(08-18-2013 11:05 PM)HtownOrange Wrote: (08-16-2013 04:52 PM)ohio1317 Wrote: I think that Florida State was open to offers, but the Big Ten wouldn't (for academic reasons, which was stupid in my opinion, but still there) and the SEC wouldn't (not interested in more expansion yet and looking for new markets if it is). That only left the Big 12 and the ACC was still offering a better deal than the Big 12, especially when you added in geography and travel costs.
Given those factors, Florida State was better off making the ACC itself more secure which meant a grant of rights.
I'm calling BS on the FSU to B1G nixed due to academics. FSU is ahead of UNL and has a rich football history over the last 30 years. If FSU was ever seriously considered, thB1G would have offered.
I could believe that the B1G would want other east coast teams before taking FSU, but to say that FSU was out based on academics is just crazy. Easily, FSU would be worth more than Maryland and Rutgers combined. FL population exceeds both states' population combined and FL is football crazy, unlike NJ or MD.
I call a little BS as well. Sure, Nebraska was in the AAU when they were admitted into the Big Ten, but even then, Big Ten members were already planning to vote Nebraska out of the AAU. FSU, per US News, is higher than Nebraska and only ~10(?) spots behind the lowest-ranked non-Nebraska school(s). FSU also has freshman stats on par or better than literally half of the current Big Ten's makeup.
Would've showing legit interest in FSU helped the Big Ten loosen up UVA and GT (I do believe there was some degree of discussion going on between these parties)? I don't see how it wouldn't have.
(08-18-2013 11:15 PM)HtownOrange Wrote: One quick note on the payouts: The B1G payout is the total payout, or $25MM. This includes TV, BTN, Bowl, NCAA tourney and any other conference sources. This number is compared to the ACC TV deal only, or $15MM, while the ACC total payout was >$24MM. The ACC will payout an additional $4MM this season per the TV deal. The ACC could actually exceed teh B1G in total payout for 2013/2014 academic year!
Also, quick note on BTN estimate, the low side of the BTN estimate by Delaney was around $30MM/year. This was puffery, too, as the BTN has no NYC carriage and is already carried in NJ. The theory demands that NJ now make the BTN a premium and that NYC be forced to carry BTN if they want YES (Yankees network), which is NOT carried in full in NY or NYC. The BTN is fighting uphill battles on all fronts and the expectations are too high to reach the $30MM/year mark let alone the $40MM/year mark as delineated by Crazy Paco (hat tip to CP).
The ACC is in a good position. If the ACCN becomes a reality, which it will because ESPN is NOT foolish and if they smell money, they will act, then the payouts will increase more.
I also call BS on this.
First of all, the Big Ten will be renegotiating their tv deals in the next few years. So comparing the ACC's new deal with the Big Ten's old one is stupid. They will undoubtedly see a nice increase. Can we agree it'd at least be in the $5-10M/year/school range? I mean, the ACC saw an increase in average tv payouts from something like $7M to $19-20M in the last 3-4 years.
Secondly, the ACC is not going to receive $19+M per team from the tv deal in 2013-2014. That's simply the average payout, not the yearly payout. It's probably going to be around $12-15M because I think it was only around $10-12M last year.
Penultimately, I think your conference payouts are incorrect. The ACC was at
$16.9M, the SEC at
>$20.7M and the Big Ten at
$25.7M.
Lastly, there is no guarantee there will ever be an ACC Network. A network has been an option for the last 4 years or so and has NEVER been seriously discussed by the conference. Even now they don't act like it's a pressing issue/need.
(08-19-2013 05:09 AM)JHG722 Wrote: (08-19-2013 04:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: (08-17-2013 01:53 AM)JHG722 Wrote: (08-14-2013 12:47 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: So basically, when you take their higher Big Ten revenue...
...then subtract their high loan payments...
basically, Maryland's athletic budget = G5 normal.
Maryland = Temple (no offense, Owl fans!)
We're not in massive debt.
TRUE. I only meant from a net revenue point of view (and geographically similar). If the ACC replaced the Maryland "gap" with Temple someday, that would be ok with me.
We beat them in football and basketball in the same year with zero recruiting and conference advantage. Despite our shortcomings in football historically, I think we could definitely compete in the ACC.
I don't mind Temple, too much. I like the basketball. I like the large enrollment. I like the city/region it's located within. I like how football has shown life these last few years although, in general, I don't like your football (attendance, stadium, etc.).
At present you're a no-go. In 5-10 years? Who knows. But you have to be a respectable football program during that entire timeframe or it won't work. That's basically what Rutgers did. Pretty lousy history but a respectable last decade in a good market and poof. And you guys at least have a basketball program which they don't.
Much of my Temple interest comes from trying to fill in that I-95 corridor that's now largely empty from D.C. to CT. But only a good/respectable program will actually help do that. If the ACC never creates a network Temple loses a lot of its potential luster.