Showing posts with label Predictions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Predictions. Show all posts

Sunday, July 1, 2018

ACC Network, FOF, revenue, and the future of the ACC

Some points from all these conversations:

*More stats that show the ACC as the 3rd conference, but it makes 5th in $$.

*DotCom predicts Swofford will bail on the ACC before the ugly fallout of huge revenue gaps hits (I agree).

*FSU's booster leadership sees the huge issue facing FSU.  Sadly, it is too late.  FSU just doesn't see things coming.  It is a reactionary school in a reactionary league.

*Even optimistic projections of a ACCN don't really put the ACC on firm ground.

Once again, when does the ACC leadership show a pulse?

https://247sports.com/college/florida-state/Board/36/Contents/Football-only-facility-119467366/

I'm reading your responses to this article and am impressed with your perspectives. This is a long reply but I'm trying to address several posts in one.
There are a couple of posts from people who understand the construction process. As some of you may know, I was in charge of the Doak renovation project -- notably the south endzone Champions Club -- and architects do tend to propose products and methods that can be value-engineered without diminishing the quality. It can be products as noted where simpler, more dependable products are available for less. Or it can be process. We had a situation with tile that the architect proposed one system that isn't used here in Tallahassee. Our subs proposed a different method that was satisfactory to the architect and contractor that allowed them to bid it for much less.
There is also an issue of scope. When we were going through the design phase, we got smarter about what we wanted and didn't want. We added some big things that added to the scope but we also realized there were things we didn't need which we either simply deleted from the project of VEd.
I think the reason the first bids came in so high is scope. The AD asked Populous to look at making some improvements for other sports while they were at it. What they came back with addressed Football needs as well as a lot of non-football needs which drove the cost way up. They may have to VE some of that out especially if they are going to take a $100-plus million dollar project back to what others are investing. I'm not in the meetings on this project so I can't say definitively.
The only two things in this thread so far that I would caution against is:
1. depending on funding from any network that isn't yet producing checks you can cash. While I share the optimism for the network's potential to generate a lot more than it is now, we can't bank it when applying for a bond. We will have to depend on current resources as Stan noted from prioritizing his budget, new revenues from a new contract with IMG/Leirfield, Booster fundraising (we already have $7.5 million in commitments and feel good we can expect to do $20-30 million within the time frame needed. Anything we see from the ACC network could help Stan with future needs. But I get your point.
2. the idea that the decision has been made to build a stand alone by the IPF. While that may be the leader in the clubhouse according to the article, and where we may well land, its not a made decision by any means. Costs of each will influence that final decision.
I don't see how a stand alone building on that site will come in at $30 million considering everything I've seen includes building another locker room and training room in the new structure, using the existing locker room only on game day. The plumbing contractor in this thread knows bathrooms, locker rooms and training rooms are pricey. The original renderings included a weight room too.
I think FSU is being really smart to take their time studying this.
I try to be a VERY objective person generally able to see the merits of arguments on both sides of any issue. I can tell you there are good arguments for a stand alone, which are noted in the article, but there are also good arguments for focusing the construction at the Moore Center which are not mentioned in the article.
Here are a few of the arguments for building it in and around the Moore Center:
1. football coaches offices have just been renovated and have impressive views overlooking Doak Campbell Stadium playing surface. As a poster noted, those offices look great. Its the money view for recruits. A building by the IPF would have a view of the practice field.
2. The existing football locker room has recently been upscaled and is impressive as noted in this thread and wouldn't have to be duplicated
3. the exististing training room can be devoted to football and a new training room for other sports can be built next to Tully which is adjacent to those sports facilities (tennis, track, volleyball, softball soccer) so they don't have to cross campus to get treatment. There's an argument this could be better for everyone.
4. The Moore Center is 200,000 square feet so its twice the size of most any other football only facility out there. The university can relocate the College of Communication which would eliminate the major objection of the football staff that there are too many people coming in and out of the building. The space they vacate can be converted to a lot of things, notably additional space for academics and tutoring
5. In addition, we can add 40,000 square feet of new space to the Moore Center if needed. The space immediately above the current 3rd floor football offices and below the bottom of the scoreboard can become another floor of the football office overlooking Bobby Bowden field (adds 12,000 square feet). It would enhance the view of the north endzone from the bleachers as well. Rather than those banners you hate, you'd have coaches offices. When we installed the North Endzone scoreboard structure, we engineered it to support an expansion so it would be relatively easy to add meeting rooms and coaches offices with a view
6. there is room on the northwest side of the Moore Center and on the Northeast side of the Moore Center where one or more annexes can be incorporated into the architecture to create even more space and an exclusive entrance
7. If football vacates the building, and leaves all that football branded space empty, you are going to have a significant cost to repurpose it for other sports... or purposes.
All of this is being studied and it has to be done thoughtfully. Chairman of the Board of Trustees Ed Burr, who is a developer, is assisting in the process so I have confidence they will come up with the right answer in the timeframe Stan noted.
This post was edited by Jerry Kutz 19 hours ago



