+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: ACCbbs (/forum-381.html)
+---- Forum: ACC Conference Talk (/forum-351.html)
+---- Thread: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 (/thread-807748.html)
Pages: 1 2
SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - nole - 02-02-2017 03:14 PM
Bruce Feldman Verified account
@BruceFeldmanCFB
SEC announces revenue distribution for 2015-16 is at more than $40.4 million per school. And that's excluding bowl $$ retained per program.
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - GTTiger - 02-02-2017 03:34 PM
(02-02-2017 03:14 PM)nole Wrote: Bruce Feldman Verified account
@BruceFeldmanCFB
SEC announces revenue distribution for 2015-16 is at more than $40.4 million per school. And that's excluding bowl $$ retained per program.
That makes it doubly impressive that SEC basketball has shown little to no improvement, and that the football outside of Alabama has been in gradual decline for at least 3-4 years.
I'll never say more money doesn't help. Of course it does, but the mythical money title that ran around during this latest realignment round from 2010-2016 got way overblown in terms of it's effect on competitiveness.
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - Lou_C - 02-02-2017 04:39 PM
That number makes sense. I think what I'm hoping is that the ACC distributed at least $30M, at least at the top end, when theirs comes out. Although I lose track of which are the "good years" with the bowl rotation, but I don't think that's unreasonable, considering how it's grown each year...FSU got $27m from the ACC last cycle.
I believe that there was an immediate bump with the new contract, even though the network doesn't happen for a couple years. I don't know how much that is, or whether it kicks in in time for the year 2016.
But I think the best case scenario is to hope to be within $10M for the next couple years, and cut that down to around a $5-6M when the network is up and running.
That may be too optimistic, but that's what I'm hoping. If you're in a world a few years from now where the Big is making $47M, the SEC is making $45M, the ACC is making $39M, the PAC is making $35-40M and the Big 12 is making $30-35M, I don't think that's a problematic position to be in for the ACC.
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - JRsec - 02-02-2017 06:32 PM
(02-02-2017 03:34 PM)GTTiger Wrote:(02-02-2017 03:14 PM)nole Wrote: Bruce Feldman Verified account
@BruceFeldmanCFB
SEC announces revenue distribution for 2015-16 is at more than $40.4 million per school. And that's excluding bowl $$ retained per program.
That makes it doubly impressive that SEC basketball has shown little to no improvement, and that the football outside of Alabama has been in gradual decline for at least 3-4 years.
I'll never say more money doesn't help. Of course it does, but the mythical money title that ran around during this latest realignment round from 2010-2016 got way overblown in terms of it's effect on competitiveness.
The biggest difference is in average attendance x the cost of getting a ticket x ticket price + concessions. Once you calculate that and then add in the TV revenue difference the gap is far more significant. And while spending doesn't = championships won the extra money sure helps with facilities and recruiting expense. I doubt that there is a coach in the nation that wouldn't like to have more.
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - Dasville - 02-02-2017 08:38 PM
How much was basketball?
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - nole - 02-02-2017 09:18 PM
(02-02-2017 08:38 PM)Dasville Wrote: How much was basketball?
Not sure. I only have that breakdown for ACC 2013 (they stopped breaking out). Most conferences claim 80% football (even the ACC), so that gives you some idea of breakout.....albeit just a rough one.
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - Lou_C - 02-03-2017 10:17 AM
(02-02-2017 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:(02-02-2017 03:34 PM)GTTiger Wrote:(02-02-2017 03:14 PM)nole Wrote: Bruce Feldman Verified account
@BruceFeldmanCFB
SEC announces revenue distribution for 2015-16 is at more than $40.4 million per school. And that's excluding bowl $$ retained per program.
That makes it doubly impressive that SEC basketball has shown little to no improvement, and that the football outside of Alabama has been in gradual decline for at least 3-4 years.
I'll never say more money doesn't help. Of course it does, but the mythical money title that ran around during this latest realignment round from 2010-2016 got way overblown in terms of it's effect on competitiveness.
The biggest difference is in average attendance x the cost of getting a ticket x ticket price + concessions. Once you calculate that and then add in the TV revenue difference the gap is far more significant. And while spending doesn't = championships won the extra money sure helps with facilities and recruiting expense. I doubt that there is a coach in the nation that wouldn't like to have more.
Of course JR..but that kind of accentuates the point that people overly focus on the conference revenue somewhat. Back in 95 or whatever, when the ACC was paying more than the SEC, that certainly didn't mean that Georgia Tech or UVA were financially better off than Alabama or UGA.
