Arbs--Can we get an ACC Network Update?

[stlorange]

Anything at all to report? Is it DOA or is there some hope that it can be established in the near future? Thanks for any information you can provide.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Swofford talked a little about in on the 1st. Surprised Arbs didn't see that any use it as "inside" info like he normally does.

 

[atom58]

This has already appeared in another thread, but I will re-post it here since it is worth repeating:

"As mentioned, each Big 12 school receives $23 million annually in media rights revenue. That’s at least behind the SEC and Big Ten among the Power Five conferences. It will soon be behind the ACC, according to a high-ranking source intimately involved in the process, whether the league adds a network or not."

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/wri...-12-ties-to-analyze-chances-of-joining-big-12

 

[OttosBestFriend]

Below are three questions and answers from a March 1, 2016 interview with John Swofford that was published by Greensboro.com.

There's a lot more to the interview. I only posted his answers re: the TV Network.

Here is the full interview.

Q: Is the league still considering starting its own ACC network for TV?

Swofford: “We’re in continuous discussions with our television partners on our path. Until we reach a point of having a more definitive path to share with people, you won’t hear much from us about it. … I will say the discussions are productive and going well. It’s an important part of the league’s future, and therefore you want to be very thorough thinking about it. It’s a long-term decision, whatever the path is. You want to get it right. Because you’re also dealing with ever-changing technology.”

Q: How closely do you watch what’s happening with the other college conference’s TV networks?

Swofford: "There’s something to be learned from all of them. The circumstances for each were different, so what you learn from each is different. If you go that route, the timing is very important. Distribution determines the financial implications of it. … The Big 10 really struggled in its early years and met a lot of challenges. But it’s matured and gotten well. The Pac-12 is a totally different approach, and several years into it is struggling. The SEC timed it really well – whether by design or circumstantial – and it’s been the most successful coming out of the chute. Their situation is probably most similar to what ours would be simply because they have the same partner in ESPN.”

Q: Has the ESPN deal been all the league hoped for?

Swofford: “It’s been good for both of us, and that’s the way a partnership should be. It’s certainly worked well for us from an exposure standpoint and from a financial standpoint. And it’s helped them as well from the very beginning. You look back to the days when they were launching ESPN2, and they put a Duke-Carolina basketball game on ESPN2 to entice people to subscribe.”

 

[CIL]

I think the stealth ninja killed finally killed him...

 

[gbo]

Maybe we can get Raycom to run our ACC network...

 

[sutomcat]

This has already appeared in another thread, but I will re-post it here since it is worth repeating:

"As mentioned, each Big 12 school receives $23 million annually in media rights revenue. That’s at least behind the SEC and Big Ten among the Power Five conferences. It will soon be behind the ACC, according to a high-ranking source intimately involved in the process, whether the league adds a network or not."

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/wri...-12-ties-to-analyze-chances-of-joining-big-12

Let's talk about this mysterious paragraph.

Is Dodd just a misinformed idiot or is there substance to this?

I would think that quote probably came from an ESPN executive.

Why would ESPN soon increase the payout to ACC schools?

It is a simple merit increase based in part on the performance of the ACC in the past couple of years? And in part designed to keep ACC schools happy/make them forget the notion of an ACC network?

 

[NKR1978]

Let's talk about this mysterious paragraph.

Is Dodd just a misinformed idiot or is there substance to this?

I would think that quote probably came from an ESPN executive.

Why would ESPN soon increase the payout to ACC schools?

It is a simple merit increase based in part on the performance of the ACC in the past couple of years? And in part designed to keep ACC schools happy/make them forget the notion of an ACC network?

I think the ACC deal was backloaded and toward the end we'll be getting close to $30,000,000 per school. The Big 12 was spread more evenly.

Though, Dodd is generally a moron, he is probably correct here.

 

[Alsacs]

Until ESPN is in better financial footing and the ACC buys back its rights it sold to Raycom and Fox Sports the ACCN will not happen.

If you asked me the ACCN will not happen because of ESPN. They are hemorrhaging subscribers right now. I don't think ESPN cares about the ACCN right now. The conference contract is backloaded. The conference needs non-Clemson/Florida State football schools pick it up for when the next contract in 2024.

 

[TDTOrange]

I think the ACC deal was backloaded and toward the end we'll be getting close to $30,000,000 per school. The Big 12 was spread more evenly.

Though, Dodd is generally a moron, he is probably correct here.

Wasn't there also some stipulation that if the ACCN hadn't materialized by a certian date (2016, 2017?) that the ESPN would increase the payout so the schools would receive $1-2M more? Did I see that somewhere or manifest that all on my own?

 

[Toga]

Wasn't there also some stipulation that if the ACCN hadn't materialized by a certian date (2016, 2017?) that the ESPN would increase the payout so the schools would receive $1-2M more? Did I see that somewhere or manifest that all on my own?

My (vague) recollection as well.

 

[Lou_C]

Wasn't there also some stipulation that if the ACCN hadn't materialized by a certian date (2016, 2017?) that the ESPN would increase the payout so the schools would receive $1-2M more? Did I see that somewhere or manifest that all on my own?

