ACC revenue distribution agreement

[Prestonyte]

Is this enough to keep them together?

ACC approves new revenue distribution model

The ACC board of directors endorsed a new revenue distribution model Wednesday that will reward success based on postseason performance.

www.espn.com

 

[Anon1658788697]

For now. Give it 3 years.

 

[Blues man]

Man I really dont like where this is headed. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but it seems primed for corruption to me.That's a lot of money for one team based on polls and rankings that are so subjective. They need to come up with an established and well documented way to make the playoff.

 

[Lurker123]

Is this enough to keep them together?

ACC approves new revenue distribution model

The ACC board of directors endorsed a new revenue distribution model Wednesday that will reward success based on postseason performance.

www.espn.com

I don't think so.

 

[18IsTheMan]

It’s a bandaid

 

[KingWard]

It’s a bandaid

It can't cover the wound. What is being proposed won't nearly bring the teams pushing for uneven distribution to where they want to get.

The disbursement of TV money will remain equal. Only postseason performance will be weighted toward those who appear in the bowls and playoffs, and of course, the impact will vary with the value of where those teams play.

Teams will get a boost on good years, but this isn't the kind of income they can rely on. It's close to a farce.

 

[Lurker123]

It's close to a farce.

This was my thought. It's not even a bandaid, but salt in the wound. It'll actually hasten the breakup.

 

[Deleted11512]

This was my thought. It's not even a bandaid, but salt in the wound. It'll actually hasten the breakup.

The only way there will be a breakup is if the ACC/ESPN decide to allow it, which is highly unlikely. The schools are stuck with the deal THEY WANTED. FSU and Clem had a chance to get out before the GOR came into play. They chose to stay. I have heard, and read, that ESPN demanded this kind of deal for the money the ACC wanted. The only way ESPN would agree is with a long term deal the schools couldn't get out of. ESPN is out here laying off buckets full of people...they're not letting anyone out of this deal.

 

[18IsTheMan]

The only way there will be a breakup is if the ACC/ESPN decide to allow it, which is highly unlikely. The schools are stuck with the deal THEY WANTED. FSU and Clem had a chance to get out before the GOR came into play. They chose to stay. I have heard, and read, that ESPN demanded this kind of deal for the money the ACC wanted. The only way ESPN would agree is with a long term deal the schools couldn't get out of. ESPN is out here laying off buckets full of people...they're not letting anyone out of this deal.

Makes you wonder. If the ACC was unwilling to go along with unequal distribution of TV revenue, which is the only way any real dent would be made in the revenue gap, they must feel pretty good about the strength of the GOR.

 

[ToddFlanders]

Definitely a quick fix, and will let the teams making bowl games, CFP and March Madness to get a little more while their TV deal is where it is.

I’d imagine it’s schools like clem raising a stink (and rightfully so) - not only do they have a bad TV deal, but they also get the same share as BC?!?

 

[Deleted11512]

Definitely a quick fix, and will let the teams making bowl games, CFP and March Madness to get a little more while their TV deal is where it is.

I’d imagine it’s schools like clem raising a stink (and rightfully so) - not only do they have a bad TV deal, but they also get the same share as BC?!?

Haha. They agreed to it. Not like they were forced to do anything. The member schools all voted to allow programs like BC and Cuse into the conference. They’re raising a stink bc they created, and agreed, to a bad deal.

 

[ToddFlanders]

Haha. They agreed to it. Not like they were forced to do anything. The member schools all voted to allow programs like BC and Cuse into the conference. They’re raising a stink bc they created, and agreed, to a bad deal.

They did, that's true. The market changed completely after they signed though. Even the SEC has a bad deal in the current market. The Big 10's deal is for more money, and expires 2 years earlier - so they can renegotiate for even more while the SEC teams are stuck for a couple more seasons making much less.

Everyone thought these long-term deals were great because they could have guaranteed revenue for a decade or two. No one saw the value of these TV deals quadrupling in value over the course of the last 3-5 years.

Conferences should sign a 5 year deal max from now on.

 

[Irvin Snibbley]

Been listening to some stuff from FSU people and they are dying to get out of the ACC.....believe the GOR is airtight (thanks Swofford) or else you'd have seen some challenges already...BTW apparently the only way for ACC schools to view the GOR is to send a lawyer to the ACC offices to view it there and they are not allowed to make copies or take pictures...

Also I believe the Big 10 is going to make a strong move in this part of the country and you'll see them go strong after the NC,Fla,and Va markets...This according to FSU people.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Been listening to some stuff from FSU people and they are dying to get out of the ACC.....believe the GOR is airtight (thanks Swofford) or else you'd have seen some challenges already...BTW apparently the only way for ACC schools to view the GOR is to send a lawyer to the ACC offices to view it there and they are not allowed to make copies or take pictures...

Also I believe the Big 10 is going to make a strong move in this part of the country and you'll see them go strong after the NC,Fla,and Va markets...This according to FSU people.

