|
Replies: 28
| visibility 1
|
All-In [45796]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23832
Joined: 2/1/99
|
|
|
|
 |
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
Re: Article from Clemson Econ Prof on tv contracts (link)
May 27, 2012, 8:23 AM
|
|
One thing that hurts us if we go to the Big 12 is that Tier 3 would not be equal revenue sharing like in the B10, Pac 10 and the rumored SEC Network. We will be at a disadvantage because we are a small state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5289]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5451
Joined: 9/11/04
|
Thats better than being left in an even bigger disadvantage
May 27, 2012, 9:09 AM
|
|
in the acc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4640]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 9549
Joined: 11/4/01
|
Most faculty will NOT be in favor of move...
May 27, 2012, 8:33 AM
|
|
Would be suprised to see ANY be in favor publicly...
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [53830]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43580
Joined: 11/17/03
|
I have no appreciation for an article that quotes an econ
May 27, 2012, 8:38 AM
|
|
professor who states," I have not looked at the numbers, but I don't think third tier rights would add up to very much".
I believe Sawchik is running another scam on us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8244]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7565
Joined: 1/1/11
|
Re: I have no appreciation for an article that quotes an econ
May 27, 2012, 8:43 AM
|
|
Duke just signed a $4 million contract for their's
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
That's what I've been saying
May 27, 2012, 10:00 AM
|
|
Teams in our conference, including us, already do sell them. Why do people think it would be some windfall in the B12?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [53830]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43580
Joined: 11/17/03
|
Because we get to keep them in the Big 12.***
May 27, 2012, 3:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [45796]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23832
Joined: 2/1/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [53830]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43580
Joined: 11/17/03
|
He must be a Democrat.............***
May 27, 2012, 9:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [45796]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23832
Joined: 2/1/99
|
I would have to see the numbers.....
May 27, 2012, 10:02 AM
|
|
I had profs at Clemson that were both far left and right. One lit prof hated Strom Thurmond. One ag prof told us he would rather be bow hunting deer than be in the classroom with us (as we all nodded approval).
This summer will be abundant and ripe with rumor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
the assumption is the network has rights to the games of
May 27, 2012, 10:43 AM
[ in reply to I was hoping someone would pick up on the fact..... ] |
|
interest, the ones that sponsors seek.
you want bmw/budweiser or the octopus' garden?
2 have money, the other advertises late night on local cable access.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 5221
Joined: 10/23/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
Oh come on...
May 27, 2012, 8:57 AM
|
|
But when you think about it, the third-tier rights are for the lesser games, the games that don’t have a national interest and that is where the real money is. I haven’t really looked at the numbers but I don’t think (third-tier rights) would generate much (revenue).”
Look, the guy didn't even do his homework to see what they would be worth. He's just giving an opinion, but has nothing to back it up. Go ask I think it was 79Jayhawk who said Kansas St. makes on average $4.5M per year, and Kansas made over $7M per year on third tier rights annually.
There is a lot of money to be made in third tier rights, and it's not just for football, it's for all sports you can sell off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
The thing is, we already do sell it.
May 27, 2012, 10:02 AM
|
|
How much added value do we get for a Clemson vs. Wofford or Clemson vs. North Texas game and 5-8 early season BBall games?
That is the only real difference between what we have in the ACC and what we would have in the B12.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
Yes, we do sell it, but
May 27, 2012, 10:40 AM
|
|
it's already included in the $12-$13M, and $17M in 2021. There is no room to improve, except the 5 and 10 year look ins. The Big XII TV contract is written for 1st and 2nd tier rights, and is projected to be worth a lot more than what the ACC is getting with all 3 tiers. So, in the Big XII there is an opportunity to add many more millions to the conference TV deal by each school selling their 3rd tier rights as they want to.
Hell, even if Clemson only made $1M annually on 3rd tier rights in addition to what we would get with 1st and 2nd tier in the Big XII, it would be better than what we have now with the current ACC contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
Re: No its not.
May 27, 2012, 12:34 PM
|
|
You may be correct, and if so I stand corrected. I did read what you linked and TDP mentions that it is his understanding that we would be able to take 3rd tier rights to the marketplace. But he also says there are some things he needs more clarity on and that's one of them.
I'm surprised there isn't more written about this to bring added clarity to the public about exactly how this ACC contract is set up.
Either way I'm still a big proponent of leaving the ACC and think it would be best in the long run. I know not everyone feels the same way, which is fine. It makes for healthy debates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
Re: No its not.
May 27, 2012, 1:11 PM
[ in reply to No its not. ] |
|
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/705/college-tv-rights-deals-undergo-makeovers
Unless I'm reading it wrong, this article breaks down the last contract signed by each conference. It seems to me looking at the ACC contract that the 3rd tier rights are already negotiated in, and the $17M is the most we could make until the 5 year look in. And that doesn't even take effect until 2021. Am I reading this wrong?
ACC
First-, second- and third-tier rights: $3.6 billion, ESPN, 15 years through 2026-27
Per-year average: $240 million
Per-school, per-year average: $17.1 million
If this is true then that is a huge difference compared to the Big XII once they renegotiate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
so...
May 27, 2012, 2:18 PM
|
|
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/05/third-tier-rights-defined-perspective-on-their-value/
What each conference provides to its member institutions as “third-tier rights” varies greatly from conference to conference and here is where much of the confusion rests.
