the ACC chose those teams, TV markets.
That's where the extra money is coming from and has nothing to do with anybody's record in football, basketball or any other sport. It's about television sets and cable TV subscriptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1285]
TigerPulse: 94%
27
|
Re: For those complaining....
May 9, 2012, 4:06 PM
|
|
If new TV markets bring in extra revenue does that mean the ACC's best 16-team configuration would be to add Notre Dame(nationwide TV appeal) and Rutgers for the New Jersey and New York City markets?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1435]
TigerPulse: 56%
29
|
Re: For those complaining....
May 9, 2012, 4:08 PM
|
|
Yes. But unless the new BCS playoff system forces their hand (by going with conference champs first), ND will stay independent. They make too much money from NBC on their own. Why would they want to revenue share with other schools when they can have the whole enchilada to themsleves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1285]
TigerPulse: 94%
27
|
Re: For those complaining....
May 9, 2012, 4:12 PM
|
|
I've heard that NBC doesn't want to renew their TV deal with Notre Dame. I believe it expires after next season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1435]
TigerPulse: 56%
29
|
Then I'd call that...
May 9, 2012, 4:13 PM
|
|
Strike TWO!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8013]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
That's the biggest bunch of bull I have heard today.
May 9, 2012, 4:31 PM
[ in reply to For those complaining.... ] |
|
If all the ACC wanted was TV markets, why didn't they invite Rutgers then. They have the NYC market, for crying out loud. Much bigger than Syracuse or Pitt.
If TV markets were so important, why was the old Big East not the richest conference? The had the most populated region of the country as their footprint, but they also had the smallest TV contract.
If TV markets are so important, how did the Big 12 just announce a new $20 mil per school contract, you know, 3 mil per year more than the ACC? I hear Kansas, Iowa, Oklahoma are just freaking loaded with TV sets and Cable subscriptions. Not.
TV sets and cable subricptions are only important if you have a product to sell.
The ACC expanded for basketball. That's why they chose the schools they did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
31
|
Not really.
May 9, 2012, 4:35 PM
|
|
Pitt and Syracuse are much bigger names and have a larger following than Rutgers. Also the Big XII makes more money because they sold their second tier rights to Fox Sports.
I think having all of our games on ESPN is worth the extra 2 or 3 million they will get.
The ACC could make more money, but the conference values the exposure provided by ESPN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8013]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Exposure doesn't pay coaches salaries or build facilities.
May 9, 2012, 4:43 PM
|
|
Sure we're doing OK right now, but what about when the SEC's new contract doubles what the ACC gets? Think it's hard to compete now, just wait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
31
|
Re: Exposure doesn't pay coaches salaries or build facilities.
May 9, 2012, 4:44 PM
|
|
It sure does get Clemson into the living rooms of the young men we try to recruit, our fans, future fans, and potential students.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1435]
TigerPulse: 56%
29
|
^^ this.***
May 9, 2012, 5:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5029]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
The addition of Pitt and Syracuse was able to double the
May 9, 2012, 4:39 PM
[ in reply to That's the biggest bunch of bull I have heard today. ] |
|
ACC's TV deal from $1.8 billion to $3.6. Also, the Big 12 has not officially signed a new TV deal yet, but remember they only have 10 teams. Their rumored agreement is for $2.5 billion over 13 years which is $200 mil annually. The ACC's deal is $255 mil annually, so while the cut is smaller, the ACC did get a bigger deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8013]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
First off, you've got some funny math going on there.
May 9, 2012, 4:48 PM
|
|
Pitt and Syr did not "double" the deal. It's total amount only doubled because the number or teams increased and they extended the term to 15 years. The old contract was only 13 years.
The ONLY thing that matters is the per school payout. Spin it any way you like, the Big 12 schools get more per year than the ACC schools. Add in their Tier 3 deals and they get a lot more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5029]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
The total amount was doubled, the deal was doubled
May 9, 2012, 5:06 PM
|
|
Don't say I've got the fuzzy math, you're the one breaking it down so it doesn't sound like that.
I know what you're getting at with the per team deal, but the bottom line is the ACC didn't get raped and didn't do that bad of a job with this new deal. Also remember that nothing has officially been announced with Big 12 and their total TV and tier 3 deals either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8013]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
To compare deals you HAVE to break it down.
May 9, 2012, 8:11 PM
|
|
The ONLY thing that matters is annual pay outs per team. Period. If the Big 12 gets a higher pay out per team than the ACC they have the better deal.Try to make it look better all you want but net income is all that matters to each school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
31
|
If net income was the only thing that mattered
May 9, 2012, 8:15 PM
|
|
The ACC would not have sold all of its rights to ESPN.
The ACC likes the exposure that ESPN provides and as of right now the ACC is the largest content provider, college or pro, to ESPN.