https://floridastate.forums.rivals.com/threads/jimbo-article-on-sports-illustrated.220514/page-4


Yes.
What's interesting is when we joined the ACC, it was the ACC who had the most television revenue and vision. I think we all had a good feeling about Gene Corrigan who was the commissioner. He was the guy who recruited FSU and had Notre Dame -- not Tobacco Road -- ties.
Then he retired.
At the time, the SEC had Roy Kramer and when he made the visit to FSU he looked like he would have preferred to be anywhere else. And he certainly didn't appear to be the guy who would lead his conference where it would eventually go. You thought that would be Corrigan and the ACC.

I don't have a clear memory of how much of the SEC's network was Kramer. My memory is it was the next commissioner Slive. But who knew then.

Bob Goin was AD at the time and he and Bernie Sliger had solid reasons for choosing the ACC albeit there were solid arguments on the other side as well. Hindsight is 20/20, right?

I do recall our next AD, Dave Hart, telling me about what the Big 10 was doing with cable, owning their own rights. Everyone in athletics said the Big 10 commissioner had lost his mind but Hart very accurately predicted we'd look back in 20 years and see the Big 10s gamble would pay more than anyone else without losing any rights.

He looks like a prophet now. Its too bad the ACC didn't have the vision or the ability to make it happen.

I wonder what we'll think in time if Cable begins unbundling and I have the option as a homeowner to drop the Big 10 or SEC networks to lower my cable bill. I will do it in a heart beat.

My wife and I love the fire stick and are ready to drop cable. As more and better options become available and more people drop cable, we may see unbundling and the Big 10 and SEC models paying less over time.

I will be interested to see what the ACC Network generates and will be cheering for them. What we may see is the gap narrowing not so much by our revenues growing but by SEC and Big 10 models shrinking if the cable providers ever feel the pressure to unbundle.

In the meantime, yes, Seminole Boosters has to find new and creative ways to raise more and more money, either from donors or from revenue-generating entrepreneurial projects.

Good times.



122 Jerry Kutz, Yesterday at 1:31 PM


https://floridastate.forums.rivals.com/threads/latest-acc-network-article-from-david-teel.220625/page-2


Best thing I read in the article:

"Disney’s October carriage agreement with Altice, a cable provider that serves New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, was an encouraging start. Disney is ESPN’s parent company, and the Altice deal includes not only ESPN, but also the ACC and SEC networks."

First tangible item I've seen that says ESPN is expecting and selling the ACCNW.

Everyone's been shaking their head since Stan made those comments. Hope he knows something no one else knows.



Worst thing I read is
Translation: In 2013-14, ACC television money lagged behind the SEC by a modest $13.2 million. Three years later, the difference was a staggering $173.1 million.

11 scott1088, Yesterday at 7:51 PM

It's about time that someone in the ACC media besides Warchant writes about this issue. It's amazing how we were out on an island for years talking about the growing revenue disparity between the ACC and the rest of the P5.

Maybe if more attention would have been brought to this issue a couple years ago FSU woudn't have agreed to extend the GOR so easily.



43 Dot Com, Today at 10:08 AM

Interesting article.
Here's my take: Stan has a responsibility to report to the Board of Trustees what the conference is telling him but that doesn't mean he or the board of trustees make decisions based on those numbers. The Board doesn't make investment decisions that relies on those numbers, including the athletic facilities projects we are working on right now.

What is confounding is the last two paragraphs of the article, where up to now both FSU and the ACC programs are still performing at levels comparable to both SEC and Big 10 schools. I'm not sticking my head in the sand on this especially since the SEC and Big10 schools have more votes within the NCAA when it comes to setting limits on spending for additional coaches, scholarships, facilities and other expenses. But those last two paragraphs are interesting.

