|
Replies: 89
| visibility 1
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
"SEC Money"
Jan 20, 2013, 8:39 PM
|
|
|
|
The SEC was 4th in 2012. Behind the ACC. See attached.
"...the SEC is fourth among the big five leagues at $270 million in total revenue. Its 14 members will receive "only" $19.3 million per school, more than $5 million below the fourth-place ACC's $24.4 million."
And yes, I know the SEC will be getting a new football contract in 2014, but with the playoffs quickly approaching, everyone will get new contracts.
The bottom line is, we have everything we need at Clemson to succeed at the very highest level. Some of you guys need to stop sweating money so much. We will be just fine regardless of how conference realignment works out. Of course money is good for the school, but considering our revenues now and in the future, we are not and will not be at any competitive disadvantage. No matter what happens.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [12208]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 20772
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Re: "SEC Money"
Jan 20, 2013, 8:41 PM
|
|
I don't think its the present everyone is worried about. Its our future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8095]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10944
Joined: 2/10/11
|
ACC can re-negotiate TV contract, right?
Jan 20, 2013, 8:44 PM
|
|
With the addition of Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt --- and having ND play several ACC teams, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
Yes,***
Jan 20, 2013, 9:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8008]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7958
Joined: 6/30/00
|
The ACC has already renegotiated the contract with
Jan 20, 2013, 9:10 PM
[ in reply to ACC can re-negotiate TV contract, right? ] |
|
the additions of Cuse and Pitt. It went from 13 mil per year tom 17 per year. Louisville is not expected to add anything to the contract. They are simply replacing UMD. ND partial COULD add some dollars, but we don't know yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12208]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 20772
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Re: ACC can re-negotiate TV contract, right?
Jan 20, 2013, 9:27 PM
[ in reply to ACC can re-negotiate TV contract, right? ] |
|
Yes....they can and will. I just hope Swoff does a better job this go around of making the deal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [338]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 1013
Joined: 9/16/11
|
Re: ACC can re-negotiate TV contract, right?
Jan 21, 2013, 12:02 PM
|
|
The contract is negotiable for significant changes like the addition of other teams. There is also an automatic upward only look in every 5 years. What we need to do now is generate eyeballs on games. Ratings is what will increase the contract. Success on the field is a part of that formula, but fan interest is the bottom line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19812
Joined: 1/15/11
|
ESPN won't just be paying for 2-3 ND FB games.
Jan 22, 2013, 9:40 AM
|
|
While FB is the main money maker, ESPN will be paying for very other ND sport.
Like I said below, $24.4 mil not counting IPTAY and the usual suspects are still claiming we're behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
what number is clemson in the college football world as
Jan 22, 2013, 10:18 AM
|
|
far as revenues is concerned? 40th? higher? idk.
so there's no mistake, i believe there is a threshold[cost of doing business] that exists, the ability to compete at the highest level. i believe clemson currently meets and/or exceeds that threshold.
people look at different numbers, one of those numbers might be where clemson falls relative to our level of competition or those we directly recruit against.
i think some people worry about that difference and what it might be, what it might mean. it scares them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
"Some people worry..."
Jan 22, 2013, 12:52 PM
|
|
..some people worry about that difference and what it might be, what it might mean..."
Are you, or are you not one of those people? Honesty, you've said both. If you are, please provide some details of what you think we are or will be lacking in the future.
And don't answer "money". Please provide tangible examples, i.e. a third deck on the stadium, an amusement park for recruits, a strip club, something...if you're one of the worriers. As far as that goes, you did once say (in so many words) that we will be at a competitive disadvantage to SEC money. Agreed? You've since changed your tune, so it's a little cloudy exactly what you're saying.
And hey, please note, leave any childish nonsense at the door. Although I've had opportunities, I haven't thrown any insults or namecalling your way, like some of the silly, baseless posts you made towards me - the ones the mods had to delete. See if you can help yourself, okay? Let's be respectful here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
"my pissy friend" was every bit you
Jan 22, 2013, 1:24 PM
|
|
and was the first thing deleted before it escalated.
"I" speak to the entire issue which includes "some others". speaking to the entire issue makes it difficult to agree with both sides don't you think? although both sides might have good, valid points. as i said, it was informational. you "jumped"/took me to task for that response. wookie[post below} says he does something similar as he doesn't read the entirety of the threads either. i didn't attempt to force the entirety of the thread on him as you did to me. do you understand the difference? not attacking you for it, simply pointing out his response and how it fits into my point.
"I" have never said anything, but clemson will be fine[can't count the number of times to you?], we now have most everything we need[that wasn't the until recently the case]; let's hope the cost of doing business does not outgrow our ability.
the issue of brand, the perceptions that it creates, the power of it and selling against it, WE may never[apparently] agree on.
some of the above includes branding like sec defense, sec money, sec offer, sec speed, an sec linebacker, clemson being an sec type program...
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
That was not a cause of deletion. A third of another thread
Jan 22, 2013, 1:37 PM
|
|
had to be deleted solely because of your uncontrollable, childish namecalling. That's why I said it - because it was true. I'll give you the "my pissy little friend", my bad, but please don't forget that description was in reply to your childish ranting and namecalling. You were clearly frustrated and saying a lot of silly stuff that really had no grounds at all. For my part, I apologize for my accurate retaliation in that ONE case.
