ACC v. B12 contracts

[SyracuseMiami]

Got this off the Pitt board.. Some assumptions made, but the clearest breakout of value I've seen (sans the rights of Tier 3)... Debunks a lot of the WVU propoganda we've seen...

http://accfootballrx.blogspot...-vs-big-12.html

 

[texascpa]

link is no good. Can you just type it out.

 

[MikeSU02]

link is no good. Can you just type it out.

Two interesting articles:

Comparison of revenue: http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2012/05/tv-contracts-acc-vs-big-12.html

Cost to travel: http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-fsu-clemson-wont-join-big-12.html

 

[omniorange]

The travel one is funny mostly because the WVU fans went to board after board after board telling everyone how the Big 12 pays travel expenses. Then, of course, I saw an article today about how Kansas is raising its travel budget 600K to $5.1 million for this upcoming year.

http://www2.kusports.com/news/2012/may/25/kansas-athletics-inc-board-discusses-big-12-growth/

Lester offered another reason for the expected increase — the Big 12’s addition of West Virginia, which is located in more remote Morgantown, W.V., roughly 900 miles away from KU’s campus.

“You want to talk about costs of team travel,” Lester said. “That’s a big one.”

Cheers,
Neil

 

[SyracuseMiami]

Thanks MikeSU... The comparison of revenue link was the one I was attempting to post... Refreshing to read some facts rather than biased nonsense from Kansas and WVU fans... The more the facts come out, the more perceived gap seemse to be shrinking...

Two interesting articles:

Comparison of revenue: http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2012/05/tv-contracts-acc-vs-big-12.html

Cost to travel: http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-fsu-clemson-wont-join-big-12.html

 

[arbitragegls]

what is important to add here is what happens with bowls in the new playoff schedule. If the ACC is inlcuded in a four team playoff and gets a conference bowl as did the Big 12/SEC...the fact is there most likely will be no significant dollar changes. for teams to jump to the Big 12. ACC teams may be only a small dollar amount behind in total dollars vs. the Big 12 including TV deals. Now, presume that the ACC is moving to wrap up multiple bowls (per NCCSTATE senior ADministrator) than it is possible that the ACC will actually have total dollars going to its schools that are equial to or greater than other conferences. And dont forget travel costs. It would be a hoot for FSU to go to the Big 12 and find out that the revenues do not compensate for expenses; and winning the conference will be more difficult. Wait a NY minute, when did FSU last win the ACC??

 

[omniorange]

what is important to add here is what happens with bowls in the new playoff schedule. If the ACC is inlcuded in a four team playoff and gets a conference bowl as did the Big 12/SEC...the fact is there most likely will be no significant dollar changes. for teams to jump to the Big 12. ACC teams may be only a small dollar amount behind in total dollars vs. the Big 12 including TV deals. Now, presume that the ACC is moving to wrap up multiple bowls (per NCCSTATE senior ADministrator) than it is possible that the ACC will actually have total dollars going to its schools that are equial to or greater than other conferences. And dont forget travel costs. It would be a hoot for FSU to go to the Big 12 and find out that the revenues do not compensate for expenses; and winning the conference will be more difficult. Wait a NY minute, when did FSU last win the ACC??

But even this bowl money likely short term in nature due to them being "exhibition" games. We have already seen the decline in both attendance and ratings for the bowls as a result of a single championship game. How much more will they be impacted by now having three games of interest more important than them?

The only significant "exhibition" games will be those on January 1, and this assumes that the semi-finals are not played on that day. The Rose has the 3:30 time slot sewn up. This new SEC/Big 12 will get the evening time slot. That leaves the early afternoon slot left. Neither the Pac nor the Big 12 will likely be involved with that game. So that leaves SEC #3, BiG #2 or #3, the ACC #1 or #2, or ND.

The smart money will be on the first two, but the ACC might just be able pull off something with either the BiG or the SEC. Wonder how much interest there would be in rotating such a bowl amongst NYC, DC, and Miami if it's BiG and ACC?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Chip]

But even this bowl money likely short term in nature due to them being "exhibition" games. We have already seen the decline in both attendance and ratings for the bowls as a result of a single championship game. How much more will they be impacted by now having three games of interest more important than them?