I don't think anyone has officially confirmed it, but it's been reported enough that I think it highly probable. It depends on how much that is.

The Big 12 distributed $23M for 2014-2015 year. For 2013-2014 ago (the year previous), which is all you have to compare because the ACC doesn't release numbers so you have to wait on tax filings, some ACC schools made between $18-21M. So, when you add another year's growth, the 2014-2015 number for the ACC should be pretty close to the Big 12's $23M, at least for the highest paid schools. It's not impossible that starting in 2017, if ESPN kicks in $2-3M in lieu of an ACC network, the ACC could go from $1-2M behind the Big 12 to $1-2M ahead.

However, I don't see anything that allows the ACC to really put distance between themselves and the Big 12 long term, barring a network. And the idea of the ACC and Big 12 d---k measuring over conference payouts is the biggest waste of time on the internet. The difference between the two in either direction is a rounding error compared to the SEC and B1G. It's like Spud Webb and Muggsy Bogues arguing about who's taller while they stand next to Shaq and David Robinson.

 

[DoctorBombay]

Wasn't there also some stipulation that if the ACCN hadn't materialized by a certian date (2016, 2017?) that the ESPN would increase the payout so the schools would receive $1-2M more? Did I see that somewhere or manifest that all on my own?

This.
Also, Swofford's comment about a "ever-changing technology" seems to indicate that the subscriber loss by basic cable is still playing out, and the old network model is just not viable right now.
Patience is a dirty word, but we just have to get used to it in terms of the ACCN.

 

[Chip]

Let's talk about this mysterious paragraph. Is Dodd just a misinformed idiot or is there substance to this? I would think that quote probably came from an ESPN executive. Why would ESPN soon increase the payout to ACC schools? It is a simple merit increase based in part on the performance of the ACC in the past couple of years? And in part designed to keep ACC schools happy/make them forget the notion of an ACC network?

It's because they know Dino's Dome offense is about to attract a lot of eyeballs.

 

[KaiserUEO]

I think the stealth ninja killed finally killed him...

hes not dead yet, but all he can do is whisper and nobody can hear him.

 

[TDTOrange]

I don't think anyone has officially confirmed it, but it's been reported enough that I think it highly probable. It depends on how much that is.

The Big 12 distributed $23M for 2014-2015 year. For 2013-2014 ago (the year previous), which is all you have to compare because the ACC doesn't release numbers so you have to wait on tax filings, some ACC schools made between $18-21M. So, when you add another year's growth, the 2014-2015 number for the ACC should be pretty close to the Big 12's $23M, at least for the highest paid schools. It's not impossible that starting in 2017, if ESPN kicks in $2-3M in lieu of an ACC network, the ACC could go from $1-2M behind the Big 12 to $1-2M ahead.

However, I don't see anything that allows the ACC to really put distance between themselves and the Big 12 long term, barring a network. And the idea of the ACC and Big 12 d---k measuring over conference payouts is the biggest waste of time on the internet. The difference between the two in either direction is a rounding error compared to the SEC and B1G. It's like Spud Webb and Muggsy Bogues arguing about who's taller while they stand next to Shaq and David Robinson.

I agree here. ACC just needs to be in the neighborhood with the BigXII and Pac12 (not sure exactly where they fall on the scale here since their networks have had some problems catching on with major distributors). There's no point in competing with the SEC and BiG since they're in a totally different stratosphere with fan interest/demand. These payouts have gotten so obscenely large that it's not so much just funding the athletics budget, but who can buy the most gold-plated urinals for the janitors closet in the women's kickball facility.

 

[Lou_C]

I agree here. ACC just needs to be in the neighborhood with the BigXII and Pac12 (not sure exactly where they fall on the scale here since their networks have had some problems catching on with major distributors). There's no point in competing with the SEC and BiG since they're in a totally different stratosphere with fan interest/demand. These payouts have gotten so obscenely large that it's not so much just funding the athletics budget, but who can buy the most gold-plated urinals for the janitors closet in the women's kickball facility.

Well, it would be foolish for the ACC or ACC schools to take a position of having to equal SEC/B1G revenues or bust. It can't happen for a ton of different reasons. And that's ok.

However, if the SEC or B1G is distributing $44M to the ACC's $24M, that's a big flippin deal. It will be big for FSU and Clemson who are trying to keep up with the Alabama and Ohio States of the world, and it will be big for Syracuse, who won't want to be spent into oblivion by the likes of traditional scrubs like Maryland, Indiana and Missouri.

It's good that we're similar to the Big 12 and PAC, but unfortunately those aren't the schools, other than WVU somewhat, that we're directly competing with for recruits, and to a lesser extent, coaches. Even coaches tend to work in regional circles, making it an anomaly when a school like UVA grabs a Bronco Mendenhall.

The PAC is especially insulated having a couple time zones between them and the big hitters, but we're fully sharing the region and states with them both. There is some pressure.

I think being within 75-80% of B1G/SEC revenues is probably the minimum acceptable, and 85%-90% would be much better. Right now, we're certainly not projecting to be within 75% in 4-5 years, let alone ten years.