Differences in distributions of $5-10M, while every bit counts, are not things that tip the balance of power. If you flip flop the SEC and ACC's conference payouts, almost absolutely nothing changes in terms of relative financial clout of the institutions.
People that act like it matters if the B1G is pulling $5M per school more than the SEC, or vice versa, are silly.
What IS obviously important, is not getting BURIED in the conference revenue game. I mean, just a few years ago, the ACC was on a contract for $13M per year, with speculation it might go up $1M with Syracuse and Pitt added. The B1G network was starting to be a success, the SEC was pursuing one, and nobody knew the way playoff access was going to be designed.
It was not publicly considered a sure thing that the ACC would be an equal partner in the playoff revenue, there was no clear avenue for the ACC to revise their TV contracts...some of us were envisioning a 2020 with the SEC and B1G pulling $40M+ a year while the ACC was pulling $15M.
Now you're starting to get into some real problematic territory for the FSU and Clemson's of the world. Now you're talking about the conference situation taking FSU's institutionalized financial disadvantage, and doubling it up.
Considering the "cost of doing business" in the ACC is considerably less than the B1G and the SEC, mainly for those schools like UNC and UVA that are most targeted...the gap has to be extremely big to really cause realignment drama. I'd now be surprised if that day is on the horizon any time soon.
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - JRsec - 02-03-2017 12:40 PM
(02-03-2017 10:17 AM)Lou_C Wrote:(02-02-2017 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:(02-02-2017 03:34 PM)GTTiger Wrote:(02-02-2017 03:14 PM)nole Wrote: Bruce Feldman Verified account
@BruceFeldmanCFB
SEC announces revenue distribution for 2015-16 is at more than $40.4 million per school. And that's excluding bowl $$ retained per program.
That makes it doubly impressive that SEC basketball has shown little to no improvement, and that the football outside of Alabama has been in gradual decline for at least 3-4 years.
I'll never say more money doesn't help. Of course it does, but the mythical money title that ran around during this latest realignment round from 2010-2016 got way overblown in terms of it's effect on competitiveness.
The biggest difference is in average attendance x the cost of getting a ticket x ticket price + concessions. Once you calculate that and then add in the TV revenue difference the gap is far more significant. And while spending doesn't = championships won the extra money sure helps with facilities and recruiting expense. I doubt that there is a coach in the nation that wouldn't like to have more.
Of course JR..but that kind of accentuates the point that people overly focus on the conference revenue somewhat. Back in 95 or whatever, when the ACC was paying more than the SEC, that certainly didn't mean that Georgia Tech or UVA were financially better off than Alabama or UGA.
Differences in distributions of $5-10M, while every bit counts, are not things that tip the balance of power. If you flip flop the SEC and ACC's conference payouts, almost absolutely nothing changes in terms of relative financial clout of the institutions.
People that act like it matters if the B1G is pulling $5M per school more than the SEC, or vice versa, are silly.
What IS obviously important, is not getting BURIED in the conference revenue game. I mean, just a few years ago, the ACC was on a contract for $13M per year, with speculation it might go up $1M with Syracuse and Pitt added. The B1G network was starting to be a success, the SEC was pursuing one, and nobody knew the way playoff access was going to be designed.
It was not publicly considered a sure thing that the ACC would be an equal partner in the playoff revenue, there was no clear avenue for the ACC to revise their TV contracts...some of us were envisioning a 2020 with the SEC and B1G pulling $40M+ a year while the ACC was pulling $15M.
Now you're starting to get into some real problematic territory for the FSU and Clemson's of the world. Now you're talking about the conference situation taking FSU's institutionalized financial disadvantage, and doubling it up.
Considering the "cost of doing business" in the ACC is considerably less than the B1G and the SEC, mainly for those schools like UNC and UVA that are most targeted...the gap has to be extremely big to really cause realignment drama. I'd now be surprised if that day is on the horizon any time soon.
Where did I mention realignment? I was just pointing out that the gap consisted of much more than just TV revenue. I don't think that the SEC or ACC are going to suffer defections. Someday business issues coupled with court rulings and cultural changes might place us in the mode to talk mergers and collective bargaining and with both of us having ESPN as a parent organization right now that moves the concept into the feasible category. But I was not insinuating instability for the ACC.
In fact, I chuckle every time the Big 10's revenue is touted as being higher than that of the SEC. We out earn them in gate and concessions about 15 million per school on average. So when these guys toss out a possible 5 million difference in TV revenue for the Big 10 (I have Quo in mind here) it still leaves them 10 million behind in total revenue.