The only significant "exhibition" games will be those on January 1, and this assumes that the semi-finals are not played on that day. The Rose has the 3:30 time slot sewn up. This new SEC/Big 12 will get the evening time slot. That leaves the early afternoon slot left. Neither the Pac nor the Big 12 will likely be involved with that game. So that leaves SEC #3, BiG #2 or #3, the ACC #1 or #2, or ND.

The smart money will be on the first two, but the ACC might just be able pull off something with either the BiG or the SEC. Wonder how much interest there would be in rotating such a bowl amongst NYC, DC, and Miami if it's BiG and ACC?

Cheers,
Neil

I liked Barnhardt's suggestion that maybe Miami and the Orange Bowl doesn't have the attraction it once did, and that the ACC should work to make the Peach Bowl a bigger deal. Not sure if they could pry the SEC #2 from the Citrus, but given the Citrus is in a terrible stadium in a bad part of town (albeit Disney's town), maybe they can figure out how to get SEC #2 instead of SEC #3 as they have now. Even if it's ACC 1 (non-Final 4 years) vs SEC 2, Atlanta is guaranteed the attendance #'s, try to make that their big payout. Could have an issue with the SEC Championship Game loser not wanting to return to Atlanta, but the way things have shaped up that's not always the 2nd best team you'd want from the SEC anyway.

I also like the ACC-SEC regular season challenge idea, similar to Pac-12 - B1G. 4 teams from each already play, let the rest work it out.

Just the media release of one or both of these happening is enough to make everyone forget about the day they thought the ACC died. College football media are sheep for news, they'll talk the league up all day.

 

[arbitragegls]

hmmm..what if it is Atlanta and NYC for the ACC...would that get attention?

 

[Toga]

hmmm..what if it is Atlanta and NYC for the ACC...would that get attention?

For years a game would be played in the northeast, you'd really need a domed stadium, of which there are none. Oh wait.

 

[DomeStranger]

Great articles ... should be labeled "Conference Realignment for Dummies." ... it's about time someone explained things with decent facts and in English for a dummy like me.

 

[SURules]

Got this off the Pitt board.. Some assumptions made, but the clearest breakout of value I've seen (sans the rights of Tier 3)... Debunks a lot of the WVU propoganda we've seen...

http://accfootballrx.blogspot...-vs-big-12.html

Another item of value that no one seems to talk about is the over all intrinsic value of having all the ACC games on all over the country and olympic spots a well. That value needs to be included that other contacts do NOT have. Exposure is very important.

 

[arbitragegls]

+1! to SURULES.

 

[OrangeHeel]

Another item of value that no one seems to talk about is the over all intrinsic value of having all the ACC games on all over the country and olympic spots a well. That value needs to be included that other contacts do NOT have. Exposure is very important.

Great point! I used to watch NHL & especially play-offs religiously when ESPN had the league. Now? I found out by accident who's in the Stanley Cup finals although I've got no clue when it starts. It's the WWL baby.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PeteCalvin]

Another item of value that no one seems to talk about is the over all intrinsic value of having all the ACC games on all over the country and olympic spots a well. That value needs to be included that other contacts do NOT have. Exposure is very important.

I get the feeling that when all is finally silent on this recent expansion rumor mill, Swofford will once again have shown that he was ahead of the curve. The football conferences appear to be shortsighted on anything outside of football.

 

[Moontan]

I also like the ACC-SEC regular season challenge idea, similar to Pac-12 - B1G. 4 teams from each already play, let the rest work it out.

I was about to say that: "That's likely not going to happen". That assessment was based on the fact that several ACC teams already have tough rivalry games. Add those to a 9-game conference schedule and there are only 2 games left. GT has let it be known that they will likely not be interested in adding another BCS caliber game to their schedule., for example

But then... I realized that the games I was thinking about are already ACC-SEC games. They are GT-UGA, FSU-UF, Clemson-SouthCarolina. These could be protected games as part of the "Challenge".

One thing in favor of such a "Challenge" is the fact that both conferences should have 14 members, so that nobody's left out. The question is, would LSU or Alabama really want to play a game in Durham? They could try to group the games into pools of strength, so that the remaining top-4 of each conference (based on a rolling 3 or 4 year final ranking average) would match up. Home games would alternate.

