Link is an article on a great ACC blog, but sadly falls prey to the standard backwards thinking that has run the ACC into the ground
"Florida St and Clemson.
Obviously FSU and Clemson are both doing quite well in football right now. The problem is, neither school seems all that interested in basketball; in fact, I'd say the 2nd sport at both schools is baseball. OK, FSU and Clemson are both somewhat interested in hoops - just not really committed. And while it is possible to show a profit in college baseball, it isn't easy, and the financial ceiling is not very high. Still, if these guys want to be great in football and baseball but don't care about basketball, I'd have to say they are still pulling their weight..."
BOTTOM LINE: Several ACC teams are doing well in one of the money sports, but really Louisville is the only one firing on all cylinders right now. That leaves a lot of room for improvement..."
Really enjoy this blog and the author of it, but it displays the unreal ignorance of the ACC and it's fan base. You 'think' FSU is pulling it's weight? Seriously?
As noted in many places (and documented in this blog), football accounts for 80%-85% of revenue in the ACC. Read that again. In a basketball league with hardly any football fan support outside of 3-4 schools TOPS, football is the VAST majority of revenue.
This is even understated given the huge revenue boost coming in playoffs hasn't hit yet, PLUS the ACC has yet to receive the boost of FSU's national title (because the 10 years before that in the ACC was HORRID).
The original article writes of 'money sports' as they are equal. Ignoring the massive difference between the two is a fatal flaw that has doomed the ACC in so many ways. It is a conference that can't understand that fact, or refuses to.
Do the math.....if 3-4 schools are bringing in the 80% of the revenue and 5-6 basketball schools are bringing in 20% of the revenue.......this is a no brainer. How many schools are REALLY pulling their financial weight?
In fact, the reality is.....The amount of schools carrying their weight in the ACC is small....VERY small. How many have won national titles in football in the ACC the last 20 years? How many have won the Heisman? How many carry a national TV audience? How many have won more than 1 BCS bowl?
You can argue about 'firing on all cylinders' as far as performance (where Louisville does deserve much credit), but the minute 'profit' is mentioned (as it was)...it changes the entire dynamic of the topic.
The original statement 'only one firing on all cylinders' was correct....except it is CLEARLY FSU that is doing that. The fact that ACC fans and media don't see that is part of the core reason why the ACC has the lowest Power 5 payout and why the SEC will continue to run circles around the ACC.
Wow! Hokie Mark here... I never expected my statement to be viewed as criticism of FSU - I was merely pointing out that basketball brings in a lot more revenue than baseball. Of course FSU is tops in football, but that's not all due to the decisions of the athletic department - geography (being located near the intersections of Florida, Georgia and Alabama) certainly pays off big time for FSU! Of all ACC teams I think the only one which can be said to be maximizing their value given what they have to work with is Louisville. Florida State may be worth more than UL, but there is a lot of unrealized up-side in Tallahassee (i.e. you guys can go MUCH higher, IMO). That's all I meant...
ReplyDeleteMark,
DeleteThe minute you mentioned profit, it is about profit. If a business is underperforming...it should focus FIRST on the 80% of the revenue....not the 20%. It is simple math. In the business of the ACC, CLEARLY it is football that is underperforming. Only Clemson and FSU are the schools that compete at an SEC level right now (fan base, TV ratings, BCS bowl wins, National titles, Heisman). Va Tech and Miami are solid, but don't full deliver. Louisville might be in that Va Tech/Miami range, but it is early to tell.
The real story of who is carrying their weight is schools with geography, as you discussed, have $$$, and have potential. In football, those schools are UNC, UVA, Ga Tech, and even Duke (think Stanford light). These are schools with the means and geography to be top 25 EVERY year....but they just don't care about football. They ignore the 80% of the revenue to focus on the 20% of the revenue.
It is a logical flaw. It makes no business sense. These are the schools not carrying their weight. It isn't politically correct to say in ACC land....but it is true.
Your article is merely a small window into the common mindset of the ACC that just doesn't get it. No school in the ACC has won the national title (while in the ACC) since Ga Tech 20 plus years ago. It was more than 30 years plus that a school beyond FSU and Ga Tech won it. There simply aren't enough schools in this conference that compete at a national title level in the main revenue sport.
Some schools have limited ceilings. Winning 7 games at Wake in football is amazing, and anytime they do, I give them much credit for it. Because the ACC has some many of these limited ceiling schools in the main money sport, the few that have consistently failed to reach their potential in it need to be spotlighted. They never will be because in the ACC, 80% of the focus is on the sport that pays 20% of the revenue.
Your failure to denote the very real and stark revenue differences and why they matter is common in the ACC......and it always will be. They just don't get it.
FSU is carrying it's weight and about 10 other schools weight in the modern world of Big 10/SEC revenue competition. There is no 'think' about it. Arrogant? Yes, not intended....it is just factual. The ACC will fail and fall apart until that changes. It needs the other great universities in the conference with the potential (due to geography, money, brank, etc) to compete at a national title level as well to bring the balance a power conference should have.
What we have is no balance and a refusal by the conference to see it. That is a CORE issue in this conference and your article highlighted that to me.
Guys, you are reading something into my article that isn't there!
ReplyDeleteFirst, it starts out with this clear statement:
UNC, NC State and UVa.
The ACC needs you guys to become more than just basketball schools. You need to be football schools too.
When it comes to Va Tech, I end with this Rx:
The new AD has his work cut out to prevent serious erosion in the main sport (football) while fixing what's wrong in the secondary sport (basketball).
Regarding BC and Syracuse - I wrote that they need to be like Stanford and qualify for the playoffs.
Regarding Ga Tech and Pitt - I wrote that their boards need to get behind football.
Regarding Miami - I wrote that they need to stop tripping over their own feet (not in so many words, but this is an FSU site so I don't have to be so politically correct)
Why is the fact that I praise Louisville for making money in both sports all of a sudden a bad thing?