Who is going to pay for it? The point isn't...."well it will make SOME money." That wasn't the goal. The goal is for the ACC to make a reasonable percentage of what our competitors are (say 75%-80%). Remember, if this comes with a 9 game schedule forced on football schools, they will also lose around $1-$2 Million from that.....so getting $2-$3 Million would be a net of around $1-$2 Million for football schools. Doing this while the SEC is making $7-$10 Million? Why is the ACC media ignoring this basic math and claiming this will be some huge victory for the ACC?
Looking at these pics, I would suggest the ACC has too few fan bases that will pay for it (FSU, Clemson, Va Tech, etc) and too many are dead weight. Again, EVERY conference has dead weight...that is OK, but the ACC has too much.
The other massive issue that is ignored is schools like BC were added for their "market"....well with this new, non cable bundle, model.....the ACC loses the value of a BC.....again, making conference expansion for the ACC even worse than suspected if the new model for the ACC is subscription based. The ACC's model on conference expansion was about markets.....and now that it has added those schools....the new model negates their value due to weak fan bases.
These points are widely being ignored in the ACC media, for clear reason....it is just a weak PR blitz by Swofford's buddies in the media, but FSU better think twice before it signs any GOR extension if the whole model is banking on 3-5 schools carrying the weight of all 14 schools.
No comments:
Post a Comment