Look the SEC and ACC IMO are in the most enviable positions right now. Both of us go to the trough early in the next round (CBS for the SEC in a few years and the ACC with your network in 2019). And, both of us stay longer at the guaranteed feed than anyone else (SECN in 2034 and the ACC contract around 2031). Even if your deficit is 10 million in TV revenue you guys are fine. All of the instability rests with the Big 12. They are up in 6 which means they will be negotiating in 4, they aren't sure that their top brands want to stay, and their other schools aren't guaranteed a safe haven within the other P4.
If it comes to consolidation in the future the SEC and Big 10 will be just as affected as everyone else. If I was hinting at anything in my remarks it is that in the not too distant future all factors will come into play: attendance numbers, market share, academics, travel crowds, venues, and branding. In both the SEC and ACC we have schools that need to step it up. Clemson and Florida State are not two of them.
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - orangefan - 02-03-2017 03:30 PM
(02-02-2017 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:(02-02-2017 03:34 PM)GTTiger Wrote:(02-02-2017 03:14 PM)nole Wrote: Bruce Feldman Verified account
@BruceFeldmanCFB
SEC announces revenue distribution for 2015-16 is at more than $40.4 million per school. And that's excluding bowl $$ retained per program.
That makes it doubly impressive that SEC basketball has shown little to no improvement, and that the football outside of Alabama has been in gradual decline for at least 3-4 years.
I'll never say more money doesn't help. Of course it does, but the mythical money title that ran around during this latest realignment round from 2010-2016 got way overblown in terms of it's effect on competitiveness.
The biggest difference is in average attendance x the cost of getting a ticket x ticket price + concessions. Once you calculate that and then add in the TV revenue difference the gap is far more significant. And while spending doesn't = championships won the extra money sure helps with facilities and recruiting expense. I doubt that there is a coach in the nation that wouldn't like to have more.
I assume that the money reported on the SEC tax return is only that money collected and distributed by the conference itself, which would include only NCAA distributions, TV revenues, CFP and other bowl money, and revenue from conference championships.
The ACC's revenues will be hurt somewhat in 2016, I assume, based on the Orange Bowl being a semi final in the 2015-16 cycle. However, it should be in the $30 million per school range assuming $19 million from TV, $5 million from the CFP and other bowls, $3 million from the NCAA (including all revenue distributon pools) and $2 million from conference distributions (this last one is a WAG).
The key to raising this number closer to the range of the B1G and SEC is obviously the success of the ACC Network. It is difficult to overstate the importance of having this network achieve success.
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - JRsec - 02-03-2017 04:50 PM
(02-03-2017 03:30 PM)orangefan Wrote:(02-02-2017 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:(02-02-2017 03:34 PM)GTTiger Wrote:(02-02-2017 03:14 PM)nole Wrote: Bruce Feldman Verified account
@BruceFeldmanCFB
SEC announces revenue distribution for 2015-16 is at more than $40.4 million per school. And that's excluding bowl $$ retained per program.
That makes it doubly impressive that SEC basketball has shown little to no improvement, and that the football outside of Alabama has been in gradual decline for at least 3-4 years.
I'll never say more money doesn't help. Of course it does, but the mythical money title that ran around during this latest realignment round from 2010-2016 got way overblown in terms of it's effect on competitiveness.
The biggest difference is in average attendance x the cost of getting a ticket x ticket price + concessions. Once you calculate that and then add in the TV revenue difference the gap is far more significant. And while spending doesn't = championships won the extra money sure helps with facilities and recruiting expense. I doubt that there is a coach in the nation that wouldn't like to have more.
I assume that the money reported on the SEC tax return is only that money collected and distributed by the conference itself, which would include only NCAA distributions, TV revenues, CFP and other bowl money, and revenue from conference championships.
The ACC's revenues will be hurt somewhat in 2016, I assume, based on the Orange Bowl being a semi final in the 2015-16 cycle. However, it should be in the $30 million per school range assuming $19 million from TV, $5 million from the CFP and other bowls, $3 million from the NCAA (including all revenue distributon pools) and $2 million from conference distributions (this last one is a WAG).
The key to raising this number closer to the range of the B1G and SEC is obviously the success of the ACC Network. It is difficult to overstate the importance of having this network achieve success.
That is correct. The equal distribution of bowl revenue collected by the conference is in the total. The participant's share of the revenue from bowl & championship play is not.