Two things tell you the GOR is airtight:
1. The ACC didn't give in on unequal distribution of TV revenue
2. Clemson and FSU signed off the unequal revenue distribution agreement that excluded TV revenue

If the ACC was worried at all about the GOR, they might have pushed forward with unequal distribution of TV revenue to offer the greatest appeasement to FSU and Clemson to try preserving the conference.

If Clemson and FSU saw the GOR as breakable, they would have dug in their heel on the unequal distribution of tv revenue. That they settled for the agreement that was proposed tells you they're willing to just take what they can get. They've got no ace in the hole.

 

[Deleted11512]

They did, that's true. The market changed completely after they signed though. Even the SEC has a bad deal in the current market. The Big 10's deal is for more money, and expires 2 years earlier - so they can renegotiate for even more while the SEC teams are stuck for a couple more seasons making much less.

Everyone thought these long-term deals were great because they could have guaranteed revenue for a decade or two. No one saw the value of these TV deals quadrupling in value over the course of the last 3-5 years.

Conferences should sign a 5 year deal max from now on.

Yeah, it's a timing game for sure. But to just assume the SEC should have a bigger TV deal than the B10 is wrong. There are more big time, national universities in the B10. Much larger alumni base. They just have a bigger reach than the SEC. From that standpoint, it's a better brand than the SEC. The SEC is just simply better at sports.

 

[Anon1658788697]

Two things tell you the GOR is airtight:
1. The ACC didn't give in on unequal distribution of TV revenue
2. Clemson and FSU signed off the unequal revenue distribution agreement that excluded TV revenue

If the ACC was worried at all about the GOR, they might have pushed forward with unequal distribution of TV revenue to offer the greatest appeasement to FSU and Clemson to try preserving the conference.



If Clemson and FSU saw the GOR as breakable, they would have dug in their heel on the unequal distribution of tv revenue. That they settled for the agreement that was proposed tells you they're willing to just take what they can get. They've got no ace in the hole.

They have to have the votes to go to unequal revenue sharing. Right now more than half don’t have a landing spot. It’s a little more complicated. This also only means the GOR is only tight enough not to get challenged to this point. The wolf is not backed into the corner yet.

 

[Mauze1]

Yeah, it's a timing game for sure. But to just assume the SEC should have a bigger TV deal than the B10 is wrong. There are more big time, national universities in the B10. Much larger alumni base. They just have a bigger reach than the SEC. From that standpoint, it's a better brand than the SEC. The SEC is just simply better at sports.

Alabama v Ohio St
Auburn v Wisconsin
Arkansas v UCLA
Florida v So Cal
Georgia v Michigan
Kentucky v Minnesota
LSU v Penn St
Missouri v Maryland
Mississippi St
Ole Miss v Illinois
Oklahoma v Iowa
South Carolina v Rutgers
Tennessee v Michigan St
Texas v Nebraska
Tex AM v Indiana
Vanderbilt v Northwestern

”A Better brand? We can reassemble these comparisons but you get the picture. First, the SEC leads BIG and the nation in attendance.

“A bigger reach?“ If you mean geography you are correct and most would say the more territory you cover has little to do with your football prestige; it’s more likely a disadvantage. The above attendance figure should give us a good measure of local interest.

Having a large alumni base means little when your alumni are not dedicated to giving money to the programs. SEC fans are rabid. Go down the list and tell me the states where the SEC and BIG alumni are the most supportive of college football. Michigan, Ohio St and Penn St are 1,2,3 in attendance. The remainder of the top ten are SEC schools.

It will be interesting to see which league will be tops in TV revenue when new contracts are made. We are adding two teams better than the BIG, in OK and TX. No comparison.

Just take a look, change them around if you like; and then tell me about the “Better Brand.”

And we don’t even have to discuss success on the gridiron. Let me know what you think.

 

[Deleted11512]

Alabama v Ohio St
Auburn v Wisconsin
Arkansas v UCLA
Florida v So Cal
Georgia v Michigan
Kentucky v Minnesota
LSU v Penn St
Missouri v Maryland
Mississippi St
Ole Miss v Illinois
Oklahoma v Iowa
South Carolina v Rutgers
Tennessee v Michigan St
Texas v Nebraska
Tex AM v Indiana
Vanderbilt v Northwestern

”A Better brand? We can reassemble these comparisons but you get the picture. First, the SEC leads BIG and the nation in attendance.

“A bigger reach?“ If you mean geography you are correct and most would say the more territory you cover has little to do with your football prestige; it’s more likely a disadvantage. The above attendance figure should give us a good measure of local interest.

Having a large alumni base means little when your alumni are not dedicated to giving money to the programs. SEC fans are rabid. Go down the list and tell me the states where the SEC and BIG alumni are the most supportive of college football. Michigan, Ohio St and Penn St are 1,2,3 in attendance. The remainder of the top ten are SEC schools.

It will be interesting to see which league will be tops in TV revenue when new contracts are made. We are adding two teams better than the BIG, in OK and TX. No comparison.