I still get the impression that most SEC schools would think that this "Challenge" is beneath them.

I was able to find a source that listed all 120 teams based on BCS ranking for 2011, prior to the bowl games. Note: schools with protected games are shown in parentheses.

2011 SEC: Alabama=1, LSU=2, Arkansas,=7, (South Carolina=9), (Georgia=17), Missouri=27, Auburn=28, aTm=31, Miss State=40, (Florida=41), Vandy=47, Tennessee=57, Kentucky=70, Ole Miss=97
2011 ACC: VPI=11, (Clemson=14), (FSU=30), (Georgia Tech=34), UVA=39, UNC=45, NCState=56, Miami=60, Wake Forest=61, Pitt=64, Syracuse=81, BCU=86, Duke=101, Maryland=102

A top-4 pool would pit Alabama, LSU, Arkansas & Mizzou against VPI, UVA, UNC & NCState. A top-5 would add Auburn and Miami. In such a setup, Syracuse would likely regularly play games against Kentucky, Vandy, Tennessee and the Mississippi schools.

 

[Chip]

I was about to say that: "That's likely not going to happen". That assessment was based on the fact that several ACC teams already have tough rivalry games. Add those to a 9-game conference schedule and there are only 2 games left. GT has let it be known that they will likely not be interested in adding another BCS caliber game to their schedule., for example

But then... I realized that the games I was thinking about are already ACC-SEC games. They are GT-UGA, FSU-UF, Clemson-SouthCarolina. These could be protected games as part of the "Challenge".

One thing in favor of such a "Challenge" is the fact that both conferences should have 14 members, so that nobody's left out. The question is, would LSU or Alabama really want to play a game in Durham? They could try to group the games into pools of strength, so that the remaining top-4 of each conference (based on a rolling 3 or 4 year final ranking average) would match up. Home games would alternate.

I still get the impression that most SEC schools would think that this "Challenge" is beneath them.

I was able to find a source that listed all 120 teams based on BCS ranking for 2011, prior to the bowl games. Note: schools with protected games are shown in parentheses.

2011 SEC: Alabama=1, LSU=2, Arkansas,=7, (South Carolina=9), (Georgia=17), Missouri=27, Auburn=28, aTm=31, Miss State=40, (Florida=41), Vandy=47, Tennessee=57, Kentucky=70, Ole Miss=97
2011 ACC: VPI=11, (Clemson=14), (FSU=30), (Georgia Tech=34), UVA=39, UNC=45, NCState=56, Miami=60, Wake Forest=61, Pitt=64, Syracuse=81, BCU=86, Duke=101, Maryland=102

A top-4 pool would pit Alabama, LSU, Arkansas & Mizzou against VPI, UVA, UNC & NCState. A top-5 would add Auburn and Miami. In such a setup, Syracuse would likely regularly play games against Kentucky, Vandy, Tennessee and the Mississippi schools.

Alabama played at Duke a couple of years ago. I think the SEC would go for this. They are staying with an 8 game conference schedule so they have the flexibility. And it gives them road games in several low cost travel locales. Something they love to offer their traveling fans.

 

[Toga]

Maybe the SEC teams would see their trips to ACC schools as an opportunity to squeeze in some book learnin.

I was about to say that: "That's likely not going to happen". That assessment was based on the fact that several ACC teams already have tough rivalry games. Add those to a 9-game conference schedule and there are only 2 games left. GT has let it be known that they will likely not be interested in adding another BCS caliber game to their schedule., for example

But then... I realized that the games I was thinking about are already ACC-SEC games. They are GT-UGA, FSU-UF, Clemson-SouthCarolina. These could be protected games as part of the "Challenge".

One thing in favor of such a "Challenge" is the fact that both conferences should have 14 members, so that nobody's left out. The question is, would LSU or Alabama really want to play a game in Durham? They could try to group the games into pools of strength, so that the remaining top-4 of each conference (based on a rolling 3 or 4 year final ranking average) would match up. Home games would alternate.

I still get the impression that most SEC schools would think that this "Challenge" is beneath them.

