FSU fans are NOT of one mindset when it comes to the ACC. What I find interesting is during the process of the Grant of Rights (GOR) signing, both the ACC and pro ACC posters (some from the FSU athletic dept, Nike, and the ACC) claimed many concessions were coming to FSU. Among those:
*Changes to revenue (ie bowl teams keep 20% of bowl profit before split with conference, etc)
*Division realignment (the ACC was argued to make more sense for FSU due to location, but FSU never plays Ga Tech, where most FSU alumni reside, which is idiotic)
*Better academic involvement (the ACC has NO SUBSTANTIVE academic component, but FSU fans were told academics was a very real part of the conference relationship)
*ACC Network WITH REVENUE (the issue here is, if FSU has a home game removed so Wake, BC, and Duke can get ACC Network revenue....how does FSU benefit?)
*Etc
What I love about the debate below is the representative from the FSU boosters (jamnolfin) argues the ACC is 'all for one.' This is interesting. The conference is 'all for one' when it comes to athletic revenue, from which 80% of the revenue comes from football.
But the ACC is compromised of EXTREMELY wealthy schools with HUGE endowments:
http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO-Commonfund_Study_of_Endowments/Public_NCSE_Tables.html
Notre Dame - $6.8 BILLION
Duke - $6 BILLION
UVA - $5.1 BILLION
Pitt - $2.9 BILLION
UNC -$2.3 BILLION
BC - $1.8 BILLION
Ga Tech - $1.7 BILLION
Wake - $1 BILLION
Syracuse - $1 BILLION
Clemson - $528 million
FSU - $548 million
Notice anything stark? Notice how the football schools that make the money for the ACC are poor and the schools that are rich don't bring in any football money? The one that could, doesn't share their money with the ACC because they aren't a football member (Notre Dame).
So the ACC, which claims it is more than an athletic conference, where academics matter, is purely capitalistic when it comes to academics. Where the ultra rich keep all that is theirs, but in athletics, it is purely socialistic....where we are 'all for one', which translated means, "you 2-3 poorer schools bring in the football money and the ACC will spend it on basketball and little else while we keeping our billions for academics and have no substantial academic relationship with our ACC peers" (yes, there is a website that claims one, but it is nothing more than PR).
These ultra wealthy schools take revenue from poorer football schools and do little with it football wise. Look at the disparity in power 5 athletic budgets.:
Total 2013 Athletic Revenue reported, all sources:
Team
|
Total Revenue
|
B1G
|
101,877,046
|
SEC
|
97,010,271
|
XII
|
91,006,099
|
PAC
|
76,587,854
|
ACC
|
69,843,007
|
There are some attempts to show effort, like at Duke, but what is $15 million spent on a stadium when Texas A&M is spending $450 Million? $15 Million for Duke, a VERY wealthy school, is NOTHING. This is symbolic at best.
The ACC is loaded with schools that are CLEARLY financially capable of competing athletically in ANY sport, what they lack, as evidence by the chart above, is a desire to. They have not joined the game that the other power 5 conferences have. This is not sustainable.
In the ACC's defense, they have done some good things.....added Louisville instead of UConn, stayed with 8 game schedule, but those should of been done anyway. The ACC made promises, made claims and it seems their logic doesn't ring true. It is a conference built on wealthy schools leaning on poorer schools while, typically, outvoting football schools for moves that need to be made to fix football in the ACC.
The G.O.R. was signed and the ACC quickly resorted to a PR campaign instead of substantive change. The promises made or suggested to FSU have been forgotten, denied, or simply ignored. The things that were said to make a conference matter: Geography, academics, etc don't seem to now that the G.O.R. is signed. FSU still rarely plays Ga Tech in Atlanta despite being the closest location to FSU. Academics don't share money, research power, or anything of substance. The ACC has settled for PR and hoping football schools just shut their mouths and win national titles against conferences with twice the money.
The ACC could survive, even thrive. But it has to look at itself, reevaluate old ways, and not just resort to change at the threat of death. This unwillingness to change already cost the ACC Maryland. It would be arrogant to not believe that someday UVA could go to the B1G or UNC to the SEC. To wait to make change is a big mistake, but the history of the ACC shows it is likely to do just that.
ACC Spring Meetings Underway and say you're the AD
"Originally posted by jamnolfin:
Great analogy Beth. I doubt anybody would vote for unequal revenue sharing, its all for one."
"Nole4757
Translation - the ACC membership is one-sided - FSU football spends and makes and the ACC members, the giants, don't football spend, but take with no give back to FSU."
"NJNOLES
They are happy to keep the funds they generate from academics and just as happy to take the funds that we generate the majority of in sports. Where is the all for one attitude there?"
"Sawyer55
Since the ACC is about academics also.....let's share endowments equally.
I am sure it is all for one there also right? Or is it really not about academics now that the GOR is signed and expansion is 'done'?"
No comments:
Post a Comment