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say with all that other stuff, but I'll take it that you finally agree Clemson is not nor will we be at a competitive disadvantage.
We currently have, and will continue to have in the future, everything we need to be successful. Just win. +/- $5M per year, either way, it will not change this fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
clearly you threw the first punch no matter how much you
Jan 22, 2013, 1:50 PM
|
|
care to deny it.
clemson will be fine, that was not recently the case as we were at a competitive disadvantage. we currently are not as we have most everything we need.
"I" have never thought differently. period.
i have no problem with you not understanding; i've said the same many times.
let's hope +/-$5 mil per year either way is all that comes to fruition. looking out our recent history, for whatever reasons you care to put forward, we were way behind and did in fact experience a long period of being competitively disadvantaged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
It's ridiculous to even suggest that. You're either a liar,
Jan 24, 2013, 12:53 PM
|
|
in denial, or maybe you just forgot, but the only reason I called you "my pissy little friend" to begin with was because you threw the "first punch". Not only that, "my pissy little friend" is the only even remotely derogatory thing I said to you, again, in reply to YOU). Yet you continued on and on and on without just cause, even after being asked to stop by the mods. You acted like a pissy little child, period. THAT is the reason a third of that thread was deleted. Please stop with the silly attempt to misdirect the truth.
You said SEC money and brand will make it harder for Clemson to compete, or climb the mountain, or whatever it was, but in any case, it was and still is exactly like saying we are or will be at a competitive disadvantage. Simply not true.
And too, we were way behind (over a decade ago) because we chose to do nothing for years, not because we were unable. That's clearly no longer the case, and it will not be the case again. No matter what happens.
Again, we are not and will not be at any disadvantage, no matter how conference alignment and TV contracts end up. Extra money would be good for the school, but Clemson can thrive just as we are.. as long as we win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
far from it; this begins and ends with you misinterpreting
Jan 24, 2013, 1:02 PM
|
|
something i wrote; you continue to do so.
you had 2 choices when it first happened. to accept your misunderstanding or continue to argue with the author when he offered an explanation of your misinterpretation.
the child began with your obstinent stance over what i wrote. you didn't like my meaning, so you continued to promulgate yours, because it fit your argument.
that's silly and reminds me of sally kellerman in back to school telling thornton mellon 'and whoever wrote the paper doesn't know the first thing about kurt vonnegut".
kurt vonnegut wrote it.
i wished you good luck then, as i am now, but your childish stance is what continues this silliness.
you'll come back with more i'm sure of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
LMAO. That's complete hogwash..
Jan 24, 2013, 1:05 PM
|
|
I haven't misinterpreted a single thing you said. Nothing at all. Again, are you lying, in denial, or just have a poor memory?
Feel free to explain what I misrepresented too.
You could always try to argue the premise of what I've been saying from the beginning instead of just typing a bunch more baseless and irrelevant stuff, like you did here. That would be nice for a change, or a first, however you want to say it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1626]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 4771
Joined: 11/15/11
|
Re: Re: "SEC Money"
Jan 20, 2013, 8:42 PM
|
|
Win Anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12208]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 20772
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Re: Re: "SEC Money"
Jan 20, 2013, 8:44 PM
|
|
Thats the problem. You can't win without the money. I guess we could all raise our IPTAY donations by a third. I am sure everyone would be in for that right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
That doesn't make sense. We just went 11-2 and finished in
Jan 20, 2013, 9:02 PM
|
|
the top 10 with the money we have right now, and when the ACC is renegotiated then we will have more in the future.
It's not like we're suffering for anything. In fact, nothing at all. We have facilities, and we can build whatever else we need. Not that we really need anything. What, bigger TVs? Build another stadium? More Playstations? What exactly?
We have what we need and can get whatever else we might need. Not that we need anything though. We can recruit with anyone. Just win.
I don't understand how one equates money to winning. $5M more a year or whatever will not do anything to help us win.
Winning is the key. Not money. We have enough money to win.
Continue to win, and better recruits will come. Better recruits, with the coaches we have, equals more wins.
We have everything we need to win, RIGHT NOW.
Just win - that's what matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1346]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3868
Joined: 11/19/11
|
You're probably right for the most part, but...
Jan 20, 2013, 9:23 PM
|
|
...using that same reasoning about 5 years ago we might have thought, who needs an indoor facility?? My thought is a team and conference probably doesn't gain everything from trying to be at the top of the money mountain. But you still need to be in the contest to a degree. Being at the bottom certainly can't be good. (Not that we are.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6937]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 22594
Joined: 5/4/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12208]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 20772
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Re: That doesn't make sense. We just went 11-2 and finished in
Jan 20, 2013, 9:29 PM
[ in reply to That doesn't make sense. We just went 11-2 and finished in ] |
|
If you want to compete at the highest level you have got to have the money. If our competition is making 15 million more annually because of TV/Bowl deals then we are at a disadvantage from the beginning.
Your laughing at the "one more playstation" joke. Its really not funny when your trying to convince 18 year old dudes where to play football. If you follow recruiting you know what I am talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
Did you read any of what I wrote?