I was able to find a source that listed all 120 teams based on BCS ranking for 2011, prior to the bowl games. Note: schools with protected games are shown in parentheses.

2011 SEC: Alabama=1, LSU=2, Arkansas,=7, (South Carolina=9), (Georgia=17), Missouri=27, Auburn=28, aTm=31, Miss State=40, (Florida=41), Vandy=47, Tennessee=57, Kentucky=70, Ole Miss=97
2011 ACC: VPI=11, (Clemson=14), (FSU=30), (Georgia Tech=34), UVA=39, UNC=45, NCState=56, Miami=60, Wake Forest=61, Pitt=64, Syracuse=81, BCU=86, Duke=101, Maryland=102

A top-4 pool would pit Alabama, LSU, Arkansas & Mizzou against VPI, UVA, UNC & NCState. A top-5 would add Auburn and Miami. In such a setup, Syracuse would likely regularly play games against Kentucky, Vandy, Tennessee and the Mississippi schools.

 

[ImperialOrange]

How about the southern ACC teams play SEC teams and the northern ACC teams play B1G teams in a challenge week during OOC play when people would actually watch because the games actually matter? After other conferences see this is successful they can follow suit with western SEC vs Big 12 and western B1G vs Big 12 or SEC can play the B1G and the Big 12 can play vs the PAC 12. I can't be the only one that sees that regular season games would draw alot more eyeballs than the these bowl games that noone watches.

 

[kingottoiii]

The big question is the playoff money. If the majority of the money is going to the participants (similar to the BCS monies), then FSU will be tempted. Based on the past 20 years and where each ACC program is currently, who besides FSU has a shot at making the playoffs? And how often? I only see VT as being able to make it without having a dream season. Then look at the B12 and you see that it would be unlikely that they miss the playoff as a conference. The difference in perception (being at the big boy table) and money is enough to make FSU go.

Currently the majority of the BCS money goes to those that make the BCS. Wouldn't a playoff be similar? So lets say the playoff is worth $500 million per year (cheap according to this). Then $100 million goes to each participant and $100 million is evenly shared by the NCAA and each conference. So if the ACC doesn't get a team in the playoff, each school gets $500k a year. While the B12 having a team in the playoff means each team would get $10 million a year.

I do think that the TV money of the B12 minus the increased travel cost would pretty much be a net of zero (like the articles above say). But if FSU went to the B12 they would almost be guaranteed a large share of playoff money. While in the ACC it is a huge question mark as to whether or not they get that money. And most of the time it would be up to FSU to carry that burden. It makes more sense for them to leave for the B12.

FSU would be crazy to leave the ACC before the playoff and its payouts are settled. And they likely would want to stick around the ACC a few years to see how things play out. But if the on the field struggles of the ACC continue and the playoff participant payouts are significant, then FSU will be gone. And that could cause a domino effect.

 

[cusenole9]

The big question is the playoff money. If the majority of the money is going to the participants (similar to the BCS monies), then FSU will be tempted. Based on the past 20 years and where each ACC program is currently, who besides FSU has a shot at making the playoffs? And how often? I only see VT as being able to make it without having a dream season. Then look at the B12 and you see that it would be unlikely that they miss the playoff as a conference. The difference in perception (being at the big boy table) and money is enough to make FSU go.

Currently the majority of the BCS money goes to those that make the BCS. Wouldn't a playoff be similar? So lets say the playoff is worth $500 million per year (cheap according to this). Then $100 million goes to each participant and $100 million is evenly shared by the NCAA and each conference. So if the ACC doesn't get a team in the playoff, each school gets $500k a year. While the B12 having a team in the playoff means each team would get $10 million a year.

I do think that the TV money of the B12 minus the increased travel cost would pretty much be a net of zero (like the articles above say). But if FSU went to the B12 they would almost be guaranteed a large share of playoff money. While in the ACC it is a huge question mark as to whether or not they get that money. And most of the time it would be up to FSU to carry that burden. It makes more sense for them to leave for the B12.

FSU would be crazy to leave the ACC before the playoff and its payouts are settled. And they likely would want to stick around the ACC a few years to see how things play out. But if the on the field struggles of the ACC continue and the playoff participant payouts are significant, then FSU will be gone. And that could cause a domino effect.

