A gap of $15-$22 Million. That is insane. What is more insane, is the ACC seems to ignore it.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/28/conference-cash-pac-12-lags-the-sec-big-ten-and-even-the-big-12-in-distributions-to-the-campuses/
http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2018/04/conference-payouts.html
Here are projected P5 conference payouts from a Pac-12 point of view...
From Mercury News: Conference Cash
Fiscal year 2017Notes: * Payments for FY17 include a one-time distribution from the NCAA of approximately $850,000 per school.
SEC: $41 million (actual)
Big Ten: $38.5 million (reported)
Big 12: $34.3 (actual)
Pac-12: $30.5 million (projected)
ACC: $26 million (projected)
Fiscal Year 2018
Big Ten: $50+ million (projected)
SEC: $43 million (projected)
Big 12: $36.5 million (projected)
Pac-12: $32 million (projected)
ACC: $28 million (projected)
* The Big Ten jump in FY18 projections is the result of its new Tier One TV deal.
* Big 12 figures do not include local media rights, which are owned by the schools (i.e., The Longhorn Network).
https://floridastate.forums.rivals.com/threads/money-per-conference.216442/
For what it's worth, overall I don't have a problem with John Swofford. Yes, he did a poor job negotiating the TV/rights deal and I don't like the sneaky way he and Barron colluded to circumvent the Sunshine Laws in order slide the GOR past everyone that might have had a dissenting opinion.
Nevertheless, his primary objective is to protect the conference and member schools. While many of his actions may have been counter to FSU's best interests, they have been in the ACC's best interest. Locking cash cows FSU and Clemson into long term arrangements protects the conference and the majority of its member schools (especially the smaller ones that don't carry much weight).
I have a bigger issue with the leadership at FSU (at that time) that didn't negotiate a better deal with the ACC. The former school president, AD and BOT fell hook, line and sinker for the promise of a "lucrative ACC Network" without apparently getting much of a guarantee.
Simple things like getting a bonus for post-season, bowls, major TV appearances, etc.. would have gone a long way to alleviating some of the ACC's financial shortcomings when it comes to the football power schools (FSU and Clemson).
A couple final points. Those that say FSU didn't have any options at the time and that the Big 12 wasn't a realistic option need to consider that FSU had all the leverage. FSU could have easily played the Big 12 and the ACC against each other to work a better deal. This is exactly what Notre Dame did when it cut the deal with the ACC (was also flirting with the Big 12 at the time). The ACC was never going to announce the GOR, and ESPN would have never agreed to its deal, without FSU. Swofford had to be freaking out at the possibility that FSU might leave the ACC for a rival conference. But instead of playing on that fear, the school president decided to send out an insulting email about the Big 12. At that point all the leverage switched to Swofford and he took full advantage.
Finally, I've seen a couple comments about how FSU didn't have leverage against the ACC back then because it wasn't winning many games. In terms of TV deals, wins-losses aren't that relevant. TV ratings rule the roost. Even back during the end of the so-called Lost Decade, FSU was still far and away the highest rated football program in the ACC, and it wasn't close. In fact, FSU was still one of the highest rated fo
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete#goacc
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, the ACC's conference payouts are bad and Swofford sucks. I'll agree with whomever also blamed Barron, the BoT and the AD back when they stupidly signed the GoR - that all of these entities failed at actually leading FSU athletics at the time.
ReplyDeleteThat said, it's also stupid to include the Big 12's 3rd tier rights but not include FSU's $6.6M/year deal, which ended last summer. Somebody needs to FOIA FSU and find out what the new deal is. It better be in the $10M+/yr range.
Also, "Dot" is saying that the ACC will get a $3M bump for the digital ACC network. That is false. The digital network will bring in negligible money. (It's nothing more than a rebranded ESPN3.) He seems to be confusing the supposed agreement where ESPN is/was to pay the ACC for not starting a network by such and such date.
The ACC also loses money whenever the Orange Bowl is part of the semifinals. I don't care enough to look up which years that will factor into ACC payouts. But it means for 2 years the conference payouts should go up slightly, and then in the third year it will dip a little more when the OB isn't on the books.
What the ACC must DEMAND from ESPN, is that ESPN negotiate it's ACC network at the same level as its SEC network. And in the future, it must negotiate the two networks together, in order for both to receive the same deal. It would be wholly unacceptable for the SEC to be in more markets/households than the ACC and/or for the SEC to have substantially higher carriage fees. (Unless, of course, ALL projections indicate the ACC network somehow creating more revenue than the SEC network, in which case I'd say go it "alone" and see if, at least in network revenue, the ACC could surpass the SEC. Although, this seems unrealistic."
Because as is, the SEC and Big Ten are CRUSHING the ACC. And all I hear from #goacc fanboys is, "but if we keep it within 80-85% we'll be ok!" Loser blood. If they're making $45M/yr, and the ACC is only making 80% of that, it's a $9M/year discrepancy. That's yuge.
Can't disagree with any of that. And you are really spot on with that crap Orange Bowl contract.
DeleteThe orange bowl "dip" takes place for all of the p5 conferences when their "home" bowls (sugar/rose) ate semi final locations as well.
DeleteBut yes, the orange bowl deal is crap. It should payout the acc at least as much as the rise/sugar pay their conferences, and the big ten/sec participant in the orange bowl should *NOT* receive equal pay as the acc (doing so contractually guarantees the acc is second rate/class).