Until then, some tangible and encouraging numbers from the last five seasons for ACC faithful:

  • NCAA men’s basketball tournament record: ACC – 65-35, SEC – 40-24, Big Ten – 47-31.
  • Men’s basketball national championships: ACC 2, SEC 0, Big Ten 0.
  • Football bowl record: SEC – 34-23, Big Ten – 23-23, ACC – 26-28.
  • Record in BCS, CFP and New Year’s Six games: ACC – 7-5, Big Ten – 8-6, SEC – 8-9.
  • Football national championships: SEC 2, ACC 2, Big Ten 1.
  • Top 25 teams in this year’s penultimate Directors’ Cup all-sports standings: SEC 7, ACC 6, Big Ten 5.
An excellent place to be competitively. The ACC’s challenge remains financial.



45 Jerry Kutz, Today at 10:18 AM

Hate to be a fatalist here but IMO the die has been cast. FSU is locked in and don't see a way out any time soon.

I do think the ACC Network will put a dent in the revenue disparity but not to the extent needed to get in the same ballpark as the SEC and B1G. A savvy commissioner might figure out a way to better monetize the network but Swofford's gone all in on the current path and don't see him changing course now. Once it becomes apparent that the network is not the gold mine it was cracked up to be I suspect he'll announce his retirement so he doesn't have to deal with the fallout .



47 Dot Com, Today at 10:27 AM



https://floridastate.forums.rivals.com/threads/sec-network-and-winning-championships.220577/page-3

Since the SEC Network started (2014) SEC schools have won:
2 of 5 Football NC's, 2 Baseball, 2 Softball, 1 W Basketball, 2 W Gymnastics, 3 M Outdoor T&F, 2 M Indoor T&F, 2 W Indoor T&F, 2 W Swimming & Diving, 2 W Tennis, 2 M Golf and I'm sure some others in obscure sports like equestrian.

[​IMG]
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Even David Teel, close ally of Swofford, is starting to fly the red flags for the ACC

I say it again.  No way the ACC last another decade with $20 Million revenue gap.  ACCN has to close it to less than $10.

I would be shocked.  Swofford HAS to go, but the ACC won't budge.

 ACC is simply too late.  They waited too late to be concerned.





http://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-spt-acc-network-revenue-0628-story.html


A partnership with ESPN, the ACC Network is scheduled to launch in August 2019, its earnings potential the subject of rampant speculation and, among athletic directors, anticipation.
The ADs wonder because they’re investing millions in on-campus network production facilities. They worry because sustaining a business long-term with a fraction of competitors’ resources borders on impossible.
The revenue gap has never been larger and likely will grow until the ACC Network debuts. The overarching question is: How much can the channel bridge the gulf?
Many consider the SEC Network, born in 2014, the most successful launch in cable television annals. In its final fiscal year without the network, the conference reported $210.4 million in television and radio revenue. One year later, the SEC earned $311.8 million from TV-radio, a 48.2-percent increase.
The league’s most recent tax filing, for 2016-17, showed $409.1 million, a 94.4-percent bump over the network’s three years.
During that same time, ACC television money has risen 19.7 percent, from $197.2 million to $236 million.
Translation: In 2013-14, ACC television money lagged behind the SEC by a modest $13.2 million. Three years later, the difference was a staggering $173.1 million.
Since the SEC also has a lucrative contract with CBS, its increases can’t be solely attributed to the SEC Network. But there’s no questioning the network’s impact.
Some may recall that in February 2017 Florida State athletic director Stan Wilcox told the school’s Board of Trustees that the ACC Network could net each school $8 million-$10 million in Year 1, and $10 million-$15 million per year thereafter.
“These are all projections,” Wilcox told the board, according to 247sports.com. “It all depends on how well the network does. They are saying this network should have the same kind of return that the SEC Network has had in (its) first couple of years.”
Optimistic doesn’t begin to describe, and no one associated with the ACC Network project has echoed Wilcox, publicly or privately.
Firm answers? They won’t emerge until the conference’s 2019-20 tax return is released in the spring of 2021 — three years from now.


Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: ,

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Another ACC revenue prediction

Ever notice how all the ACC's revenue victories are in the future?