Jan 21, 2013, 11:06 AM
|
|
A) We have the money. We do now and will in the future. We have everything we need. And Clemson University will not get left behind in any scenario. No way, no how.
B) Please stop throwing around "15 million more annually" as if it's a fact, considering you have zero factual basis for doing so.
C) We have facilities and can build whatever else we need. We are not at a disadvantage for anything, and money will not change that. There's only so much you can build.
D) What else can we build? What are these magic 'facilities' you seem to think we need? But in any case, if you can think of anything, then we can build it. Now and in the future.
E) If another Playstation is needed to garner the attention of an 18 year old, then we can provide another Playstation. Now and in the future.
The first time through it appears things went straight over your head. Please take a few moments to muster some deep thoughts. Hopefully more discussion is not needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12208]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 20772
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Re: Did you read any of what I wrote?
Jan 22, 2013, 10:23 AM
|
|
Will,
I know your the fan made popular opinion right now, but we DO NOT have everything we need. I will be more than happy to show you the facts as well.
Oh and as far as your D topic you look like a complete fool. You ever been to LJ coliseum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
Feel free to add some facts and counterpoints.
Jan 22, 2013, 12:39 PM
|
|
Again, you can start by listing the things we don't and can't have, i.e. things which will keep us from being successful. Like we have shown we can be, for example.
And what "D" topic are you talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3974]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8556
Joined: 3/1/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6692]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11164
Joined: 10/14/07
|
We still need that #### oculus.
Jan 24, 2013, 3:25 PM
[ in reply to That doesn't make sense. We just went 11-2 and finished in ] |
|
On a more serious note, on the "we have everything we need now" statement, yes we have everything we need NOW.
However, if you get complacent, people will catch and pass you. Have you heard college recruiting being referred to as an "arms race" when it comes to facilities? That hasn't stopped.
Tomorrow someone will build something better and we will have to build something else to catch up/keep ahead. That's the way the world works.
Finally, if you think money doesn't help then you are either a) naive, or b) just not very bright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
No need to retype
Jan 24, 2013, 6:15 PM
|
|
This:
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=1&threadID=1206888&messageID=13510657
And please allow me to add these previous quotes/questions as well:
"It's not like we're suffering for anything. In fact, nothing at all. We have facilities, and we can build whatever else we need. Not that we really need anything. What, bigger TVs? Build another stadium? More Playstations? What exactly?
We have what we need and can get whatever else we might need. Not that we need anything though. We can recruit with anyone. Just win.
I don't understand how one equates money to winning. $5M more a year or whatever will not do anything to help us win.
Winning is the key. Not money. We have enough money to win.
Continue to win, and better recruits will come. Better recruits, with the coaches we have, equals more wins."
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1626]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 4771
Joined: 11/15/11
|
Re: Re: Re: "SEC Money"
Jan 20, 2013, 8:48 PM
|
|
Calm down jeeezz Dabo is the best business man in the game if we were in truly bad shape with money due to conf aff. We would be out in a flash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12208]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 20772
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Re: Re: Re: "SEC Money"
Jan 20, 2013, 9:30 PM
|
|
Dabo being a good salesmen has nothing to do with our conference affiliation and tv contract. The coaches have little to nothing to do with this. The BOT, athletic director, and president have total control of the situation.
I just hope they do what is in our best interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12539]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 12247
Joined: 11/21/11
|
In the very near future, the money won't be close. And even
Jan 20, 2013, 9:00 PM
|
|
if it remained close, it's hard to get kids to play in the ACC when your main recruiting territory is in SEC country. If there is an SEC spot open anywhere, even Ole Miss and Columbia, players are heading to those spots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
First of all, I don't think you know that as a fact, and
Jan 20, 2013, 9:05 PM
|
|
second of all, how would more money help us win?
What else do you think we need? Another deck on the stadium? A country club for players? A strip club in a player's-only dorm?
What exactly do you think more money would do to help us win?
We will get more money, just like everyone, but regardless we have enough right now to win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
I'm not saying I agree with him
Jan 20, 2013, 9:09 PM
|
|
But if we do end up receiving considerably less per year than teams we compete against then we will be at a clear disadvantage when it comes to getting and keeping coaches for one thing.
Like I said I'm not buying into the sky is falling stuff, but I'm not sure it can be argued that we wouldn't be at a disadvantage *IF* it occurs that way,
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12208]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 20772
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Re: First of all, I don't think you know that as a fact, and
Jan 20, 2013, 9:33 PM
[ in reply to First of all, I don't think you know that as a fact, and ] |
|
Ill put it this way to you WillPhil,
lets say a recruit goes to Clemson on a visit and they do not have a Country Club for players, another deck on the stadium, a strip club in the players only dorm then I visit Scar and they have all of the above...................where do you think that recruit will end up?
Honestly how hard is this for you to understand. We are in a business of trying to recruit the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
You don't get it. Cleary not.
Jan 21, 2013, 10:54 AM
|
|
I'm going to try and save words and put this as simple as possible:
If strip clubs are needed to get more recruits, then we can and will build a strip club.