In the ACC, “third-tier rights” consist of select (not all) women’s basketball, baseball and Olympic sports events (volleyball, soccer, track & field, softball, etc). ESPN (the ACC’s first and second-tier rights holder) is allowed to broadcast every ACC sporting event it chooses from the ACC football championship game on down to Florida State’s women’s soccer game vs. Stetson – if it wanted to. All games ESPN does not broadcast – the vast majority of women’s basketball, baseball and Olympic sports events – revert back to the individual schools to do with what they choose. Clemson, as an example, sells some of its third-tier baseball games to the regional sports network CSS.
In the Big 12, “third tier rights” consist of all those select women’s basketball, baseball and Olympic sports games as well as one select football game per season (the least desirable one) and a few select men’s basketball games (also, the least desirable ones). ESPN owns the Big 12 first-tier rights while Fox has its second-tier and the individual schools, the third.
Looks like 3rd tier rights in the Big XII mean more than the ACC, since in the Big XII you get one football game and several basketball games, along with the other stuff. I'll take the Big XII option myself. More money to make especially with the football game included.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/2/03
|
Yea, it could easily equal what we were getting per year
May 27, 2012, 4:18 PM
[ in reply to Oh come on... ] |
|
under the old ESPN contract that just expired. With that plus the new contract money, esp if we join the Big XII, it's going to be impossible for people to say we don't have the money to compete, or to hire a top head coach in any sport. Of course, we already had enough for that if you look at the numbers, but folks like having excuses rather than accepting the truth when it comes to our poor results over the past 20 years.
The reality is, money is only one of multiple factors in being a winning or competitive program. If money was all that mattered, then OK State, Oregon, Michigan, Texas, and a few others would dominate and win the championship every year in all 3 major sports, but that is not the case, not even close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16733]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16764
Joined: 8/19/04
|
Re: Article from Clemson Econ Prof on tv contracts (link)
May 27, 2012, 10:08 AM
|
|
I agree with the others in here.
1. He has not looked at the numbers. Why even have the article if he has not looked at them?
2. The faculty will not be in favor of going to Big12. So I think he has a bias towards the ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 5221
Joined: 10/23/10
|
That is correct, ONLY the Football crowrd wants the Big-12
May 27, 2012, 10:49 AM
|
|
Everybody else is scratching their heads and saying.... "WHAAAAAAT, are they NUTS!!!!!!!".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
The ones that are nuts are the ones that fail to realize
May 27, 2012, 4:21 PM
|
|
that football is all that matters. It generates almost all of the money. The other sports will not be very successful if football isn't bringing in the big bucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: Article from Clemson Econ Prof on tv contracts (link)
May 27, 2012, 10:31 AM
|
|
I wonder how he would like his job at Clemson if they took the revenues from his publication and textbook sales and divided it among his peers?
If he found himself in that situation and another University offered him a 46% raise in pay and gave him the right to keep the revenue from books and publications he would be long gone before his shirt tail touched his back.
Now that covers the real issue and addresses that particular facet as well.
Here's a link for him!
http://www.dontbullchitmeeffhead.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [45796]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23832
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Don't forget 13 years of tenure. *******
May 27, 2012, 12:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8244]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7565
Joined: 1/1/11
|
Re: Don't forget 13 years of tenure. *******
May 27, 2012, 3:39 PM
|
|
And how long have we been in the ACC
where has it got us
Lets see it has been said if the Tigers go to the
Big 12 gets $10 million more a year saying the contract
stays the same over 13 years that's $130 million more than we might get in the ACC,
not to take into count the money that could be made on ticket sales and other revenue that could be generated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
He made two major errors. First was talking out his
May 27, 2012, 4:51 PM
|
|
rear about the 3rd tier rights since he has not even looked at the numbers. The second is that he totally fails to get why the SEC/Big XII bowl is so important.
It doesn't matter if the top SEC or Big XII teams are in the playoff. That still leaves two probable top 10 teams in the Cotton Bowl.
After the 4 team playoff, the next two biggest games will be the Rose Bowl and the new and improved Cotton Bowl.
The Cotton Bowl use to be one of the big 4, but with the rise of the Fiesta, the loss of the SWC, and the creation of the BCS, the Cotton Bowl fell into relative obscurity. Now, however, the Cotton and the Rose will be the two biggest bowls and have huge ratings if played just before the 4 team playoff. Huge ratings mean huge money.
Once things eventually move to an 8 team playoff the big bowls will be effectively meaningless, but it won't matter. The playoff is going to generate way more money than the BCS and the big 4 conferences will dominate. That's why it's so important for Clemson to be in the new Big XII.
Also, if they use/include computers and the RPI for picking the top 8, which is done in the basketball and baseball tourney selection, then the ACC is even more screwed. Folks that don't get this are simply in denial, but then, that's pretty common for Clemson fans and a big reason we're in this mess to start with and why we have sucked for 20 years.
By the way, all this talk about marginalizing the regular season is nonsense. If anything, it makes the regular season more important if the top seeds get home field advantage in the playoffs.
Basketball and baseball have much longer seasons and bigger playoffs, but the regular season is still critical because it determines seeds and regions. Those matter and the numbers and history prove it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [594]
TigerPulse: 48%
Posts: 1576
Joined: 10/10/08
|
Re: Article from Clemson Econ Prof on tv contracts (link)
May 27, 2012, 5:43 PM
|
|
That's why he doesn't negotiate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 28
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
