Friday, July 3, 2015

ACC's inconsistant stance on unequal revenue distribution

FSU booster rep (jamnolfin) gets owned by FSU Fan calling ACC out.

http://floridastate.forums.rivals.com/threads/acc-in-transition.6884/page-4

seminole72 said:
Do the split and correct the bowl revenue distribution so you reward achievement and it will remedy itself.
Click to expand...
It's not going to happen, maybe more expense money but never uneven bowl distribution.
 
jamnolfin said:
It's not going to happen, maybe more expense money but never uneven bowl distribution.
Click to expand...
Why? Why does the SEC have distribution based on contribution, but it is not appropriate for the ACC?
 
 
northvanole said:
Other conferences have tried to find ways to veer from shared revenue, but it always caused a problem. FSU is the most valuable asset in the ACC and as I understand it, Swofford has admitted as much to our booster board (a little late, but it still happened.)

If someone was to calculate FSU's real value to the ACC and then create a distribution plan that would force the conference to pay that amount - and then estimate how much FSU can make as an independent - I would suspect that the number would drop. There are conference interdependencies that benefit the value of FSU when the first calculation is made and I am not concluding that the first calculation is wrong - I am just stating that "being a part of the ACC" is included in that valuation and FSU is worth less as an indepenent than as a member of the conference - any conference.

And while this sounds I am defending the way the ACC handles its business, let me make a real point. If the first calculation I make consistently occurs each year (i.e., the value of FSU to the ACC is consistently and significantly larger than the average ACC member) then the conference can become unstable because of one of the two may be concluded:

1). While FSU cannot fully monetize its "conference member" value as an independent, it becomes a target of other conferences if there is any significant realignment - and - this becomes more of an issue as we approach the 2026 season when the GOR ends. I assure that FSU is worth a lot more now than even 2012 when the B12 may have been looking at us. Is 2026 too far away? Hmmm. I refer you to the excitement of the upcoming Georgia- UCLA home and away games. It's in 2026.

2). - or - The calculation of FSU's value to the average ACC member might be viewed as an indication that the average value is too low, i.e., the average value will go up if the ACC contracts away from certain members.

You can't always fool Mother Nature and you can't always stop the chaos caused by the free market system.

However, I believe that ACC leadership is well aware of these issues. That is how UL got in and why not taking WVU is viewed as a missed opportunity by many.
Click to expand...
I don't have any disagreement w/ what you say here, but w/ all due respect, that's not what we're talking about. At least I was never suggesting or asking why the ACC doesn't share general revenues unequally. I am talking about the bowl revenue. The SEC and Big 12 (not sure about the other 2) have bowl distribution formulas that contain greater amounts for the teams that make it to a NC and/or BCS/playoff bowls. The SEC isn't trying to monetize the value of Alabama for the purpose of bowl revenues, they just distribute ~$1million to them if they play in the NC game; etc. They would do the same for Vanderbilt if it ever made it. It is a recognition in the formula that earning a spot in a playoff and/or NC game should be rewarded as it brings in much more revenue than the team that goes to the Belk or Mobile Bowl or no bowl. The ACC could easily do this and not change their basic position on equal revenue distribution of other revenues. But the ACC not only pays out equal amounts (adjusted for expenses) to all; but they also send the same share to teams that don't got to a bowl to worse, teams that chose not to go because they are "self-imposing" sanctions on themselves for cheating in anticipation of what the NCAA will hand down later. Horseshot.