And don't be naive about gold plated urinals. That cash makes a huge difference directly on competing in football. Besides the obvious facilities porn, you're talking about more recruiting trips, more staff, more everything that helps a football team. If you're thinking having 100 support staff vs 12 is just gold plated urinals, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[NKR1978]

The ACC and Big 12 should team up on a network. Would be best of both worlds. Keep our conferences intact and make enough money to compete with the B1G and SEC.

 

[TexanMark]

Lou I agree partially...I'm not sure the spread will be as dire as you used in your example. If the Big 2 are truly rolling in the dough like that through TV...ESPN would be under great pressure to renegotiate. The ACC throws ESPN a ton of sports besides FB...it is a staple for filling out their channels and calendar. If the ACC falls $20M a year behind the Big 2 in TV revenue then yes it will start to hurt the programs.

I think the ACC is moving in the right direction in FB...we made some great coaching hires the last 5-7 years and it is paying dividends and increase the overall conference top to bottom.

 

[TexanMark]

The ACC and Big 12 should team up on a network. Would be best of both worlds. Keep our conferences intact and make enough money to compete with the B1G and SEC.

FOX and ESPN would have to agree...

 

[NKR1978]

FOX and ESPN would have to agree...

Joint venture? Takes some of the risk from both. Also offers the Big 12 teams northeast exosure and opens up Texas for us.

 

[Alsacs]

Off topic but if I were the ACC I would tell the SEC you want support in passing a rule restricting teams from having spring practices in Florida or outside their region then support our amendment to deregulate conference championship games.

The Big Ten would be the loser in both of these rules and it would tighten the SEC/ACC conferences relationship.

 

[HtownOrange]

just another thing to keep in mind when Conference Payouts, not all revenue sharing plans are the same.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/04/20/big-ten-ticket-revenue/

Today, the Big Ten shares gate receipts from both football and men’s basketball. For football, schools contribute 35% of the gate receipts for all home games against conference opponents. The minimum contribution per game is $300,000 and the maximum is $1 million, making the maximum for the season $4 million. The pool is divided equally between all schools.

Here’s what each team in the Big Ten contributed for the 2009 football season:

Penn State Univ. $4,000,000.00
Univ. of Michigan $4,000,000.00
Ohio State Univ. $4,000,000.00
Univ. of Iowa $3,700,000.00
Univ. of Wisconsin $3,600,000.00
Michigan State Univ. $3,600,000.00
Univ. of Illinois $2,400,000.00
Purdue Univ. $2,200,000.00
Univ. of Minnesota $2,100,000.00
Indiana Univ. $1,600,000.00
Northwestern Univ. $1,200,000.00

These figures are from 2009!

The Big Ten is not quite the money maker it appears. Rutgers will be a net taker, for sure. However, they must "pay in" to the fund, too.

 

[atom58]

Well, it would be foolish for the ACC or ACC schools to take a position of having to equal SEC/B1G revenues or bust. It can't happen for a ton of different reasons. And that's ok.

However, if the SEC or B1G is distributing $44M to the ACC's $24M, that's a big flippin deal. It will be big for FSU and Clemson who are trying to keep up with the Alabama and Ohio States of the world, and it will be big for Syracuse, who won't want to be spent into oblivion by the likes of traditional scrubs like Maryland, Indiana and Missouri.

It's good that we're similar to the Big 12 and PAC, but unfortunately those aren't the schools, other than WVU somewhat, that we're directly competing with for recruits, and to a lesser extent, coaches. Even coaches tend to work in regional circles, making it an anomaly when a school like UVA grabs a Bronco Mendenhall.

The PAC is especially insulated having a couple time zones between them and the big hitters, but we're fully sharing the region and states with them both. There is some pressure.

I think being within 75-80% of B1G/SEC revenues is probably the minimum acceptable, and 85%-90% would be much better. Right now, we're certainly not projecting to be within 75% in 4-5 years, let alone ten years.

And don't be naive about gold plated urinals. That cash makes a huge difference directly on competing in football. Besides the obvious facilities porn, you're talking about more recruiting trips, more staff, more everything that helps a football team. If you're thinking having 100 support staff vs 12 is just gold plated urinals, then I don't know what to tell you.

Let us wait for the last fiscal year tax return b4 reaching any conclusions. I was in Tallahasse going to FSU when we went 0-11, 1-10, and 3-8 in consecutive years (and the last 2 years of bowl game losses don't look so good to me either) so I truly take a longitudinal view. The IRS rules for non-profits are different - I read they have up to 11 months to file. Going on the Internet, I see non-profit organizations though tax exempt still have to file an information return on form 990, and for a fiscal year ending June 30 [2015], there is a "second extended date" of May 15 [2016]:

https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Return-Due-Dates-for-Exempt-Organizations-Annual-Return

The ACC tax returns from 2011, 2012, and 2013 are already online:

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/560599082

The year 2015 was the 1st year of the CFB 4 team playoff and will show a significant increase in $$$ beyond what has been mentioned here.

 

[nzm136]

The ACC and Big 12 should team up on a network. Would be best of both worlds. Keep our conferences intact and make enough money to compete with the B1G and SEC.

Yeah, they could call it ESPN.