Let's that soak in the noggin for a few minutes. Let me know if you need more help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6937]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 22594
Joined: 5/4/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10498]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4280
Joined: 11/5/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2/1/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16902]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10768
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: "SEC Money"
Jan 20, 2013, 9:26 PM
|
|
You're fighting a losing a battle. Confronted with facts the people who freak out about money change the dialogue and say its about the future. How many threads (I'm guessing hundreds) have been started stating unequivocally that SC makes tens of millions more than us now? None of these people begin to know how to dissect the financial statements these schools put out. They just regurgitate crap they read on a blog - most notably that "Business of College Sports" garbage. But it gets accepted as gospel. Throw in a few posts from York Tiger and a horses ### named Dude from WV and if you aren't ready to pack for the Big 12 your not All-In.
Yes, the SEC has advantages but the ACC has better media markets and the Notre Dame deal, even as only a partial football member, may push some of the media balance of power. I'm not a fan of how our conference has been run and I don't know why Swofford has such a stranglehold on power, but the ACC has plenty going for.
Plus, the SEC "domination" hasn't been kind to ESPN. After spending a war chest of money for the BCS championship, the last two years have been the worst ratings for all the championships played - including the cable aired ones. ESPN spent the money they did looking for ratings and revenue growth and they're not getting it. They tried to write a ###### to put Southern Cal in the game before the season even started and that fell spectacularly on its face. At some point the people in Bristol are gonna have to figure out that the "SEC" crap is turning away viewers or the folks at ABC/Disney will figure it out for them and change management. The SEC hyping already shows diminishing returns so they have little impetus to pay them any more than they absolutely have to. I also notice a recent USA Today article had the SEC network revenue lumped into a total renegotiation and was worth dramatically less than the insane $300-400 million figure for the SEC network that had been floating around the blogosphere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1626]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 4771
Joined: 11/15/11
|
Vandy and Kentucky
Jan 20, 2013, 9:27 PM
|
|
Reaaaallllllll power houses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12208]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 20772
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Re: Vandy and Kentucky
Jan 20, 2013, 9:36 PM
|
|
Try comparing us to our actual competition rather than the exception to the rule. If you want to be as good as Vandy or Kentucky then keep comparing our program to Vandy or Kentucky.
Go drive down to Columbia and see all of the capital projects they are completing. That means something to fans and recruits. It matters. Try to downplay it all you want. IT MATTERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [73]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 169
Joined: 12/8/12
|
Coaches Coaches Coaches
Jan 20, 2013, 9:29 PM
|
|
If we could just get our coaches to stay together and not have all this bs with the "The Chad" leaving. If they stayed together for atleast 5 more years I don't there is anyway we don't play for a NC in the next 5 years. The coaches add solidity to the program, that's what kids want, confidence in where they are going.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1626]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 4771
Joined: 11/15/11
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: "SEC Money"
Jan 20, 2013, 9:35 PM
|
|
I said nothing about salesman jack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1626]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 4771
Joined: 11/15/11
|
Re: Re: Vandy and Kentucky
Jan 20, 2013, 9:43 PM
|
|
Hahaha so your logic money= wins right so why are Kent. And vandy trash compared to their sec partners??
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12208]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 20772
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Re: Re: Vandy and Kentucky
Jan 20, 2013, 9:50 PM
|
|
Because their partners are on another level. When big money programs go up against small money programs your going to lose a good percentage of the time.
Are you seriously asking me why Vandy and Kentucky lose to UT, Bama, Auburn, LSU, UGA, Scar, and on and on. Put it this way if Vandy keeps making the money they are making they will be on par with our program in terms of facilities in about 10 years. And then your fighting a school like Vandy for recruits. The pool of players is small considering the amount of schools. When another school ups their game the pool gets that much smaller.
They are literally going to be whiping their a**** with 100 dollar bills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19812
Joined: 1/15/11
|
Oh Look, All the same people that have said for years
Jan 20, 2013, 9:51 PM
|
|
we were making less, now with confronted with the FACTS that we aren't, now change their argument to the future.Just the same whining posters, you were proven wrong,you will be proven wrong again.
It was about the present, now it's about the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12208]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 20772
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Re: Oh Look, All the same people that have said for years
Jan 20, 2013, 9:52 PM
|
|
I don't remember saying we were making less for years. I specifically said "I am worried about the future" Our contract for the FUTURE compared to the other big 5 is garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93667]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Did Forbes explain how the SEC hands out 7 or 8 million/yr..
