Sunday, June 8, 2014

Due to record revenue distribution, the ACC is in strong financial position… for now.

Solid view of recent revenue announcement.....good news, but things must happen for the ACC to stay with the pack.

Important to note that the PAC 12 is using revenue to pay for network expenses, so it looks like they are falling behind here, but they are really investing and a good number of years ahead of the ACC most likely.

Teel and article missing HUGE point....whether the ACC ever gets an ACC network, which is a BIG 'if,' if it isn't very profitable, ie to an SEC/B1G level, then it doesn't matter if it exists or not.  The whole point is revenue and this fact is often overlooked.

What Teel and the article do correctly point out is that the ACC better make it happen or it will get left behind, and FAST (ie over the next 5 years).

Due to record revenue distribution, the ACC is in strong financial position… for now.


"Now that’s it 2014, another myth from the 2012 realignment message board era has been blown away. The ACC would be shredded to pieces, didn’t happen. The ACC would be left out of a playoff systems. That wasn’t close to happening. The ACC couldn’t win a national title in football. Florida State pulled that feat off this past year. The ACC would be financially dwarfed by the other 4 power conference. Today that myth was put to rest.
The ACC for the 2013-2014 will distribute $20.8 million per team. This is a whopping $100K less than the mighty SEC. From ESPN’s article on this topic. 
The $20.8 million average each school is in line to receive is nearly identical to what will go to the 14-team SEC, which announced last week it will hand out slightly more than $20.9 million to its member schools after a record $292.8 million in total revenue.
This is good news for ACC schools. They are not being left behind in terms of conference revenue distributions. Don’t let some of the mis-information confuse you. A big deal was made about the Pac 12 taking over as the highest revenue producing conference.  That’s great, but starting a network a network isn’t free. The Pac 12 actually distributed slightly less than $20 Million per school.
the Big 12 continued to show its stability under commissioner Bob Bowlsby by reporting a record $220.1 million in distribution revenue Friday at the conclusion of the conference’s spring meetings.
and
This month, the Big Ten reported almost $26 million in distribution to its schools; the Pac-12 handed out just under $20 million in distribution to its members.
Well there you have it. The Big 10 distributed nearly $26 Million. The Big 12 distributed $22 Million. The SEC was at $20.9 Million. The ACC came in at $20.8 Million, and Pac 12 brings up the rear at $19.8 Million.
The important things to remember is you don’t have to be first on this list. In fact, in today’s world of $150 Million revenue producing schools some conference distributions can account for as little as 15% of a school’s revenue source. Some schools are simply going to make more because of ticket sales, boosters, etc. Nothing will change that, so when it comes to conference distributions you just want to be in the ball park of everyone else, and the ACC is certainly in the ball park. That said now is not the time for the ACC to just pat itself on the back.
On twitter I chatted a bit with the dean of ACC journalists David Teel about how it more than appeared the ACC was right in line financially with the other power conferences.

Jeffrey Fann @TalkinACCSports
@DavidTeelatDP @hokiesmash so by any metric the acc is in the ballpark of the other pwr 5 as opposed to the crazy numbers of 2 yrs ago.

David Teel @DavidTeelatDP
@TalkinACCSports Best I can tell. But ACC channel a must to keep up w/Joneses.

Jeffrey Fann @TalkinACCSports
@hokiesmash @DavidTeelatDP got to get it up within 3 yrs.
 
David Teel @DavidTeelatDP
@TalkinACCSports @hokiesmash Believe they will.
 
 
This is where Teel nails it. The ACC is currently in solid financial position, but a network must happen. Eventually the Pac 12 and SEC networks will make money, so an ACC Channel needs to get off the ground within the next 3 years."


ESPN's plan as I can gather from collection of sources so far reliable

"
Posted by: HOO86 (17401 posts; Joined 12/12/02)
Posted on: 06/06/2014 11:42PM
Subject: ESPN's plan as I can gather from collection of sources so far reliable

Here is what I'm putting together from my Syracuse guy and some other sources:

The ACC Network needs for the SEC Network to be successful. ESPN intends to do an ACC Network, but only if SEC works. The plan is to work with both the ACC and the SEC to distribute content from both conferences on both channels. This will help ESPN market both networks in the entire geographic footprint covered by both conferences combined.

ESPN wants New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, etc. buying the SEC Channel. It wants Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama buying the ACC Channel. The four overlapping states are assumed to distribute both anyway.

ESPN, the SEC, and the ACC have had informal meetings to begin thinking about joint scheduling. ESPN was supportive of the 8 game football schedule plus 1 P5 that both the ACC and SEC have adopted. But ESPN also wants baseball, basketball, and other sports to cross schedule to provide content usable across both Channels. ESPN is betting its college business on the ACC and the SEC basically. The Big Ten is expected to become more and more a FOX property.

I think if the plan is executed successfully, it could be very fun for UVA. We'll be seeing a lot of SEC along with our normal match ups. But SEC has to have a good launch this year. I asked why the SEC would want to do this? The answer is that ESPN is encouraging it, and the SEC sees the Big Ten as a threat. It does not see the ACC as a threat, and in fact there is a lot of cooperation between the SEC and the ACC already and over a long history. ESPN sees FOX as a threat. I'm told this Big East-Big Ten basketball challenge has pushed ESPN to do this faster rather than slower. "

No comments:

Post a Comment