Much is dependent upon the ACCN. But increasing the gate would go a long way to closing the gap for the ACC as well. I'm not sure how that can be done at venues like the one at Chapel Hill which is landlocked, but if the ACC could simply average 60,000 as a conference you guys would be miles ahead of where you are right now in total revenue.
I do agree with Lou C that the revenue gap is no longer a contributor to instability and that the ACC, right now, looks as steady in the boat as it ever has. That said I do think the other growth edge for the ACC will come in increased spending for athletics. You've done a good job with coach hires, and you don't have to invest at SEC and Big 10 levels, but you could pick it up by 15 to 20% and get a better return IMO.
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - Hokie Mark - 02-03-2017 10:34 PM
(02-03-2017 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: Much is dependent upon the ACCN. But increasing the gate would go a long way to closing the gap for the ACC as well. I'm not sure how that can be done at venues like the one at Chapel Hill which is landlocked, but if the ACC could simply average 60,000 as a conference you guys would be miles ahead of where you are right now in total revenue.
I think ACC teams could get a small boost in attendance and ticket revenue by playing a more geographic conference schedule. The SEC does this already - the SEC West is actually in the West, and the SEC East (except for Missouri) is in the East. Unfortunately, the only way to do geographic divisions in the ACC is North/South, and that puts Miami, FSU, GT and Clemson all in the same group. Of course, that sounds a lot like Alabama, Auburn, LSU and Arkansas...
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - Kaplony - 02-04-2017 12:15 AM
(02-03-2017 10:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:(02-03-2017 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: Much is dependent upon the ACCN. But increasing the gate would go a long way to closing the gap for the ACC as well. I'm not sure how that can be done at venues like the one at Chapel Hill which is landlocked, but if the ACC could simply average 60,000 as a conference you guys would be miles ahead of where you are right now in total revenue.
I think ACC teams could get a small boost in attendance and ticket revenue by playing a more geographic conference schedule. The SEC does this already - the SEC West is actually in the West, and the SEC East (except for Missouri) is in the East. Unfortunately, the only way to do geographic divisions in the ACC is North/South, and that puts Miami, FSU, GT and Clemson all in the same group. Of course, that sounds a lot like Alabama, Auburn, LSU and Arkansas...
You are overly optimistic IMO because other than a select few schools ACC football fans do not travel. As the conference stands right now there's only two ways to increase revenue at Clemson.....putting VT on our annual slate or if Miami were to finally achieve their mythical status in the ACC and they were one our annual games. Nobody else in the ACC travels in numbers like VT to make a difference and nobody else in the ACC carries enough cache to match Miami in ticket prices. Do you honestly ever see Syracuse or UVA demanding a premium ticket price at Clemson?
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - Hokie Mark - 02-04-2017 09:37 AM
(02-04-2017 12:15 AM)Kaplony Wrote:Clemson has FSU and GT already, so yes, the only team South of them left to play is Miami. I agree that Clemson vs VT should be played more often also.(02-03-2017 10:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:(02-03-2017 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: Much is dependent upon the ACCN. But increasing the gate would go a long way to closing the gap for the ACC as well. I'm not sure how that can be done at venues like the one at Chapel Hill which is landlocked, but if the ACC could simply average 60,000 as a conference you guys would be miles ahead of where you are right now in total revenue.
I think ACC teams could get a small boost in attendance and ticket revenue by playing a more geographic conference schedule. The SEC does this already - the SEC West is actually in the West, and the SEC East (except for Missouri) is in the East. Unfortunately, the only way to do geographic divisions in the ACC is North/South, and that puts Miami, FSU, GT and Clemson all in the same group. Of course, that sounds a lot like Alabama, Auburn, LSU and Arkansas...
You are overly optimistic IMO because other than a select few schools ACC football fans do not travel. As the conference stands right now there's only two ways to increase revenue at Clemson.....putting VT on our annual slate or if Miami were to finally achieve their mythical status in the ACC and they were one our annual games. Nobody else in the ACC travels in numbers like VT to make a difference and nobody else in the ACC carries enough cache to match Miami in ticket prices. Do you honestly ever see Syracuse or UVA demanding a premium ticket price at Clemson?
Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - Dasville - 02-04-2017 12:51 PM
All the big football $ hasn't really developed the basketball side of things in any conference imo. I will say that big football $ has helped develope some football teams though. Take UofL for example. Expanding stadium by 10,000 and the highest coaching payroll ever for us. Not bad for a basketball school that averages 20,000 plus for basketball home games.
I think Syracuse is going to go through same growth and same success.