It is useful to keep in mind such a proposal is not FSU-centric. A new formula would reward who is successful.
 
 
seminole72 said:
So the ACC membership will not even consider fairness or be willing to listen to the fact that others do it differently for good purpose? Now there is a ringing endorsement for why we are members. Even China has figured out that market incentives create more prosperous outcomes for all.
Click to expand...
No, wouldn't get the votes to even start a vote. Its so easy to just say things on the internet but there's a real world out there. Some of these schools watched the Big East implode for this very reason. Every AD is out looking for more money but I doubt thats a road they will ever travel. 
 
jamnolfin said:
jamnolfin said:
No, wouldn't get the votes to even start a vote. Its so easy to just say things on the internet but there's a real world out there. Some of these schools watched the Big East implode for this very reason. Every AD is out looking for more money but I doubt thats a road they will ever travel.
Click to expand...
Always appreciate a lesson on the real world. Having never had any experience in the real world, I like to drop by and get your insights on what its like in the real world. For those like me who live in the the unreal world, its nice to get confirmation that the ACC members refuse to consider any other formula, even though they use to use an unequal distribution model prior to 1992. I guess they all used to live with me in the the unreal world, but entered the real world when FSU joined the conference.

And folks wonder how the ACC gets a reputation for arrogant condescension. Guess its just part of being in the real world.
 

jamnolfin said:
I would think uneven distribution aligns with arrogant condescension more than being equal partners. Maybe I'm wrong and you are right, I will own it if I'm wrong. We had this same conversation a few years ago didn't we? Im not trying to argue with you but I don't see it happening. I look at it the same as the Longhorn Network, giving a team in a conference a advantage over another. I believe the bowls belong to the conferences and not the 2 teams playing in them. I don't have the facts that all of the ADS and presidents do, the world they live in is the real world. Throwing things against a wall on a message board that's not based on having all of the facts is not the real world. I hope you are right but I don't see it.
Click to expand...
You seem annoyed that I'm discussing unequal bowl revenue distribution. And you've gone from from predicting what the ACC will do to declaring that they will do nothing and that it is correct that they make no change and that anyone urging an opposite opinion is not of the real world, but throwing things against a message board that's not based on all the facts. Yet you say you don't have all the facts, so how can you possibly factually know that what I'm asking is just throwing crap against a wall? You don't know, but you're sure I couldn't know. I do know that an unequal distribution formula is used by the SEc and I haven't noticed their demise. Did I miss a headline or is that more insider knowledge? Raising the LHN in this context is at best disingenuous and at worse deliberate obfuscation. LHN has nothing directly to do w/ the Big 12 revenue distribution and I think you know that. Texas created it and its based on their brand power. ND does something similar w/ NBC and I don't see you pointing at them as destroyers of the ACC. In fact, if you could be just a little objective and remove yourself from your real world, you'd recognize that the ACC presently has unequal revenue distribution right now. Read the agreement w/ ND if you have doubts. The whole equal distribution is the only fair thing is completely dispelled by this fact.

You made a statement previously that the ACC would never consider an uneven distribution of bowl revenue. Swofford once said they would look at it. I asked you why you said that. You reply with instructions about the real world. But you don't want to argue? No. You just don't want the subject to come up because neither you nor anyone else seems to have a cogent explanation of why it is good in the SEC, but bad in the ACC; why its ok for ND, but not for any other school.
 
 
 

http://floridastate.forums.rivals.com/threads/acc-in-transition.6884/page-5


"This article does a decent job of pointing out some of the unique revenue sharing provisions that are afforded to ND by the ACC. Let me emphasize that the accommodations are clearly the result of a negotiation to be fair to both sides, not to disadvantage the ACC. But recognizing this fact should in no way obscure the considerations made for fairness. Specifically,

"The Irish only will share in ACC football revenue generated from participation in lower level bowls — to be exact, a 1/15th payout of net conference revenues in all bowls excluding any national semifinal and the Orange Bowl. The improved slate of lower-level bowls and increased postseason options — particularly when the playoff format begins in 2014-15 — was a major reason the Irish jumped at this opportunity.

However, the fact remains that ND gets a full share of the non-playoff bowl revenue even though they don't contribute and they keep their own earnings when they are participants in a playoff-bowl.

Why? According to this article (and others) Because they have the brand earning power. i.e.

