Using the Census Combined Metro Tables Here's Who Has What in what could be considered the driving range, especially for basketball or a non-saturday afternoon football game:

Boston - 8.2 M
Miami - 6.8 M
Atlanta - 6.8 M
Raleigh-Durham-Fayetteville - 3.0 M
Pittsburgh - 2.6 M
Greensboro - WS - 1.6 M
Greenville - Spartanburg 1.4 M
Louisville - 1.4 M
Richmond - Charlottesville 1.4 M
South Bend - .8 M
Roanoke-Christiansburg-Blacksburg .75 M
Syracuse - .725 M

But population is not everything as MD found out after the Nationals and the Ravens entered the DC/Baltimore area.
BC has to split with the Patriots, Celtics, Bosox, Bruins - That's 7 million sports tickets into a market of 8.2 million - That's nearly one ticket per every person in the market to sell.
Miami has the nearly the same number of tickets to compete against in a market of 6.8 million. - That's a little over one ticket per every person in the market to sell.
GT has the same problems with Pro sports, but also 500K tickets for the Bulldogs. - That's about 1.25 tickets per person to sell into the market.
NC State, UNC, and Duke have about 1.4 million tickets to sell into a market shared with the Carolina Hurricanes and their 600K tickets to sell and 200K for ECU - That's about 3/4ths a ticket for everyone in the region.
Syracuse is selling about 1.1 tickets per person in their metro as the only game in town
WF has the best selling advantage selling one ticket for every three persons in their metro
Louisville and Clemson have the advantage selling one half a ticket to everyone in their metro

Tickets sales are a function of demand and scarcity and options. The growth of Greenville-Spartanburg due to the Automotive Industry is a huge boost to Clemson. Louisville has kept pro sports out of town. WF is in the process of starting to monetize it's position in Charlotte, both from a sports standpoint and from the standpoint of the medical school.

BC, Pitt, Miami, and GT face extreme professional competition and have to put great teams on the field to sell tickets.

But for as much money as basketball makes, I can't remember the last "basketball" decision made by the ACC. I remember the last decisions made to keep UNC/Duke/UVa happy as horse **** but that is not a BB decision.

(06-23-2020 12:42 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:21 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 06:48 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 05:13 PM)Statefan Wrote:  You can be football first and have a decent basketball program. You are getting it wrong with Woodson and Louisville's pres. They know damn well where the money is. Louisville's cash bonanza in the YUM center is an oddity and eventually the politics of KY will stop that. It's more like 3-1-1 football, both, basketball

Cavman, Cuse, and Duke are all pretty definitively basketball first in my book. Sure, Cuse cares about football still whereas Duke barely does. But Cuse has higher attendance for basketball games than football games. They're still basketball first in my book.

Huh? Cuse average 42,000+ last year in football

BTW, Statefan the Syracuse area offers AHL hockey in town. The team sells out most of the time...granted only 6000 fans or so but they sometimes compete directly against basketball. So there is some extra competition for the sports dollar.

Lack of competition for entertainment dollars in your metro is indeed a great advantage, something Syracuse, VT, Clemson, and Louisville all share.

Put a competitive product on the field/court and you'll be rid of that excuse.

(06-23-2020 01:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Using the Census Combined Metro Tables Here's Who Has What in what could be considered the driving range, especially for basketball or a non-saturday afternoon football game:

Boston - 8.2 M
Miami - 6.8 M
Atlanta - 6.8 M
Raleigh-Durham-Fayetteville - 3.0 M
Pittsburgh - 2.6 M
Greensboro - WS - 1.6 M
Greenville - Spartanburg 1.4 M
Louisville - 1.4 M
Richmond - Charlottesville 1.4 M
South Bend - .8 M
Roanoke-Christiansburg-Blacksburg .75 M
Syracuse - .725 M

But population is not everything as MD found out after the Nationals and the Ravens entered the DC/Baltimore area.
BC has to split with the Patriots, Celtics, Bosox, Bruins - That's 7 million sports tickets into a market of 8.2 million - That's nearly one ticket per every person in the market to sell.
Miami has the nearly the same number of tickets to compete against in a market of 6.8 million. - That's a little over one ticket per every person in the market to sell.
GT has the same problems with Pro sports, but also 500K tickets for the Bulldogs. - That's about 1.25 tickets per person to sell into the market.
NC State, UNC, and Duke have about 1.4 million tickets to sell into a market shared with the Carolina Hurricanes and their 600K tickets to sell and 200K for ECU - That's about 3/4ths a ticket for everyone in the region.
Syracuse is selling about 1.1 tickets per person in their metro as the only game in town
WF has the best selling advantage selling one ticket for every three persons in their metro
Louisville and Clemson have the advantage selling one half a ticket to everyone in their metro

Tickets sales are a function of demand and scarcity and options. The growth of Greenville-Spartanburg due to the Automotive Industry is a huge boost to Clemson. Louisville has kept pro sports out of town. WF is in the process of starting to monetize it's position in Charlotte, both from a sports standpoint and from the standpoint of the medical school.