Also, the goal was NEVER to pass a failing PAC 12, it was to be competitive with the B1G/SEC revenue (not equal, but competitive).


http://awfulannouncing.com/league-networks/even-the-most-conservative-internal-acc-network-projections-have-the-conference-shooting-past-the-pac-12.html

The college sports arms race has a whole lot to do with TV money, which is much of what gives the”Power Five” their status. Money lets schools land top coaches, hire more assistants, strength coaches and so on, improve facilities to attract recruits, and schedule favorable games, and while individual schools’ ticket sales, donations, sponsorships and so on matter, the per-school distribution from conferences (which is largely about TV revenue) is essential. The Big Ten and SEC seem to be pulling away from the rest of the Power Five there, and the ACC has been lagging, thanks partly to not having a linear conference network at this point.

But with the ACC Network scheduled to launch on linear TV next year, it seems like that will change, as Luke DeCock of the Raleigh News & Observer writes:

The ACC continues to be fifth among the Power 5 conferences in per-school revenue, which makes the potential success of the network somewhat of an all-or-nothing proposition for the conference.
…It’s going to be almost impossible for the ACC to close the gap on the SEC and Big Ten, both of which had a considerable head start on their own (profitable) networks, but the ACC is counting on network revenue – which even in its least optimistic projections should be at least $10 million per school per year, once the network is up and running – to move it past the Pac-12 and even with the Big 12.
…The ACC distributed an average of $26.6 million per school in 2017, with total revenue up 12 percent and Notre Dame receiving a fraction of that. The Pac-12 was at $31.5 million in its most recent financial statements, the Big 12 at an estimated $40 million (its official figure of $36.5 million doesn’t include some tertiary media rights, including Texas’ Longhorn Network) and the SEC at $40.9 million, while the Big Ten is expected to exceed $50 million.
It’s remarkable that the ACC could shoot past the Pac-12 under even the most conservative internal projections. As DeCock notes, the gap may be a little less than the stated $4.9 million in any case thanks to differing accounting methods (he writes that the ACC doesn’t include the estimated $1 million per school it reimburses in conference championship expenses in this per-school distribution figure, while others do), but $10 million per school per year not only sends the ACC well past the Pac-12, it moves it closer to the Big 12 and the SEC. And that’s a conservative estimate; some have projected this could go as high as $15 million per school per year.
Of course, there are still a lot of ifs here. This depends on the network successfully launching, and on it garnering good carriage, decent viewership, and decent ad dollars (the latter two are a lot less important than the first, though; conference networks and regional sports networks really rely on the per-subscriber fee more than if people are actually watching, but you do need some people to be watching to maintain good carriage). And we don’t know how long their projection for “up and running” is, and what the revenues will look like before that. And 2019 is not the easiest time to launch a linear TV network. But this network has already gained some distribution, helped by ESPN’s leverage with other channels (including with NY-area provider Altice, likely boosted by the College GameDay in Times Square stunt during negotiations). And it’s particularly remarkable that it might be in a stronger place than the Pac-12 Networks despite launching seven years later.
The Pac-12’s per-school distribution isn’t all about the conference network, of course. Some of it has to do with their other TV deals with ESPN and Fox, and about some of the other challenges those schools face in terms of time zone, fanbase size and passion, and so on. But the conference network is a big part of it, and outgoing president Lydia Murphy-Stephans said last year its distributions were nowhere close to the Big Ten Network or the SEC Network. And she said that had never been promised, contrary to what some ADs said. But what’s really interesting from separate 2017 comments from Pac-12 ADs is that the networks hadn’t even hit goals that look relatively modest compared to other conference networks:
Utah athletic director Chris Hill is on record as one AD who is disappointed with the Pac-12 Networks. He told the San Francisco Chronicle, “we expected more.”
Washington State AD Bill Moos said the payouts have increased each year and he was expecting them to be in the range of “$5 million to $6 million when we were launching,” but that has yet to happen.
So, the Pac-12 Networks hadn’t yet reached $5 million per school by 2017, five years after launch. And the ACC Network’s forecasting at least double that by the time it gets “up and running.” Maybe that’s an overoptimistic projection, but if it isn’t, that would put the ACC in a nice place relative to the Pac-12, at least on the network side. Of course, it should be noted that the Pac-12 schools still own their network too, so there’s equity value there, but the ACC’s strategy of teaming up with ESPN for a network instead of starting their own sure is looking pretty good right about now.

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)