Basically the Big XII is getting paid 3 million more to have their games broadcast on Fox Sports Net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [135]
TigerPulse: 18%
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18210]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 22449
Joined: 1999
|
So that would mean the difference in Big XII money would
May 9, 2012, 4:16 PM
|
|
be 2.25 million/yr. Not a huge amount, IMO. Additional expense would probably more than negate that amount.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8013]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Not so fast, my friend.
May 9, 2012, 4:41 PM
|
|
Right now it's more like 3 million per year. Still not much you say? The ACC contract includes Tier 1, 2, and 3. The Big 12 contract is only for Tiers 1 and 2. The Big 12 schools own their own Tier 3 that they can sell for additional revenue. That's why under the new contracts just announced Kansas will be making $28 per year (including their Tier 3 money) compared to FSU making $17.
Also remember that there are only 10 Big 12 teams. There are reports that their contract includes an esculator that increases the per school payout if they expand to 12 and stage a CCG. That will bump their contract up to $24 mil per year.
Hmmm... Stay in the ACC and make $17 mil per year or go to the Big 12 and make close to $30 mil per year? And that doesn't even include the possible windfall from better bowl contracts and the new BCS playoff money that will almost certainly be weighted based on participation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5029]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Kansas makes almost $8 mil for tier 3, but Clemson doesn't
May 9, 2012, 4:53 PM
|
|
even make a million. Now we're in a conference that spilts tier 3. If we went to a conference that let teams keep their tier 3 money it would be a disadvantage to us! As of 2010 the top tier 3 schools were:
1 University of North Carolina $11,171,458.00
2 University of Alabama $8,444,674.00
3 University of Kentucky $7,743,327.00
4 University of Florida $7,450,000.00
5 University of Kansas $7,276,988.00
6 Louisiana State University $7,012,730.00
7 Oklahoma State University $6,395,000.00
8 University of Tennessee $6,293,621.00
9 Oregon State University $6,267,671.00
10 University of Georgia $6,231,392.00
11 University of Wisconsin $5,547,740.00
12
Auburn University
$4,637,605.00
13 University of Nebraska $4,393,529.00
14 University of Missouri $4,081,549.00
15 Virginia Tech $3,769,583.00
16 Kansas State University $3,263,941.00
17 Iowa State University $2,608,896.00
18 North Carolina State University $2,470,750.00
19 Penn State University $2,362,500.00
20 Ohio State University $2,329,462.00
21 University of South Carolina $1,829,000.00
22 University of Connecticut $1,749,796.00
23 University of Louisville $1,675,000.00
24 University of Mississippi $1,658,650.00
25 University of Iowa $1,500,000.00
26 Georgia Tech $1,254,876.00
27 University of Washington $1,248,599.00
28
University of Illinois
$1,175,065.00
29 University of Cincinnati $1,000,000.00
30 University of Arkansas $950,000.00
31 Clemson University $920,000.00
32 Michigan State University $660,025.00
33 University of South Florida $588,298.00
34 Washington State University $562,098.00
35 West Virginia University $404,284.00
36 Florida State University $349,869.00
37 University of Texas $338,171.00
38 University of Minnesota $324,000.00
39 University of Oklahoma $317,361.00
40 University of Colorado $155,528.00
41 University of Oregon $108,452.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8013]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Your numbers are not correct.
May 9, 2012, 5:01 PM
|
|
The money list in your post is currently NOT shared by the schools. That $11 mil besides UNC's name, they keep 100% of that. Clemson doesn't benefit at all. That is the Tier 3 RADIO contract. The TV deal is something altogether different.
So by your own post Clemson is already at a disdvantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
31
|
Re: Your numbers are not correct.
May 9, 2012, 5:05 PM
|
|
I think its pretty safe to say Clemson makes more money on tier 3 joined to the ACC than it would if not. UNC/FSU/Miami/Cuse probably not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18210]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 22449
Joined: 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18396]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 13680
Joined: 2009
|
This new contract does not allow for an ACC network
May 9, 2012, 5:59 PM
|
|
that is a separate subscription-based entity like the BTN model or the ones that the SEC and Big XII are putting together. All rights are owned exclusively by ESPN for the duration for the $17M / school figure - for the next 15 years.
This is where we're going to get killed financially over this time by the other conferences, and by the time this agreement is over, we'll be playing some serious catch up in regards to actually getting such a network out into the market.
One would think that with all the academic pedigree of the mighty ACC, and the addition of new school markets based almost solely on population centers (which are tailor-made for this type of network) that we wouldn't have left that on the table like we did.
Without some significant game-changing expansion that lets us once again go back to the table and restructure, Swofford just agreed to sell us out for chump change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 33
| visibility 53
|
|
|
50
