http://floridastate.forums.rivals.com/threads/acc-in-transition.6884/page-4
seminole72 said: ↑
It's not going to happen, maybe more expense money but never uneven bowl distribution.Do the split and correct the bowl revenue distribution so you reward achievement and it will remedy itself.Click to expand...
jamnolfin said: ↑
Why? Why does the SEC have distribution based on contribution, but it is not appropriate for the ACC?It's not going to happen, maybe more expense money but never uneven bowl distribution.Click to expand...
http://floridastate.forums.rivals.com/threads/acc-in-transition.6884/page-5
"This article does a decent job of pointing out some of the unique revenue sharing provisions that are afforded to ND by the ACC. Let me emphasize that the accommodations are clearly the result of a negotiation to be fair to both sides, not to disadvantage the ACC. But recognizing this fact should in no way obscure the considerations made for fairness. Specifically,
"The Irish only will share in ACC football revenue generated from participation in lower level bowls — to be exact, a 1/15th payout of net conference revenues in all bowls excluding any national semifinal and the Orange Bowl. The improved slate of lower-level bowls and increased postseason options — particularly when the playoff format begins in 2014-15 — was a major reason the Irish jumped at this opportunity.
However, the fact remains that ND gets a full share of the non-playoff bowl revenue even though they don't contribute and they keep their own earnings when they are participants in a playoff-bowl.
Why? According to this article (and others) Because they have the brand earning power. i.e.
"Those five games will afford the ACC the exposure of a national brand and the economic boost from a strong traveling fanbase visiting new venues and campuses along the Atlantic coast. ACC commissioner John Swofford said he expects Notre Dame’s presence to boost the conference’s TV deal with ESPN by association — not to mention the addition of Olympic sports such as the three-time national champion women’s soccer team that will draw more national viewers."
Now, can anyone objectively assert that FSU does not bring much the same added value to the ACC as described here? As valuable as ND is (and I'm willing to allow that ND may have brand value greater than FSU, but certainly not by much), which team has consistently attracted the largest ESPN audiences for over ~25 years? FSU Which 2 teams invented ESPN Game Day? Which football team over the last quarter of a century has consistently improved ESPN and ABC's ratings in college football? Florida State University. And if you add Olympic sports along with basketball and baseball, FSU and ND are stride for stride in competitiveness in college sports.
The ACC has tailored a revenus sharing package with ND for good, objective business considerations based on ND brand value improving ACC market positioning. FSU has done the same thing for much, much longer.
In view of these facts, it seems to be a very modest request that the playoff bowl revenue distribution recognize contribution. Such a request does not directly favor FSU and allows the status quo of unequal distribution w/ ND to remain. It merely provides a mechanism to reward those member schools that contribute disproportionately more to be rewarded fairly. Hiding behind the sophistry of uniform equal distribution is the only "fair" method when the ACC is practicing something quite the contrary is worse than disingenuous; it undermines the integrity of the conference's leadership and the schools that attempt to demagogue in the lofty name of "fairness". Fairness is receiving commensurate with what you contribute.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/c...endent-football-fightin-mad-article-1.1160425
Nobody has Notre Dame value period. They can stay independent and have them lined up to do home and homes and neutral turf games with them. Tell the Michigans of the country that they won't play them any more. Notre Dame is unique to college football. .
And this observation disproves that FSU also has unique demonstrated value how? My previous point goes to lengths to recognize ND's unique brand value. So if the ACC is willing to make special monetary accommodation for ND's uniqueness and brand value, why is it unwilling to make a small concession to the brand that has led the conference in brand awareness for almost 25 years? Once again you evade the question of why fair treatment for FSU (and potentially other rising brands) who has consistently contributed more and received less for ~25 years. You say that is impossible in the ACC. Yet the conference is practicing that same unequal monetary recognition for ND based on their brand contribution.
It was asserted here originally that the ACC has only equal revenue distribution. When that assertion was shown to be in error using ND as an example, we were told, "You can't use ND as a argument, we cut that deal to get them in the conference." When it is then agreed that yes, the ACC does in fact have an unequal revenue distribution formula in place, we are now told that it must be so because of ND's brand value. When we compare FSU's brand value and its demonstrated uniqueness in CF as documented by ratings and reputation, we are now told that no one compares to ND because they can tell Michigan they won't play them any more
. No. ND cancelled playing a mediocre Michigan program (which they had only been doing regularly in the last 20 years) to accommodate a 5 game ACC schedule. Let me repeat that. ND cancelled playing Michigan to make room for an ACC schedule. So it is hardly proof that ND is completely above needing the ACC or unmatched in its brand value. If ND thought they could have stayed completely independent, why did they join the ACC? Simple answer; because they couldn't remain independent. They needed the ACC just as the ACC needed them. Just as FSU needs the ACC, the ACC needs FSU.
Your willingness to place us in a second tier status merely to try and justify an unfair revenue formula is surprising. I'm only arguing for a fair bowl distribution based on monetary and brand contribution of FSU and any other member that makes a similar deposit to the ACC. That still allows for ND brand value to receive disparate distribution even though FSU could likely cut a similar deal to ND's in football w/ Fox or one of the other new cable sports channels.
It was asserted here originally that the ACC has only equal revenue distribution. When that assertion was shown to be in error using ND as an example, we were told, "You can't use ND as a argument, we cut that deal to get them in the conference." When it is then agreed that yes, the ACC does in fact have an unequal revenue distribution formula in place, we are now told that it must be so because of ND's brand value. When we compare FSU's brand value and its demonstrated uniqueness in CF as documented by ratings and reputation, we are now told that no one compares to ND because they can tell Michigan they won't play them any more
. No. ND cancelled playing a mediocre Michigan program (which they had only been doing regularly in the last 20 years) to accommodate a 5 game ACC schedule. Let me repeat that. ND cancelled playing Michigan to make room for an ACC schedule. So it is hardly proof that ND is completely above needing the ACC or unmatched in its brand value. If ND thought they could have stayed completely independent, why did they join the ACC? Simple answer; because they couldn't remain independent. They needed the ACC just as the ACC needed them. Just as FSU needs the ACC, the ACC needs FSU. Your willingness to place us in a second tier status merely to try and justify an unfair revenue formula is surprising. I'm only arguing for a fair bowl distribution based on monetary and brand contribution of FSU and any other member that makes a similar deposit to the ACC. That still allows for ND brand value to receive disparate distribution even though FSU could likely cut a similar deal to ND's in football w/ Fox or one of the other new cable sports channels.
As I've stated before, I'd like to see the ACC adopt the same formula used by the SEC (at the very least, no bowl share to teams which are ineligible).
ReplyDelete