Just take a look, change them around if you like; and then tell me about the “Better Brand.”

And we don’t even have to discuss success on the gridiron. Let me know what you think.

Attendance and brand recognition are not synonymous. If it were, we wouldn’t be constantly arguing over who is USC and who is Carolina. SoCal is worth more than USC is from a branding standpoint. But we dwarf their attendance. Doesn’t matter how many show up. Just matters how many tune in. The point of my post was strictly related to TV value.

 

[Deleted11512]

They have to have the votes to go to unequal revenue sharing. Right now more than half don’t have a landing spot. It’s a little more complicated. This also only means the GOR is only tight enough not to get challenged to this point. The wolf is not backed into the corner yet.

What if the wolf was the ACC and it got backed into a corner in 2013? Remember, Maryland had just left and other programs were allegedly exploring leaving. The ACC and ESPN threw a Hail Mary and it worked.

 

[atl-cock]

Definitely a quick fix, and will let the teams making bowl games, CFP and March Madness to get a little more while their TV deal is where it is.

I’d imagine it’s schools like clem raising a stink (and rightfully so) - not only do they have a bad TV deal, but they also get the same share as BC?!?

What about playoffs in other sports? Now I realize that the generated revenue would pale in comparison to CFP and hoops, but I'm curious.

 

[Rogue Cock]

What about playoffs in other sports? Now I realize that the generated revenue would pale in comparison to CFP and hoops, but I'm curious.

I thought it was supposed to apply to all post-season games....but really haven't kept up with the details of it.

 

[Deleted11512]

I thought it was supposed to apply to all post-season games....but really haven't kept up with the details of it.

Correct. Otherwise UNC or Duke wouldn’t agree to it.

 

[Mauze1]

Attendance and brand recognition are not synonymous. If it were, we wouldn’t be constantly arguing over who is USC and who is Carolina. SoCal is worth more than USC is from a branding standpoint. But we dwarf their attendance. Doesn’t matter how many show up. Just matters how many tune in. The point of my post was strictly related to TV value.

Don’t you think attendance shows recognition,support and interest? I get what you are saying. Just not to the degree I interpreted it. Most of the media accuse the BIG of being a two team league. When was the last championship won by a team other than OSU or Mich?

The rise of the SEC is a comparatively new thing. What you are saying I agree. If the BIG’s brand has better brand recognition it is a very close race. I think taking USC and UCLA was a somewhat desperate move to keep up with the SEC. So Cal might be worth more than SC, but how about Alabama. BIG prestige has been taking a licking lately.

Thanks for your opinion. I enjoy the discussion. My daughter is in advertising and I will get her opinion. She might even have a way we can shed more light.

 

[atl-cock]

Don’t you think attendance shows recognition,support and interest? I get what you are saying. Just not to the degree I interpreted it. Most of the media accuse the BIG of being a two team league. When was the last championship won by a team other than OSU or Mich?

Depends on the sport. Maryland won both the regular season and the BIG baseball tournament this season, which was held in Omaha. Does that give them an advantage should they make it back in three weeks?

 

[atl-cock]

Yeah, it's a timing game for sure. But to just assume the SEC should have a bigger TV deal than the B10 is wrong. There are more big time, national universities in the B10. Much larger alumni base. They just have a bigger reach than the SEC. From that standpoint, it's a better brand than the SEC. The SEC is just simply better at sports.

Professional sports are more popular than collegiate competition in the B1G footprint. I believe this figures into the SEC being "better at sports" too. And don't underestimate baseball being more viable down here. Yard has a bigger reach than ice hockey.

 

[Rogue Cock]

Professional sports are more popular than collegiate competition in the B1G footprint. I believe this figures into the SEC being "better at sports" too. And don't underestimate baseball being more viable down here. Yard has a bigger reach than ice hockey.

From the years I spent in the midwest, that is simply a popular misconception. Professional sports are more popular in the midwest than the south, but that doesn't mean that college sports aren't just as popular in the midwest....and it is not just the large institutions....even the smaller ones like Youngstown State, Miami, etc..are popular.

 

[Mauze1]

Depends on the sport. Maryland won both the regular season and the BIG baseball tournament this season, which was held in Omaha. Does that give them an advantage should they make it back in three weeks?

We are really talking about football. It supports all the other sports. It creates a revenue stream for schools greater than any other single source. There are a few of the elite basketball schools who profit from that program. It would interesting to me to see how many schools actually profit from basketball. Beyond that no other sports come close to football revenue.

 

[atl-cock]

We are really talking about football. It supports all the other sports. It creates a revenue stream for schools greater than any other single source. There are a few of the elite basketball schools who profit from that program. It would interesting to me to see how many schools actually profit from basketball. Beyond that no other sports come close to football revenue.

Ah. To be clear, apparently, you mean that most of the media accuse the BIG of being a two-team league in football.

How do schools which do not sponsor football manage?

My understanding is that USC is one of only a handful of schools in which baseball (more or less) pays for itself.