|
Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
CU Guru [1028]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 864
Joined: 8/23/04
|
8 team playoff - solves my ACC issues
May 24, 2012, 2:08 PM
|
|
6 conference champ (Big Least, ACC, Pac12, Big12, SEC, Big 10)
2 at large (probably LSU and someother SEC bottom feeder but maybe a Boise et. al.)
7 games instead of 3? is this even an issue or are we still talking about the "student athlete"
Champ and runner up play 16 games that year?
Semi Final losers play 15
Quarterfinal losers play 14
Conference finalist play 13 or 14 if bowls remain
the rest of college bowl teams play 13
Why is this even an issue?
Per the $$$, I don't know how we can be that far behind the others. At any rate, I'd have to have definitive information. EVERYTHING I have read contains tremendous speculation.
|
|
|
|
 |
Hall of Famer [21601]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13927
Joined: 9/7/02
|
I've said the same thing.
May 24, 2012, 2:09 PM
|
|
This is by far the best solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
It'll probably happen soon in the future.
May 24, 2012, 2:14 PM
|
|
Too much money to be made not to. Especially considering most of the games could happen while school is either out or just starting.
Just another one of the reasons I think leaving the ACC would be a mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
It doesn't solve anything!
May 24, 2012, 2:20 PM
|
|
It's all about $$$, and we are getting farther and farther behind. I'm not going to explain the whole tv contract again. You can either read the board or read my prior posts. Plenty of info already documented. But the Big XII will be getting $25-$30M per year, if not more, once they expand and add in the Big XII Championship game, plus the guaranteed bowl game with the SEC which both conferences own all the rights, not to mention the 4 team playoff. Long story short there will be at least a $10M per year difference between the Big XII and the ACC.
Besides, why are some here defending the lame ### ACC run by the Smurf Mafia in NC? Personally I can't wait to get out of this cesspool of a conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
I like how the dollar amount changes every post.***
May 24, 2012, 2:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
That's because no contract has been signed.
May 24, 2012, 2:28 PM
|
|
It is all projections and speculation, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to take an educated guess on what it will be based on what has happened the last few weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
Re: That's because no contract has been signed.
May 24, 2012, 2:32 PM
|
|
Nothing that happened in the last few weeks has an affect on their TV deal. The bowl is separate.
Anyway like you said it is all rumor and speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [548]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1298
Joined: 10/16/00
|
Re: That's because no contract has been signed.
May 24, 2012, 2:39 PM
|
|
A Big 12 with FSU and Clemson will have:
A bigger TV deal than the ACC. If the Big 12 is at $20-21M now, I would conservatively estimate it jumps to $23M with FSU and Clemson in the fold.
A conference championship game. Again, I would conservatively estimate another $1-2M per school from this game.
Better bowl tie-ins with higher payouts (already present). Also note - there is the potential that the bowl game between the Big 12 and SEC could be a new one that they own - it doesn't have to be the Sugar, Cotton, etc.
More BCS revenue because of the potential for at large bids. Until last year, the ACC NEVER had an at large bid. The Big 12, on the other hand, has had several (none from departed members Colorado, Mizzou, Texas A&M and only one from Nebraska during the BCS era). More BCS bids = more $$$$.
The ACC deal is backloaded. The Big 12's reportedly vests fully by 2015.
Add it all up and it's no stretch to say that Clemson's annual revenue will increase by $8-10M per year in the Big 12, even after budgeting for travel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
Re: That's because no contract has been signed.
May 24, 2012, 2:54 PM
|
|
To go from their current rumored 2.6 billion 13 year deal to one that would pay 12 teams $25M per year would increase their rumored contract by 1.3 billion dollars and $100M per year.
I don't know if Clemson and FSU bring in $50M each in value, but that's just my opinion.
Anyway it would be very foolish to make a decision to change without seeing what the B12 actually gets for their TV contract, and seeing the actual approved playoff format. There are too many variables in there for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [548]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1298
Joined: 10/16/00
|
Re: That's because no contract has been signed.
May 24, 2012, 3:02 PM
|
|
The jump from $20-21M to $25M or more would not be based solely on the existing TV contract. I think it would increase by $2m/yr per school, which means that Clemson and FSU would bring $24M added revenue (24/12 = 2). IMO, it's not unreasonable to think that Clemson and FSU together would fetch that amount. The conference championship and bowl revenue would bring the total to $25M or more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
I'm not sure about your math.
May 24, 2012, 3:14 PM
|
|
Current rumored contract:
$2.6B
13 years
$200M/year
$20M/school/year
With Clemson+FSU (12 teams):
$3.9B
13 years
$300M/year
$25M/school/year
For what you are saying to work. The conference championship game would have to add at least $50M to the contract. Also, it is my understanding that bowl payouts are not included in the TV deal amount (definitely not in the ACC just look at last year with two BCS teams). This is just the money payed by the TV networks to show conference events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [548]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1298
Joined: 10/16/00
|
Re: I'm not sure about your math.