BC, Pitt, Miami, and GT face extreme professional competition and have to put great teams on the field to sell tickets.

But for as much money as basketball makes, I can't remember the last "basketball" decision made by the ACC. I remember the last decisions made to keep UNC/Duke/UVa happy as horse **** but that is not a BB decision.

During the 2017-18 fiscal year, UNC reported football revenue of $43.6 million (compared to $25.2 million in men's basketball) and a profit of $22.4 million (compared to $15.4 million in basketball).Feb 6, 2019

(06-23-2020 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 01:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Using the Census Combined Metro Tables Here's Who Has What in what could be considered the driving range, especially for basketball or a non-saturday afternoon football game:

Boston - 8.2 M
Miami - 6.8 M
Atlanta - 6.8 M
Raleigh-Durham-Fayetteville - 3.0 M
Pittsburgh - 2.6 M
Greensboro - WS - 1.6 M
Greenville - Spartanburg 1.4 M
Louisville - 1.4 M
Richmond - Charlottesville 1.4 M
South Bend - .8 M
Roanoke-Christiansburg-Blacksburg .75 M
Syracuse - .725 M

But population is not everything as MD found out after the Nationals and the Ravens entered the DC/Baltimore area.
BC has to split with the Patriots, Celtics, Bosox, Bruins - That's 7 million sports tickets into a market of 8.2 million - That's nearly one ticket per every person in the market to sell.
Miami has the nearly the same number of tickets to compete against in a market of 6.8 million. - That's a little over one ticket per every person in the market to sell.
GT has the same problems with Pro sports, but also 500K tickets for the Bulldogs. - That's about 1.25 tickets per person to sell into the market.
NC State, UNC, and Duke have about 1.4 million tickets to sell into a market shared with the Carolina Hurricanes and their 600K tickets to sell and 200K for ECU - That's about 3/4ths a ticket for everyone in the region.
Syracuse is selling about 1.1 tickets per person in their metro as the only game in town
WF has the best selling advantage selling one ticket for every three persons in their metro
Louisville and Clemson have the advantage selling one half a ticket to everyone in their metro

Tickets sales are a function of demand and scarcity and options. The growth of Greenville-Spartanburg due to the Automotive Industry is a huge boost to Clemson. Louisville has kept pro sports out of town. WF is in the process of starting to monetize it's position in Charlotte, both from a sports standpoint and from the standpoint of the medical school.

BC, Pitt, Miami, and GT face extreme professional competition and have to put great teams on the field to sell tickets.

But for as much money as basketball makes, I can't remember the last "basketball" decision made by the ACC. I remember the last decisions made to keep UNC/Duke/UVa happy as horse **** but that is not a BB decision.

During the 2017-18 fiscal year, UNC reported football revenue of $43.6 million (compared to $25.2 million in men's basketball) and a profit of $22.4 million (compared to $15.4 million in basketball).Feb 6, 2019

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

The 18-19 numbers from equity are what I noted.

27 BB less 11 net 16 M
39 FB less 23, net 16 M

A lot more profit room for a decent football team. If football didn't matter to UNC, Bubba and Eddie Smith, the wallets would not have opened as they have the last 2 years.

Clemson's willingness to spend upwards of 80% of their income on football is unusual and I have to check and determine who spent more by percentage.