Jan 21, 2013, 10:56 AM
|
|
more than the ACC in that article. I mean, if the SEC has a printing press or something we sure need to get one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19812
Joined: 1/15/11
|
No Forbes just rerported REAL numbers and not
Jan 21, 2013, 11:01 AM
|
|
the projections that some choose to bank on. With money actually being paid out, the SEC was behind us this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
every conference has renegotiated their tv contract since
Jan 21, 2013, 11:22 AM
|
|
the sec's went into effect in 2009/10 including the acc with the additions of cuse & pitt in the formula. yes?
the sec is currently renegotiating its contract to include missou, tamu and a dedicated sec network. yes?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/
what people exclude is the sec brand. it's a mistake to do so and the very reason SEC has become part of the college football vernacular.
clemson has sec money now. clemson has been called an sec program in the acc. some understand the power of that brand, some don't. is the acc brand as powerful as the sec brand in college football?
sec has become synonymous with the best in everything, right, wrong or indifferent. sec speed, sec money, sec defense, an sec linebacker...
that is the power, that is the perception and coaching staffs have been forced to sell against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19812
Joined: 1/15/11
|
Not really, when they tried last year CBS told them no and
Jan 21, 2013, 11:32 AM
|
|
ESPN put them on hold because of how it would look for them to get an increase while raiding the BIG 12 after the SEC/BIG 12/ESPN Bowl deal. That's why the BIG 12 all of sudden is ready to to add new teams now,when last year they said they were alright.
Everyone one of these projections include the same playoff money that every other conference will get.
They are also not getting anymore CBS money without CBS getting another game each week. If that happens, ESPN loses a game, so there's not as much increase from them.
Projections are always on the high end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
i've seen projections all over, the ones i included seem on
Jan 21, 2013, 11:40 AM
|
|
the lower end and are the ones i believe viztiz was referencing, but i'm willing to listen to your projection or viztiz projection if you have any?
the most recent deal was the champion's bowl and the orange bowl contracts.
champion's bowl payout ~ $80mil
orange bowl renegotiated payout ~ $55mil
is that brand driven? do you agree with the monster the sec brand has become?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
According to USA Today, the SEC is going to have TV deals
Jan 24, 2013, 2:41 PM
[ in reply to Not really, when they tried last year CBS told them no and ] |
|
providing an average of $25 million per year per school, compared to $17 million for the ACC. That's for the regular season.
In the post-season starting in 2014, the SEC will match up with the Big 12 in the Sugar Bowl, which will pay $80 million (half to the SEC and half to the Big 12). The ACC will match up with a school from another conference (could be from the SEC, Big 12, PAC or Big 10 or an independent) in the Orange Bowl. But the Orange will pay out significantly less ($55 million) to be split in half by the participating conferences. Not only will the Sugar pay out more, but its possible that the SEC will have a team in the Orange as well, at times. The ACC, on the other hand, is locked out from the $80 million Sugar and Rose Bowls.
Unlike the current terribly flawed BCS system, there will be no limitation on the number of teams from one conference that could go to the playoffs and to certain bowls. Winning a conference does not automatically qualify a school any longer. That will benefit the stronger conferences. In the playoffs for example, a conference will get $6 million per school it places in the playoffs. All of that is a plus for the SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19812
Joined: 1/15/11
|
Typical COOT MYTH
Jan 24, 2013, 2:49 PM
|
|
Everyone's been saying for years that the SEC made more.ONCE the facts proved this myth false a COOT has to reach back to to future projections and made up numbers. Get back when the numbers are real.
CBS has already said no because they get no more games.
ESPN is already saying that they will not pay more if the SEC thinks they are going to whittle off games for their proposed network.
The FORBES numbers are real.
GET BACK TO US after the payout. Last year you PROJECTED to make more than us this year. To paraphrase Dr Phil, How that work out for ya ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
You conveniently left out the fact that Forbes said that
Jan 24, 2013, 3:34 PM
|
|
the ACC and other conferences have already renegotiated their TV contacts and that the SEC is in the process of renegotiating its TV deals now (for whatever reason USA Today says that the SEC contract will pay out $25 millon per school for the regular season; the contract the ACC recently renegotiated is for $17 millon for the regular season). That Forbes article that YOU use as your source said that "the new (SEC) deal should be the richest in college sports". It also said that "the (SEC) conference's patience in negotiating a new contract is further proof of its underlying superiority. The ACC and the Big 12 were forced to quickly sign TV deals due to concerns that conference members might otherwise leave for greener pastures."
So, if you want to quote Forbes, quote it all, rather than cherry-pick what you want. That way, everybody will know the whole truth. By the way, the ACC put up a $50 million exit fee on its members. There is no exit fee in the SEC. Why? Because SEC members are not trying to escape. Heck we don't even know how long the ACC will stay in existence. Every day there are posts here about ACC teams moving to other conferences.
I noticed that you did not deny what I wrote about the differences in the Sugar and Orange bowls. I also see that you didn't deny that the playoffs will not limit the number of teams from one conference, which will be advantageous and more LUCRATIVE for the stronger football conferences like the SEC.
There are some knowledgeable clemson fans on here who know all this and have expressed concerns. I know that because I read TNet and read what they have been saying. There are other clemson fans like you who are hiding your head in the sand. But we Carolina fans are glad there are clemson fans like you around because we want clemson to be complacent about this situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [361]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 1394
Joined: 6/7/06
|
You finally answered my question in an indirect way as to
Jan 24, 2013, 5:42 PM
|
|
Whether or not you would want Clemson on a level playing field in terms of money or just want to keep mentioning the financial discrepancies to which we are all aware of . We all get it neilly and realize that it could be be a big problem down the road if the acc does not improve its contracts. As of now cu and fsu have still managed to recruit well but yes it could and probably will be a big problem in the not so distant future if other teams don't start contributing. I personally think the vast majority of cu fans know this even without your weekly reminders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19812
Joined: 1/15/11
|
No, as of right now, the ACC is still alright finacialy ...
