Most interesting is the note on a 'championship pool.' Other link has more detail on this as well.
What is disappointing is how this isn't better explained by the conference itself. It sounds like this is something that would appease FSU and it's fan base greatly. Perhaps the 'pool' isn't large enough, but the ACC can legitimately crow about the principal of this. It is a solid start.
Some argue against this, and I get why. But in a conference LOADED with schools that refuses to invest, at a Power 5 level, in football, it is needed to incentivize the sport of football in a basketball conference, unlike the SEC or B1G.\
UPDATE:
HokieMark
6/12/2014
"In actuality the SEC also has an incentive program for football success, even if they don't call it that, and it's very simple: bowl revenues are pooled together, just like in the ACC, but in the SEC that money is only divided among bowl-eligible teams. If that were in effect in the ACC this past year, it would mean that Wake Forest, NC State and Virginia would not have received a share of the bowl money, and the other 11 teams would have each gotten 27% more. Not a huge deal, but still an incentive."
ACC Revenues, 2008-14
"Other revenue fluctuates and includes, among other things, the ACC's "championship pool", which I just learned recently is set aside for teams which win championships (e.g. Florida State). This, plus bowl travel allowance money, are not divided equally (everything else pretty much is)."
David Teel: Assessing ACC's latest tax filings and record 2013-14 revenue
Crazy Paco
6/11/2014
re: 2013-2012 fiscal year
"The above disbursement numbers do not include the disbursement from an additional incentive ACC "championship pool" of $8 million that rewards schools' athletic success. Nor does it include the additional $12,500 returned by the ACCIAC (derived from the ACC football championship game) to each school for undergrad fellowships. Nor does it include individual schools’ multi-media and licensing arrangements with entities such as IMG."
What is missing with these metrics I have tried to track is the breakout of football vs basketball revenue. There are missing numbers but it gives you an idea of the commonly mentioned '80% of revenue comes from football.' The reason this matters is it should clearly give schools and the conference what areas they should focus on. Unfortunately, the ACC is still fighting this logic. It still sees the two sports as 50/50 (or even basketball 75/25, depending on school), which is a huge mistake.
| ACC | % of revenue 2012 | 2014-2013 | 2013-2012 | 2012-2011 |
| Revenue | - | $291,700,000 | $232,400,000 | $223,500,000 |
| FB TV Rights | 58.39% | - | - | $130,500,000 |
| Basketball TV Rights | #VALUE! | - | - | - |
| Bowl Games | 19.60% | - | $36,700,000 | $43,800,000 |
| NCAA Bball Tourney | 7.92% | - | $18,200,000 | $17,700,000 |
| NCAA Grant in Aid | 4.21% | - | - | $9,400,000 |
| ACC Bball Tourney | 2.28% | - | - | $5,100,000 |
| TV Revenue | - | - | $146,600,000 | $130,500,000 |
In actuality the SEC also has an incentive program for football success, even if they don't call it that, and it's very simple: bowl revenues are pooled together, just like in the ACC, but in the SEC that money is only divided among bowl-eligible teams. If that were in effect in the ACC this past year, it would mean that Wake Forest, NC State and Virginia would not have received a share of the bowl money, and the other 11 teams would have each gotten 27% more. Not a huge deal, but still an incentive.
ReplyDeleteVERY interesting. How is the ACC NOT doing this? This and the 'Championship Pool' would go far in showing schools who invest in football that there is a reward.
ReplyDelete