According to Equity Clemson spent 78.5% of all football and basketball revenue on football for 18-19.
West Virginia was at 67%. Mississippi State was at 65%, Ole Miss at 55% and South Carolina at 47%. Carolina is at 40%

(06-23-2020 06:33 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 01:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Using the Census Combined Metro Tables Here's Who Has What in what could be considered the driving range, especially for basketball or a non-saturday afternoon football game:

Boston - 8.2 M
Miami - 6.8 M
Atlanta - 6.8 M
Raleigh-Durham-Fayetteville - 3.0 M
Pittsburgh - 2.6 Mxo
Greensboro - WS - 1.6 M
Greenville - Spartanburg 1.4 M
Louisville - 1.4 M
Richmond - Charlottesville 1.4 M
South Bend - .8 M
Roanoke-Christiansburg-Blacksburg .75 M
Syracuse - .725 M

But population is not everything as MD found out after the Nationals and the Ravens entered the DC/Baltimore area.
BC has to split with the Patriots, Celtics, Bosox, Bruins - That's 7 million sports tickets into a market of 8.2 million - That's nearly one ticket per every person in the market to sell.
Miami has the nearly the same number of tickets to compete against in a market of 6.8 million. - That's a little over one ticket per every person in the market to sell.
GT has the same problems with Pro sports, but also 500K tickets for the Bulldogs. - That's about 1.25 tickets per person to sell into the market.
NC State, UNC, and Duke have about 1.4 million tickets to sell into a market shared with the Carolina Hurricanes and their 600K tickets to sell and 200K for ECU - That's about 3/4ths a ticket for everyone in the region.
Syracuse is selling about 1.1 tickets per person in their metro as the only game in town
WF has the best selling advantage selling one ticket for every three persons in their metro
Louisville and Clemson have the advantage selling one half a ticket to everyone in their metro

Tickets sales are a function of demand and scarcity and options. The growth of Greenville-Spartanburg due to the Automotive Industry is a huge boost to Clemson. Louisville has kept pro sports out of town. WF is in the process of starting to monetize it's position in Charlotte, both from a sports standpoint and from the standpoint of the medical school.

BC, Pitt, Miami, and GT face extreme professional competition and have to put great teams on the field to sell tickets.

But for as much money as basketball makes, I can't remember the last "basketball" decision made by the ACC. I remember the last decisions made to keep UNC/Duke/UVa happy as horse **** but that is not a BB decision.

During the 2017-18 fiscal year, UNC reported football revenue of $43.6 million (compared to $25.2 million in men's basketball) and a profit of $22.4 million (compared to $15.4 million in basketball).Feb 6, 2019

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

The 18-19 numbers from equity are what I noted.

27 BB less 11 net 16 M
39 FB less 23, net 16 M

A lot more profit room for a decent football team. If football didn't matter to UNC, Bubba and Eddie Smith, the wallets would not have opened as they have the last 2 years.

Clemson's willingness to spend upwards of 80% of their income on football is unusual and I have to check and determine who spent more by percentage.

Back when Miami was winning championships, they spent better than 80% of their AD budget on football IIRC. Not sure what the percentage is now.

(06-23-2020 06:33 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 01:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Using the Census Combined Metro Tables Here's Who Has What in what could be considered the driving range, especially for basketball or a non-saturday afternoon football game:

Boston - 8.2 M
Miami - 6.8 M
Atlanta - 6.8 M
Raleigh-Durham-Fayetteville - 3.0 M
Pittsburgh - 2.6 M
Greensboro - WS - 1.6 M
Greenville - Spartanburg 1.4 M
Louisville - 1.4 M
Richmond - Charlottesville 1.4 M
South Bend - .8 M
Roanoke-Christiansburg-Blacksburg .75 M
Syracuse - .725 M

But population is not everything as MD found out after the Nationals and the Ravens entered the DC/Baltimore area.
BC has to split with the Patriots, Celtics, Bosox, Bruins - That's 7 million sports tickets into a market of 8.2 million - That's nearly one ticket per every person in the market to sell.
Miami has the nearly the same number of tickets to compete against in a market of 6.8 million. - That's a little over one ticket per every person in the market to sell.
GT has the same problems with Pro sports, but also 500K tickets for the Bulldogs. - That's about 1.25 tickets per person to sell into the market.
NC State, UNC, and Duke have about 1.4 million tickets to sell into a market shared with the Carolina Hurricanes and their 600K tickets to sell and 200K for ECU - That's about 3/4ths a ticket for everyone in the region.
Syracuse is selling about 1.1 tickets per person in their metro as the only game in town
WF has the best selling advantage selling one ticket for every three persons in their metro
Louisville and Clemson have the advantage selling one half a ticket to everyone in their metro

Tickets sales are a function of demand and scarcity and options. The growth of Greenville-Spartanburg due to the Automotive Industry is a huge boost to Clemson. Louisville has kept pro sports out of town. WF is in the process of starting to monetize it's position in Charlotte, both from a sports standpoint and from the standpoint of the medical school.