May 24, 2012, 3:22 PM
|
|
You're right - my math was off on the year-to-year revenue.
Again, though, I'm not saying the jump from $20M to $25M would come exclusively from an increase in the current TV deal, but rather a combination of an increase in the TV deal, adding a conference championship game (for example, the SEC championship game generates around $15M in revenue), and increased bowl revenue (new bowl, more BCS/Playoff at large berths than in the ACC, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [548]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1298
Joined: 10/16/00
|
Another source of revenue I forgot: Tier 3 rights.***
May 24, 2012, 3:24 PM
|
|
nm
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
Re: Another source of revenue I forgot: Tier 3 rights.***
May 24, 2012, 3:36 PM
|
|
We already make money off of Tier 3.
People don't understand that, but the only things we cannot sell are the one or two football games (like Clemson vs. North Texas and Clemson vs. Wofford) and 10-15 BBall games against similarly unappealing opponents.
The question is: How much more would we make by adding that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
Re: I'm not sure about your math.
May 24, 2012, 3:32 PM
[ in reply to Re: I'm not sure about your math. ] |
|
The TV deals do not include bowl money though. That is what I was saying in my last post. It is just the money paid by the networks directly for the conference events. The bowl money is added on top of whatever the conference makes in TV deals.
Also if the SECCG generates 15M, then there is a huge gap between the current $200M/year amount and the $300M/year amount that would be required to pay 12 schools $25M/year. So we're talking about an increase of around $85M/year to add 6 conference football games (10 teams currently play 9 conference games, assumed that 12 teams would play 8 conference games).
Maybe it works out, but I'm skeptical of some of these rumored TV amounts. The guy I initially responded too said the contract would increase to $25M-$30M/year. I just cant see that happening.
I want to actually see some of these contracts signed those TV networks are not stupid and if we make a move and get less than we were expecting, there is no going back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [548]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1298
Joined: 10/16/00
|
Re: I'm not sure about your math.
May 24, 2012, 5:17 PM
|
|
Ok, I get your point about the bowls not being a part of the TV contract. That said, the payout for Big 12 bowls (excluding BCS) was $31.6M in 2011. For the ACC, it was $24.8M. Assuming a modest bump with FSU and Clemson in the fold, on average the bowl revenue would be around $1M higher per school.
I do agree, however, that Clemson and FSU alone do not bump the tv contract to $25M per school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
Wait...
May 24, 2012, 2:40 PM
[ in reply to Re: That's because no contract has been signed. ] |
|
We're comparing the money we can make in the ACC to what we could make in the future Big XII right? The bowl game between the Big XII and the SEC absolutely is a game changer. You realize the conferences own all the rights to this game? Huge! Whether it's included in the conference TV package or is separate makes no difference.
Ohh and I guess, assuming expansion does occur, it won't affect the TV deal either.
Go ahead, stay on the Titanic. You won't drown, promise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
Re: Wait...
May 24, 2012, 2:45 PM
|
|
The bowl is not part of the TV deal, so it will have no affect on the TV payout.
Also the bowl would need to pay out at least $24M to even have a one million dollar affect on the money Clemson would get in a 12 team B12. Not to mention travel costs and operating expenses. The bowl will make money, but it wont be a huge windfall for the conferences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
Re: Wait...
May 24, 2012, 2:54 PM
|
|
You are making no sense at all. The whole discussion is how much more we could make in the Big XII than the ACC. I made a few points supporting that a move makes sense. You keep pointing out meaningless information about TV deals not being part of a bowl. Like I said it doesn't matter. The bottom line is how much more would we make in the Big XII? If you want to defend Clemson in the ACC then please show us how staying will be the best financial move please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
Re: Wait...
May 24, 2012, 3:06 PM
|
|
Like I said in one of my previous posts. In my opinion it would be foolish to make that decision before seeing the actual TV deal the B12 is able to get and also seeing the actual playoff format.
Next to me a conference move is not only for money and definitely not just because the other TV deal makes 3 million more than the one we have. To me the regional exposure and rivalries are worth more than a few million dollars. I'm also not convinced of the long term stability in the B12. The ACC has been around for 60 years and only lost one team. The conferences in that area of the country from the SWC to the Big 8 to the last Big XII have never been sustainable.
Finally, the ACC's TV contract can improve. There are built in renegotiation dates at year 5 and 10 to evaluate the value of the conference at those times and also determine the viability of an ACC network.
There is too much speculation and too many unknowns for me to support a move. It just does not make sense barring some unforeseen major change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [708]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 845
Joined: 11/7/04
|
Re: Wait...