"Those five games will afford the ACC the exposure of a national brand and the economic boost from a strong traveling fanbase visiting new venues and campuses along the Atlantic coast. ACC commissioner John Swofford said he expects Notre Dame’s presence to boost the conference’s TV deal with ESPN by association — not to mention the addition of Olympic sports such as the three-time national champion women’s soccer team that will draw more national viewers."
Now, can anyone objectively assert that FSU does not bring much the same added value to the ACC as described here? As valuable as ND is (and I'm willing to allow that ND may have brand value greater than FSU, but certainly not by much), which team has consistently attracted the largest ESPN audiences for over ~25 years? FSU Which 2 teams invented ESPN Game Day? Which football team over the last quarter of a century has consistently improved ESPN and ABC's ratings in college football? Florida State University. And if you add Olympic sports along with basketball and baseball, FSU and ND are stride for stride in competitiveness in college sports.

The ACC has tailored a revenus sharing package with ND for good, objective business considerations based on ND brand value improving ACC market positioning. FSU has done the same thing for much, much longer.

In view of these facts, it seems to be a very modest request that the playoff bowl revenue distribution recognize contribution. Such a request does not directly favor FSU and allows the status quo of unequal distribution w/ ND to remain. It merely provides a mechanism to reward those member schools that contribute disproportionately more to be rewarded fairly. Hiding behind the sophistry of uniform equal distribution is the only "fair" method when the ACC is practicing something quite the contrary is worse than disingenuous; it undermines the integrity of the conference's leadership and the schools that attempt to demagogue in the lofty name of "fairness". Fairness is receiving commensurate with what you contribute.



http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/c...endent-football-fightin-mad-article-1.1160425
 
 
 
Nobody has Notre Dame value period. They can stay independent and have them lined up to do home and homes and neutral turf games with them. Tell the Michigans of the country that they won't play them any more. Notre Dame is unique to college football. .
 
 
And this observation disproves that FSU also has unique demonstrated value how? My previous point goes to lengths to recognize ND's unique brand value. So if the ACC is willing to make special monetary accommodation for ND's uniqueness and brand value, why is it unwilling to make a small concession to the brand that has led the conference in brand awareness for almost 25 years? Once again you evade the question of why fair treatment for FSU (and potentially other rising brands) who has consistently contributed more and received less for ~25 years. You say that is impossible in the ACC. Yet the conference is practicing that same unequal monetary recognition for ND based on their brand contribution.

It was asserted here originally that the ACC has only equal revenue distribution. When that assertion was shown to be in error using ND as an example, we were told, "You can't use ND as a argument, we cut that deal to get them in the conference." When it is then agreed that yes, the ACC does in fact have an unequal revenue distribution formula in place, we are now told that it must be so because of ND's brand value. When we compare FSU's brand value and its demonstrated uniqueness in CF as documented by ratings and reputation, we are now told that no one compares to ND because they can tell Michigan they won't play them any more o_O. No. ND cancelled playing a mediocre Michigan program (which they had only been doing regularly in the last 20 years) to accommodate a 5 game ACC schedule. Let me repeat that. ND cancelled playing Michigan to make room for an ACC schedule. So it is hardly proof that ND is completely above needing the ACC or unmatched in its brand value. If ND thought they could have stayed completely independent, why did they join the ACC? Simple answer; because they couldn't remain independent. They needed the ACC just as the ACC needed them. Just as FSU needs the ACC, the ACC needs FSU.

Your willingness to place us in a second tier status merely to try and justify an unfair revenue formula is surprising. I'm only arguing for a fair bowl distribution based on monetary and brand contribution of FSU and any other member that makes a similar deposit to the ACC. That still allows for ND brand value to receive disparate distribution even though FSU could likely cut a similar deal to ND's in football w/ Fox or one of the other new cable sports channels.
 
 

1 comment:

  1. As I've stated before, I'd like to see the ACC adopt the same formula used by the SEC (at the very least, no bowl share to teams which are ineligible).

    ReplyDelete