Jan 24, 2013, 6:01 PM
[ in reply to You conveniently left out the fact that Forbes said that ] |
|
The fact that you as a #### fan and several other conference envy people are so upset about it shows, that with these updated payments showing The ACC is doing good, still with their deal to be redone and the whole ACC network in the works with ND/NBC getting involved shows who the real head in the sand crowd really is.Keep up with that future make believe argument though, click your heels, maybe the fairy tales will come true, as of right now The ACC paid out more.I know it hurts an SEC SEC SEC crowd to view the real numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
Brand and money are completely separate issues. Clemson has
Jan 21, 2013, 11:35 AM
[ in reply to every conference has renegotiated their tv contract since ] |
|
a national brand that can be put up against most anyone. Especially if we continue winning.
Plus, conferences are FAR from being settled, and as a result, TV contracts are far from being settled. But no matter what happens with conference restructuring, money is not nor will it be an issue that will put us at a competitive disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
when people perceive sec money to be the best it is a
Jan 21, 2013, 11:48 AM
|
|
branding issue, a perception. they don't even take the time to know what it is or know what it means.
viztiz spoke to this very issue when he mentions how tired he is of swimming upstream against the inaccuracies that permeate this board, the media and most of the known football world.
we have money, we aren't at a competitive disadvantage because we have it. the perception however, even if inaccurate, is still real and the very reason you're blowing so hard against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19812
Joined: 1/15/11
|
You're right about the perception.
Jan 21, 2013, 11:57 AM
|
|
BUT, the perception has been perpetuated by ESPN to try to keep the other conferences "in their place". Up to right now, it seems to have failed, the future might prove different.
Look after a year of every ESPN talking head stating how great the SEC is, The ACC Wheel Of Destiny, talking about our OB debacle non stop, then even predicting CU would get barn stomped by LSU, The ACC paid out more $$$.
It's perception they way they try to get the public to perceive it. H3ll with the recent TV numbers having Greenville SC the number 2 market in the nation, ESPN tried to attribute that to an SEC school being in the state.They know it will be pointed out in these new ACC/ND network talks and were already trying to deflect it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
i know i can't help you. i know you can't help you. i know
Jan 22, 2013, 7:24 AM
|
|
if you took the time the first go round you'd have learned something.
still not extremely hopeful for you though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
You're a riot. The guy needing help with this discussion is
Jan 22, 2013, 12:35 PM
|
|
clearly you. Obviously I was right, and you were not. In fact, you never really even tried to address any of the valid points made. You're still dancing around in irrelevant circles, and you continue to live in some sort of bizarre, childlike version of reality. Geez, get a grip, would ya?
But hey, at least you were finally able to admit you were wrong about our money being a competitive disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
only thing obvious to me is your sensitivity issue. i
Jan 22, 2013, 12:58 PM
|
|
maintained clemson will be fine. i maintained clemsons's $70ish million in revenues is currently enough.
what you continue to avoid is the brand issue.
clearly the sec is the number 1 football conference in college football; it has not changed since phil steele wrote this.
http://blog.philsteele.com/2010/07/10/conference-bowl-rankings-past-decade/
clearly our staff is forced to sell against it.
clearly you had to brand an entirely new post "sec money" to debunk what many[not me] believed in 2012.
you are fighting the same fight the coaches fight with recruits and their families; mr lawson and others call it out.
if you weren't so sensitive you could have easily seen that i never disagreed or said anything different than clemson had money. a competitive disadvantage is NOT having something.
a pizza joint without delivery.
a restaurant without a liquor license.
clemson university without an indoor practice facility or training table.
those are competitive disadvantages because they compete against business that have them; we addressed ours to date[finally].
clearly my post history even with you says clemson does have money and i put a real figure to it.
selling against a brand as i've said, right, wrong or indifferent is real. part of that brand[widening the moat] are perceptions; you proved how real 'sec money' perception must be by addressing it. no? you and anyone else that cares continues to sell against it whether you agree with me or not.
you prove it with every post attempting to debunk "sec money".
viztiz, who had some really good information a couple months ago, is admittedly worn by the energy he has spent.
our coaches have to spend energy selling against those perceptions as well, whether you care to admit it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
Again with the childlike imagination.
Jan 22, 2013, 1:09 PM
|
|
The only one ranting and raving like a child, and the only one that had to have posts deleted was you. You're making stuff up as you go along, again.
What did I avoid about a brand issue? Clemson has competed against the SEC brand and can continue to do so no matter how all of the changes in the college football world shake out. I haven't run from addressing any "brand" issue, unlike you continuing to dance around the fact you said we are/will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Phil Steele's bowl stuff or whatever, that doesn't change anything. We are currently are and have been competing against the SEC brand. In spite of that, we will bring in more than the average SEC team in 2012. We are recruiting strong, and haven't lost any potential players citing SEC brand. If we continue winning, that will not change. Yet again, winning is most important. Money doesn't buy wins, and we're not lacking nor will we ever lack for any facilities.
