All Hokie, All the Time. Period.

Conference Realignment Board

2hhoop3

Joined: 10/7/99 Posts: 12421
Likes: 2573


Here's your answers..


The difference in money for the schools you mention includes TV/licensing rights, contributions and ticket revenues primarily. Within those individual subcategories monies are attributable TV as well as merchandising rights, contributions are affected by how amounts for ongoing capital projects are accounted for in any single year as well as large one time donations and ticket revenues are affected by stadium size and what sports the schools choose to charge admission for. The overall differences are substantial. Kentucky's latest figures(using the USA data) are $116 million to UNC $89 million, the Clemson to USC comparison is $83.5 million to $113 million, the FSU to UF comparison is $120.8 million to $147 million, and VT to Minnesota is $80.0 million to $111.0 million. If total revenue is your sole metric for evaluating how well run a conference is then it is clear the ACC is challenged. However, just like the top line is not necessarily indicative of financial health and stability of a program, solely focusing on total revenues ignores several other important factors and can easily lead to a false conclusion about how well a particular school or conference is run. A person need look no further than the University of Texas and the Big 12 for a school and conference with big revenue that will not be currently confused for a well run entity.

In my opinion, the evaluation includes financial, competition, compliance, academic and other factors. In the case of a school or conference you look at all the sports/schools top to bottom to get a complete picture, however, for this response I will limit it to competition and the schools you specifically mentioned. I think the most relevant and objectively quantifiable info currently available for competition is the director's cup standings UNC compared to Kentucky shows a current ranking of 3 to 25 with the range for UNC over the last 5 years being 6-14 and for Kentucky 11-29. The numbers for Clemson/USC include a current rank of 13 versus 27 and a five year range for Clemson of 42-60 and USC 35-47. For FSU versus UF the current ranking is 16 versus 26 and the ranges for FSU are 4-22 and UF 2-5. For VT/Minnesota the current numbers are 49 versus 24 and a range of 35-38 for VT and 18-26 for Minnesota. The significant revenue differences, at least so far and over the last five years have not produced huge disparities in the on field competitive results. Yes, I understand the question is what would these guys do if they had more money but, the answer is not necessarily a direct increase, we'll call it the Texas/Big 12 effect for now.

The current results clearly indicate that despite revenue disparities the ACC is competitive with the SEC and Big Ten and arguably better than either the Big 12 or PAC 12. I have never denied that I believe Swofford has made mistakes and I certainly wish he did not drag his feet on a TV deal. I do not know what factors slowed the deal and without that info I think it is impossible to say with certainty that the decision reflects a poorly run conference. Top line is one measure and not really a complete measure of how well a conference is run. More importantly, while no TV deal was not the preferable outcome a bad TV deal because of factors the ACC could not overcome at the time of negotiation could have been a far worse outcome.

You threw around Tier 3 rights and other criticisms with no factual support. You were not asked to do hours of research but , merely to explain the facts that you believe support your opinion. This discussion started with your erroneous defense of Maryland and has pivoted to where we currently reside but, to continue the debate you need to bring facts as opposed to personal attacks. FYI, Maryland finished 59th last year in the Director's Cup and currently resides 44th which would indicate VT is not far, if at all, behind, your "dang shame" contention notwithstanding.
[Post edited by 2hhoop3 at 03/15/2017 10:49AM]

(In response to this post by chuckd4vt)

Posted: 03/15/2017 at 10:49AM



+2
Current Thread:
  The article makes for a great laugh and..... -- 2hhoop3 03/13/2017 10:53AM
  How are your predictions about Maryland going? ** -- chuckd4vt 03/12/2017 6:18PM
  UMD fans -- Vippie1 03/13/2017 09:09AM
  Re: UMD fans -- 2hhoop3 03/13/2017 10:08AM
  WRONG. UMD made money yr before last (link). -- chuckd4vt 03/13/2017 9:11PM
  Nope (link) -- daveinop 03/14/2017 09:06AM
  Not wrong according to reports filed .... -- 2hhoop3 03/14/2017 08:52AM
  Show me some sort of proof disputing the numbers. -- chuckd4vt 03/14/2017 09:05AM
  Dave already beat me to it..... -- 2hhoop3 03/14/2017 09:19AM
  Don't let your ignorance of the past mislead you. -- chuckd4vt 03/14/2017 12:26PM
  All ACC schools have individual Tier 3 deals ** -- daveinop 03/17/2017 09:02AM
  Not even close but.... .... -- 2hhoop3 03/14/2017 2:01PM
  You continue.... -- 2hhoop3 03/14/2017 2:35PM
  Here's your answers.. -- 2hhoop3 03/15/2017 10:49AM
  You should take your own advice..... -- 2hhoop3 03/14/2017 11:05AM
  Chucks posts are -- RTFC 03/15/2017 12:43PM
  Sorry, not going to -- chuckd4vt 03/15/2017 2:24PM
  See my link above ** -- daveinop 03/14/2017 09:07AM

Support TSL by Shopping at Amazon


Our Sponsors






vm309