BC, Pitt, Miami, and GT face extreme professional competition and have to put great teams on the field to sell tickets.

But for as much money as basketball makes, I can't remember the last "basketball" decision made by the ACC. I remember the last decisions made to keep UNC/Duke/UVa happy as horse **** but that is not a BB decision.

During the 2017-18 fiscal year, UNC reported football revenue of $43.6 million (compared to $25.2 million in men's basketball) and a profit of $22.4 million (compared to $15.4 million in basketball).Feb 6, 2019

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

The 18-19 numbers from equity are what I noted.

27 BB less 11 net 16 M
39 FB less 23, net 16 M

A lot more profit room for a decent football team. If football didn't matter to UNC, Bubba and Eddie Smith, the wallets would not have opened as they have the last 2 years.

Clemson's willingness to spend upwards of 80% of their income on football is unusual and I have to check and determine who spent more by percentage.

According to Equity Clemson spent 78.5% of all football and basketball revenue on football for 18-19.
West Virginia was at 67%. Mississippi State was at 65%, Ole Miss at 55% and South Carolina at 47%. Carolina is at 40%

https://247sports.com/college/north-caro...128024785/

(06-23-2020 06:33 PM)Statefan Wrote:  According to Equity Clemson spent 78.5% of all football and basketball revenue on football for 18-19.
West Virginia was at 67%. Mississippi State was at 65%, Ole Miss at 55% and South Carolina at 47%. Carolina is at 40%

Dang.

<Looks at the 2019-20 ACC standings>

We still finished one game behind NC State in ACC conference play this year, despite only spending just over 20% of our revenue in hoops.

The year before we had the exact same record in-conference as NC State in basketball.


In football both years we went 9-0 in conference play, won the conference, went to the playoffs, went to the national title game and won one of them.

NC State went a combined 6-10 in conference play both seasons and failed to win their division either year.


Clemson in the past two seasons has contributed an additional $12 million to conference coffers for participating in the playoffs and is solely carrying the ACC's relevance in football.


So I ask this question of the board: Which school is doing more for itself and the conference with their allocation of revenue. Clemson or NC State?

(06-23-2020 10:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So I ask this question of the board: Which school is doing more for itself and the conference with their allocation of revenue. Clemson or NC State?

The rivalry seems alive and well!

(06-22-2020 05:03 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Four things are happening:

1. Prepping to retire Swofford.
2. Ending the Old Cotillion Club system where subcommittes make up of people below the level of the Presidents shaped decisions before the came to a vote.
3. The Executive Committee will handle replacing Swofford
4. Faculty is being brought down a peg.

It's good to be right.

Now, who to fill the spot?

Statement from NC State Chancellor Randy Woodson:
“Commissioner Swofford has guided the ACC through many challenges including expansion and the launch of ACC Network, thus positioning the conference for continued success well into the future. Our entire league owes so much of its success to his steady hand and thoughtful leadership.”

Statement from Syracuse University Chancellor and Chair of the ACC Board of Directors Kent Syverud:
“John Swofford, in his historic tenure, has come to embody the very best of the ACC. The Conference has been dramatically enhanced in every way during the last quarter century, especially in its balance of academics and athletics. All 15 Presidents of the Conference, like their universities, are deeply grateful to John for his transformative leadership.”

Statement from Clemson University President Jim Clements:
“The ACC has been blessed to have John Swofford as its Commissioner for the past 20-plus years. He is a true gentleman, with unparalleled character and integrity. Through his strategic vision and his leadership, the ACC has seen tremendous growth and incredible success and is extremely well-positioned for the future.”

Statement from Wake Forest University President Nathan Hatch:
“John has been a superb leader for the ACC and for all of intercollegiate sports. He has been a savvy, principled, and foresighted leader in tumultuous times. I particularly value his abiding interest in the well-being of student-athletes and his commitment to the proper role of athletics within the larger mission of the modern university.”

Statement from University of Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins:
"For over twenty years, John Swofford has been critical in upholding the ACC's dual commitment to athletic and academic excellence and has led the conference with integrity. We at Notre Dame are personally grateful to John for facilitating our entry into the conference in 2014, and for upholding the high standards of intercollegiate athletics for which the ACC stands."

Statement from Clemson Athletics Director Dan Radakovich:
John has been the bedrock of the ACC. The years of his tenure have seen tremendous success and growth. The student-athletes, coaches, administrators and fans of the ACC have been the beneficiary of his outstanding leadership. The entire Clemson family wish John and Nora the best, as they begin their next chapter.