And too, exerting energy on the recruiting trail... you reckon we're doing just fine with that? You reckon winning trumps any silly speculative money nonsense? Seems clearly to be the case.
We have money and will have money in any conceivable future. Keep winning, and even better recruits will come. Better recruits come, and we win more. Kids want to win. Winning trumps conference brand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
you took exception to the "blowing hard against it".
Jan 22, 2013, 1:41 PM
|
|
it wasn't meant as a personal attack; you took it that way.
it was meant to drive home how much energy many of you spend attempting to debunk things. it was an attempt to illustrate. i understand if you somehow took it personally, but it wasn't intended as such.
you use similar tactics in asking people "did you even read..."; some people take offense, others don't.
viztiz has all, but thrown up his hands in defeat. it's a shame, he has good information and thoughts on the subject at hand.
just because we are successful doesn't not mean it isn't harder or more energy isn't required to be so; clearly mr. lawson put an exclamation on the point. he's not the only one that raises the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
Riiiiight. LOL.
Jan 24, 2013, 12:54 PM
|
|
You're much funnier when trying to deny truth as opposed to gay jokes at the expense of your internet buddies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18133]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22431
Joined: 9/1/99
|
According to that, the Big 12 is #1. Why are they listed as
Jan 21, 2013, 11:32 AM
|
|
#5? $26.2 mill per school.
5th, not 6th.
Message was edited by: David78®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19812
Joined: 1/15/11
|
Only 10 schools right now to split the total with.***
Jan 21, 2013, 11:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18133]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22431
Joined: 9/1/99
|
Re: Only 10 schools right now to split the total with.***
Jan 21, 2013, 11:44 AM
|
|
They're ranked according to $$$ per school. Who cares if there are 10 or 16? They should be #1 per school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member [29]
TigerPulse: 62%
Posts: 79
Joined: 1/13/11
|
we r in a great situation
Jan 21, 2013, 12:17 PM
|
|
With that being said money definitely helps you win, if you don't think money has an effect on winning you are being naive. The most successfull head coaches make well over 5,000,000 dollars a year, our entire coaching staff makes around 4.2 million a year. We are in a situation that we have a head coach with great character and he is the reason we are winning. Lets be honest the guy gives up hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to his assistant coaches. Bottom line we are in a great situation however money certainly makes it easier for a program to be successful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
"Money helps you win" ...
Jan 22, 2013, 2:34 AM
|
|
If you were to take the time and read though my comments in this thread you would see that I'm not naive to the fact that money is important. Of course money is important. And we have it.
Please take some time to understand the full scope of what I'm saying before commenting.
Too, I'm just curious, how many coaches are making $5M a year? And how many schools are paying $4.2M per year? Where do we rank in the overall picture?
If you win 11 games and finish in the top 10, with an obviously growing program and a strong leader, does it matter if you make $4.2M for the staff, or $5M for just one guy?
Answer: No, it doesn't.
Plus, money is good for the school, but how does it directly make winning "easier"? Keyword, directly. That is, please provide some valid, tangible reasons and examples.. With the stipulation being, that they must be things Clemson does not or cannot have.
Clemson is fine, regardless. That's pretty much the bottom line. Big 12, ACC, Big whatever, we will be just fine.
By the way, the Forbes article says ACC schools got more money per school than the SEC. You did see that right? That's relevant, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2/1/99
|
This is a non-issue for us.
Jan 22, 2013, 8:53 AM
|
|
"Us" being "fans." This Chicken Little garbage has to stop. We've been told all year about the millions more that the SEC is making over the ACC. Now we see in black-and-white that WE actually make more than THEM, and people are STILL freaking out.
The conference is looking into a network just like the SEC. If the SEC had millions of dollars per school sitting on the table because of A&M and Mizzou, why have negotiations dragged on for so long?
Clemson will be fine in the ACC. A move to any other conference except the SEC would be a horrible decision for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
i think most that are/were concerned pointed to scar and the
Jan 22, 2013, 9:30 AM
|
|
report that showed they had $22 million more in revenues. i believe that's the 'garbage' viz talks about. 
as viztiz has tried to report a number of times[he's now weary of doing so apparently ] that article is inaccurate as clemson doesn't report the same way as other schools.
there are separate funds[iptay...others?] that cut that difference down to $6-8 millionish?
if someone has another number than that estimated, current difference, let's hear it?
i'm not sure who some of you are trying to convince tbh. there are so many issues at play and a ton of energy all across the conferences being spent trying to debunk "sec" and what it means.
sec means something to people, to recruits, to announcers, to media members, to the experts. if it means nothing or something different to you, that's fine. do you question the power of the brand? if you don't buy it, then it has no real power to you. that doesn't mean it doesn't have real power in the college football world. do you think it does? do you think winning 7 bcs championships in a row helps promulgate that power? do you think sec ooc wins, total bowl wins helps do the same?
clemson has an awesome brand[except for 'pulling a clemson'/'clemsoning'], some have called it an sec program in the acc. funny how we've been branded don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Were those questions for me?
Jan 22, 2013, 9:47 AM
|
|
Regarding the SEC and what it means?