UNC, once it gets out of its own way is poised to do the same.
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - Hallcity - 02-04-2017 04:57 PM
(02-02-2017 03:14 PM)nole Wrote: Bruce Feldman Verified account
@BruceFeldmanCFB
SEC announces revenue distribution for 2015-16 is at more than $40.4 million per school. And that's excluding bowl $$ retained per program.
Anybody got a link to this announcement? I'm not seeing anything about this elsewhere.
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - JRsec - 02-04-2017 05:16 PM
(02-04-2017 04:57 PM)Hallcity Wrote:(02-02-2017 03:14 PM)nole Wrote: Bruce Feldman Verified account
@BruceFeldmanCFB
SEC announces revenue distribution for 2015-16 is at more than $40.4 million per school. And that's excluding bowl $$ retained per program.
Anybody got a link to this announcement? I'm not seeing anything about this elsewhere.
There's a link on the main board to a USAToday article. There is another link available from the SEC office. The info broke on the 2nd in a tweet.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/sports/index_revenue_distribution.html
for some reason this link doesn't work here at CSNbbs but when I Google it it comes up. But it has been reported by at least 3 different services and you should be able to pull it up.
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - omniorange - 02-04-2017 05:38 PM
(02-04-2017 12:51 PM)Dasville Wrote: All the big football $ hasn't really developed the basketball side of things in any conference imo. I will say that big football $ has helped develope some football teams though. Take UofL for example. Expanding stadium by 10,000 and the highest coaching payroll ever for us. Not bad for a basketball school that averages 20,000 plus for basketball home games.
I think Syracuse is going to go through same growth and same success.
UNC, once it gets out of its own way is poised to do the same.
Thanks for the belief in Syracuse in terms of football. But honestly, unless the new AD turns things around in terms of alum/booster donors, not sure we will ever equal our peak periods of the 60s and 90s in the current landscape.
Best I am hoping for is Duke level success from 2013-2015 in terms of football performance on the field (8-9 wins a year) and then perhaps real attendance creeping up toward an average of 42-44K.
Cheers,
Neil
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - orangefan - 02-06-2017 09:55 AM
(02-04-2017 05:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:(02-04-2017 12:51 PM)Dasville Wrote: All the big football $ hasn't really developed the basketball side of things in any conference imo. I will say that big football $ has helped develope some football teams though. Take UofL for example. Expanding stadium by 10,000 and the highest coaching payroll ever for us. Not bad for a basketball school that averages 20,000 plus for basketball home games.
I think Syracuse is going to go through same growth and same success.
UNC, once it gets out of its own way is poised to do the same.
Thanks for the belief in Syracuse in terms of football. But honestly, unless the new AD turns things around in terms of alum/booster donors, not sure we will ever equal our peak periods of the 60s and 90s in the current landscape.
Best I am hoping for is Duke level success from 2013-2015 in terms of football performance on the field (8-9 wins a year) and then perhaps real attendance creeping up toward an average of 42-44K.
Cheers,
Neil
Guess I'm not as pessimistic as you Neil. While I don't believe the program will ever be at a level to compete for a national championship except maybe in a dream season, I believe the program is capable of doing better than you suggest.
Looking back at the 1987-2001 era, the team made 4 major bowl appearance, had 9 top 25 finishes and 2 top 10 finishes. This level seems plausible to return to with the right coach, especially given the investment that's been made into facilities and the success of the ACC (which we can use to recruit quality players). Marrone seemed on track to get there before he left for the NFL. Schaefer was an emergency promotion and was never likely to succeed at this level. Babers is a quality hire who appears to have this level of potential.
Although football revenues are never likely to reach FSU or Clemson levels, the revenues generated by the basketball team make up for this to a large extent. Basketball can fund the rest of the athletic department, allowing football revenues to be used for football. The Syracuse athletic department budget is higher than Clemson's. Only Louisville and FSU have materially higher athletic department budgets in the ACC.
The biggest barrier to reaching a consistent top 25 level is the fact that we play in one of the toughest divisions in college football, but I think that's great. It forces us to raise our game.
(02-03-2017 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: Much is dependent upon the ACCN. But increasing the gate would go a long way to closing the gap for the ACC as well. I'm not sure how that can be done at venues like the one at Chapel Hill which is landlocked, but if the ACC could simply average 60,000 as a conference you guys would be miles ahead of where you are right now in total revenue.