May 24, 2012, 4:43 PM
|
|
And like I said, Stay on the Titanic and see if you survive. This isn't 1985 anymore and times have changed. I'm sure the University isn't going to move for $3m a year; there is much more to gain by moving. And by the way, the Big XII is more stable right now 2012 than the ACC in my opinion. Teams are begging to get in the Big XII, while the ACC is begging them to stay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1209]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 2257
Joined: 12/25/03
|
Re: 8 team playoff - solves my ACC issues
May 24, 2012, 2:23 PM
|
|
The only solution to the mnc would be to rematch the sec champions and 2nd place each year. Everybody knows all the other conferences are so vastly inferior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [548]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1298
Joined: 10/16/00
|
Why would the Big 4 include the ACC & Big East champs?**
May 24, 2012, 2:24 PM
|
|
nm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [11]
TigerPulse: 19%
Posts: 17
Joined: 1/5/12
|
Re: 8 team playoff - solves my ACC issues
May 24, 2012, 2:41 PM
|
|
Why should there be automatic qualifiers? The orange bowl proved all conf champs do not deserve a shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [603]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 1750
Joined: 10/10/00
|
I have said this before too. Here is my plan. Why can't I
May 24, 2012, 3:05 PM
|
|
rule the world and set it up as I see fit??
This would be my plan.
Stipulation is 8 super conferences with 12 teams each (6 in each division) (every conference needs cream puffs too so the mediocrity can have aspirations of success)
-Full year of games to become champs in your division and get your BCS ranking as it is done now
-Play conference championship game & update BCS ranking
-The conference chamionship game losers and standard teams go to regular bowl games as the same is now (There may be some teams that lost their conference champ game that are higher ranked than some other conference champions. That is the thing with playoffs. You lose, your out - and it starts with the conference championship game. This will be solved by having the top 8 spots in polls reserved for conference champions. After the conference championship game the BCS rankings are done and whatever the figures are from the current BCS ranking rules will be used to slot the 8 conference champs into the top 8 spots in order followed by all other teams with their BCS ranking starting at #9 slot.)
-The 8 conference champions play in 8 team playoff
-1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 played in fiesta, orange, sugar, rose
-winners play round 2 in (rotate bowls each year) fiesta, orange.
-winners play round 3 in (rotate each year again) sugar
-left out bowl can have an extra "premiere" standard bowl with the two teams outside of the playoff so that each of the top 4 bowls have the same amount of high quality bowls each year.
-all the other bowls pick their teams after the BCS bowls have been set.
-15 game max per year-
-11 Regular Conference Game schedule ends by Sat after Thanksgiving (2012 year - 11/24/2012)
-1st Round Conference Championship Games (16 teams) - 4th Sat before Jan. 1st (2012 year - 12/8/2012)
-Sunday after Conference Championship Games is Bowl Pick 'em Day. Two weeks from Conference champ games to 2nd Round games.
-2nd Round Quarterfinals (8 teams) - 2nd Sat before Jan. 1st (2012 year - 12/22/2012)
-3rd Round Semifinals (4 teams) - Sat before Jan. 1st (2012 year - 12/29/2012)
-"Premier Bowl" & Standard Bowls between Dec. 23rd - Jan. 1st)
-Championship Game played on the first Sat after Jan. 1st - (2012 year - 1/5/2013)
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13703
Joined: 1/8/02
|
8 team playoff solves NO REVENUE issues at all
May 24, 2012, 3:10 PM
|
|
for Clemson...not one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4108]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 5232
Joined: 10/23/10
|
Guy on TigerTalk (the host) would disagree with you***
May 24, 2012, 3:35 PM
|
|
null
Message was edited by: hooters®
Message was edited by: hooters®
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13703
Joined: 1/8/02
|
ok....he can....you can...but ESPN is not going to
May 24, 2012, 3:37 PM
|
|
suddenly give the ACC more money nor does it change the revenue structure of the ACC. It just doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [554]
TigerPulse: 40%
Posts: 1874
Joined: 10/29/00
|
Re: 8 team playoff solves NO REVENUE issues at all
May 24, 2012, 4:39 PM
[ in reply to 8 team playoff solves NO REVENUE issues at all ] |
|
Especially if the big 4 eventually form their own playoff, crown their own champ, and say screw the ncaa. Seems alot of people here just assume the acc will always have a spot at the table despite the obvious signs that the big 4 are ready to consolidate power and move forward. I understand not wanting to lose alot of history but by not jumping you risk losing alot of future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4108]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 5232
Joined: 10/23/10
|
Sanity!!!***
May 24, 2012, 4:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12586]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 12263
Joined: 11/21/11
|
This sounds great. I could go along, but we need to also
May 24, 2012, 5:16 PM
|
|
hope for FSU to stay. THere is still the big money issue, but I am more concerned about being considered a lesser conference not on a level as the Big 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [487]
TigerPulse: 34%
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12/4/01
|
Re: 8 team playoff - solves my ACC issues
May 24, 2012, 6:15 PM
|
|
I like the eight team playoff idea, but what I don't like is the automatic bid given to every conference champion. Easy to be a conference champion in some years when a team is not one of the best eight teams in the country. Last years Clemson team is exhibit A. Slot the teams by their powere ratings and get the best eight teams in the playoff. Anything less would be about as big a joke as the bowl system currently used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