Replace TV money minus travel costs netting zero to netting something small like 2-7 million (just from assumption that adding teams to big12 will increase the contract) and I think you are right on the money with your analysis.

 

[SUATO92]

Replace TV money minus travel costs netting zero to netting something small like 2-7 million (just from assumption that adding teams to big12 will increase the contract) and I think you are right on the money with your analysis.

Let's play a logic game. If FSU and say Clemson are worth so much more in the Big 12 why does that value not show up in the newly negotiated ACC contract? Your premise is based on conjecture being passed around by WVU and other Big 12 fans. So let me spell this out for you. The TV draws in the Big 12 are Texas and Oklahoma. If FSU and Clemson move the Big 12 its TV partners will adjust the contract proportionally and call it a wash for overpaying for the rights to broadcast Iowa State and Texas Tech. Last time I checked 3/4 of the Big 12 was almost left in the land of misfit toys last summer. Now you're trying to tell me chicken *t has turned into chicken salad? Yeah Riiiiight...

 

[Toga]

Let's play a logic game. If FSU and say Clemson are worth so much more in the Big 12 why does that value not show up in the newly negotiated ACC contract? Your premise is based on conjecture being passed around by WVU and other Big 12 fans. So let me spell this out for you. The TV draws in the Big 12 are Texas and Oklahoma. If FSU and Clemson move the Big 12 its TV partners will adjust the contract proportionally and call it a wash for overpaying for the rights to broadcast Iowa State and Texas Tech. Last time I checked 3/4 of the Big 12 was almost left in the land of misfit toys last summer. Now you're trying to tell me chicken *t has turned into chicken salad? Yeah Riiiiight...

The land of misfit toys. That's awesome!

 

[cusenole9]

Let's play a logic game. If FSU and say Clemson are worth so much more in the Big 12 why does that value not show up in the newly negotiated ACC contract? Your premise is based on conjecture being passed around by WVU and other Big 12 fans. So let me spell this out for you. The TV draws in the Big 12 are Texas and Oklahoma. If FSU and Clemson move the Big 12 its TV partners will adjust the contract proportionally and call it a wash for overpaying for the rights to broadcast Iowa State and Texas Tech. Last time I checked 3/4 of the Big 12 was almost left in the land of misfit toys last summer. Now you're trying to tell me chicken *t has turned into chicken salad? Yeah Riiiiight...

Ok, well first of all, I admit that I'm guessing adding FSU will increase the TV contract, but I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption. I was also supporting the argument presented by King Otto that this all probably has more to do with playoff/bowl money than TV revenue. Regardless, I still think the big12 tv contract goes up with the addition of FSU (not to mention that a title game will undoubtedly increase revenue). You don't think the Big12 adding the state of Florida to it's footprint increases the value of a tv contract? I bet you think that the ACC adding Syracuse because of the NY market helped the ACC contract. Also, read this. Also please note that I didn't say that FSU moving to the Big12 is the right move. Just think it has to do with much more than a tv contract.

 

[SUATO92]

Ok, well first of all, I admit that I'm guessing adding FSU will increase the TV contract, but I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption. I was also supporting the argument presented by King Otto that this all probably has more to do with playoff/bowl money than TV revenue. Regardless, I still think the big12 tv contract goes up with the addition of FSU (not to mention that a title game will undoubtedly increase revenue). You don't think the Big12 adding the state of Florida to it's footprint increases the value of a tv contract? I bet you think that the ACC adding Syracuse because of the NY market helped the ACC contract. Also, read this. Also please note that I didn't say that FSU moving to the Big12 is the right move. Just think it has to do with much more than a tv contract.

Nope I do not believe it was SU's tv market as the main driver for our inclusion in this round of expansion. The ACC needed teams to trigger contract negotiation with ESPN and they chose the best pedigrees within their current footprint. Adding Florida State to the Big 12 mix is NOT going to lead to enough of an increase to net FSU a profit of 2-7 million as you stated. As people have started to realize if FSU is unhappy about its on field performance they need to look in the mirror. If they leave...good luck! I predict mediocrity follows them to their new home.