While adding more seats is great, the trend in all of sports is to focus on increasing premium seat sales, such as club seats and luxury boxes. Quality over quantity. Any constraints that may exist on stadium expansion are unlikely to affect a school's ability to add premium seating. This is where to focus.
SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - Lenvillecards - 02-06-2017 10:23 AM
To your point Orange, Jurich has already stated that he wished that he would've included more field level suites in the latest PJCS expansion. Those suites sold out faster than expected. Suites & club seating need to be the focus on expansion.
RE: SEC revenue over $40 Million per school for 2015-16 - JRsec - 02-06-2017 01:19 PM
(02-06-2017 09:55 AM)orangefan Wrote:(02-04-2017 05:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:(02-04-2017 12:51 PM)Dasville Wrote: All the big football $ hasn't really developed the basketball side of things in any conference imo. I will say that big football $ has helped develope some football teams though. Take UofL for example. Expanding stadium by 10,000 and the highest coaching payroll ever for us. Not bad for a basketball school that averages 20,000 plus for basketball home games.
I think Syracuse is going to go through same growth and same success.
UNC, once it gets out of its own way is poised to do the same.
Thanks for the belief in Syracuse in terms of football. But honestly, unless the new AD turns things around in terms of alum/booster donors, not sure we will ever equal our peak periods of the 60s and 90s in the current landscape.
Best I am hoping for is Duke level success from 2013-2015 in terms of football performance on the field (8-9 wins a year) and then perhaps real attendance creeping up toward an average of 42-44K.
Cheers,
Neil
Guess I'm not as pessimistic as you Neil. While I don't believe the program will ever be at a level to compete for a national championship except maybe in a dream season, I believe the program is capable of doing better than you suggest.
Looking back at the 1987-2001 era, the team made 4 major bowl appearance, had 9 top 25 finishes and 2 top 10 finishes. This level seems plausible to return to with the right coach, especially given the investment that's been made into facilities and the success of the ACC (which we can use to recruit quality players). Marrone seemed on track to get there before he left for the NFL. Schaefer was an emergency promotion and was never likely to succeed at this level. Babers is a quality hire who appears to have this level of potential.
Although football revenues are never likely to reach FSU or Clemson levels, the revenues generated by the basketball team make up for this to a large extent. Basketball can fund the rest of the athletic department, allowing football revenues to be used for football. The Syracuse athletic department budget is higher than Clemson's. Only Louisville and FSU have materially higher athletic department budgets in the ACC.
The biggest barrier to reaching a consistent top 25 level is the fact that we play in one of the toughest divisions in college football, but I think that's great. It forces us to raise our game.
(02-03-2017 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: Much is dependent upon the ACCN. But increasing the gate would go a long way to closing the gap for the ACC as well. I'm not sure how that can be done at venues like the one at Chapel Hill which is landlocked, but if the ACC could simply average 60,000 as a conference you guys would be miles ahead of where you are right now in total revenue.
While adding more seats is great, the trend in all of sports is to focus on increasing premium seat sales, such as club seats and luxury boxes. Quality over quantity. Any constraints that may exist on stadium expansion are unlikely to affect a school's ability to add premium seating. This is where to focus.
Covered in my first post in this thread under, "Cost of ticket". Premium seating costs prohibitively more. Exclusivity isn't cheap. Zones of the regular seats vary as well. But part of the problem for the ACC is the starting price of the ticket.
But, that said, don't count out the intrinsic impact to your advertisers of having larger, fuller, venues. They attract viewers among the otherwise disinterested, build market share, and drive advertising revenue. Nobody wants to watch a game between two schools played before a stadium which is only 60% full unless they went to one of those two schools. You could pack the place out with premium seating and not have 10,000 people at an event.
I also believe concessions were part of the equation. More people equals more concessions. The wealthy at Auburn have their club level seating catered and they pay for it. The university grants access to those serving. It does not come remotely close to the revenue generated by Joe Blow and his family buying $5 hotdogs and buying $4 Coca-Cola's while they sit their fannies down on $5 rented stadium cushions now that bringing in your own is prohibited.
While more luxury seating does add revenue, it does not cover all bases with regards to revenue. Doing all of the above is the way to maximize revenue. I liken it to the newspaper industry which is dying a slow and lingering death. They continually go up on subscriptions and offer expensive third party publications to augment their own poor local sales. And while that helps the bottom line look more profitable for the short term it is also shrinking those who actually participate through those more expensive subscriptions. Going down the path of luxury sales is a slow anesthesia before death. People perpetuate the sport. The vast majority of wealthy people are interested in other things. Sports only appeals to a minority of them.