I'm not really making an observation about the SEC. I'm making an observation about Clemson in the ACC. In my opinion there are only two possible homes for Clemson. The ACC and the SEC. Everything else is a money-grab based on temporary perceptions and will, ultimately, lead to a decline in Clemson (Big 12 and Big 10 are specifically what I'm referring to). The SEC is an attractive home because we have geographic proximity, top rivals (South Carolina and Georgia, but Tennessee is very close to Clemson, Auburn and Clemson have a "with a lake" connection, and there are tons of connections to Alabama), and we would free-up an OOC game. But we do not NEED the SEC. We can stay in the ACC and realize all of our goals. Long term, perhaps even moreso than if we moved to the SEC.
I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, but those are my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
i responded to you so yes. i agree, clemson will be fine.
Jan 22, 2013, 10:09 AM
|
|
i pointed out that most i saw were mainly concerned with the difference between clemson and our instate rival, not necessarily the sec, but their concern was also influenced by more than money eg "a real football conference".
i agree those that immediately wanted to jump conferences for the money grab were mostly knee-jerk responses with no real, varified information to base their reaction on.
i pointed out there are other issues at play that help formulate what you call 'the chicken little crap'. i was looking for your thoughts on those, but if you don't care to answer or discuss them, that's fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Let's see...
Jan 22, 2013, 10:45 AM
|
|
"i pointed out that most i saw were mainly concerned with the difference between clemson and our instate rival, not necessarily the sec, but their concern was also influenced by more than money eg 'a real football conference'."
I didn't read through this thread so my comments are not in response to the general flow of the it. People can be concerned about Clemson's revenue relative to South Carolina but the logical extension of that concern is "what are we to do about it?" which invariably turns to "WE NEED TO LEAVE THE ACC!". Here is where I come in. There are NO better places for Clemson than the ACC right now. Even if the Big 10 and Big 12 made a couple bucks more, the additional revenue is PROBABLY going to be eaten up by travel, or at least to the point where you talking a VERY small amount of money. That small amount of money in exchange or destroying years of tradition, making all of your road games inaccessible for 95% of your fans and straining your student-athletes? A horrible scenario. The SEC is attractive because it we have tradition with many of its teams and many of its teams are close.
As for "a real football conference", I would argue that we are a real football conference. I think we're suffering from a bit of a complex here. Clemson, FSU, VT, GT, Louisville, Miami...a conference with schools is a fine football conference.
As for my thoughts on the other issues at play that help formulate the Chicken Little mentality, you'll have to be more overt on your questions. I am not sure what you're asking me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
completely agree with your assessment. i'm also guilty many
Jan 22, 2013, 11:07 AM
|
|
times of not reading entire threads, sometimes because of time, interest or just avoiding the usual suspects.
somewhere those acc schools, clemson included, lost their way. when miami agreed to join, the acc 'held' 9 of the previous 20 national titles and the most lucrative tv deal in college football, but the following years were not kind to the acc football teams; they floundered.
i have little question as to clemson's resolve in reclaiming its spot amongst college football's elite. i imagine the success of the sec, its brand and our closest neighbors' has only strengthened it.
hopefully the acc football programs you named make similar moves sooner than later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19812
Joined: 1/15/11
|
So, we made $24.4 mil not counting IPTAY funds
Jan 22, 2013, 9:37 AM
|
|
and some are still saying we're at a disadvantage?
$24.4 mil, for someone that has that fact handy, how much was IPTAY ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12208]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 20772
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Re: So, we made $24.4 mil not counting IPTAY funds
Jan 22, 2013, 10:28 AM
|
|
MRTTMT,
What you are doing is looking at our bottom line and saying that is great. What your not doing is looking at our competitions bottom line. That is the problem with your logic
We made 20 million in IPTAY donations last year (with right around 14,000 members). I follow that account pretty closely.
Compared to SEC schools (which is OUR competition) 24.4 million and 20 million in IPTAY donations is a drop in the freaking bucket
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [201]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 234
Joined: 2/2/12
|
wrong!
Jan 22, 2013, 10:38 AM
|
|
Your money stats are way off! Maybe you're just looking at espn money I don't know. The sec has espn money contract and they have a contract with CBS. They released an article last year when Clemson won the acc and went to a bcs game and Scar made twenty something million dollars more then Clemson last football season. Scar was at 80 something million Clemson was at 60! That's a huge difference in money
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
^^^ found one.***
Jan 22, 2013, 10:39 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19812
Joined: 1/15/11
|
Those aren't his numbers, but Forbes.
Jan 22, 2013, 11:14 AM
[ in reply to wrong! ] |
|
This wasn't a blog pumping the Almighty SEC, this is an article in the premiere business magazine in the US that deals in facts and not an ESecPN/SEC/Blog the deal in speculation. Just the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
careful :-) forbes also considers ESPN the 2nd most valuable
Jan 22, 2013, 11:23 AM
|
|
sport's business brand in the world.
they are difference makers in the minds of many that consider what they report as the gospel.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2012/10/17/the-forbes-fab-40-the-worlds-most-valuable-sports-brands-4/
The Forbes Fab 40: The World's Most Valuable Sports Brands
Forbes Fab 40: The Most Valuable Brands In Sports
1 of 45
AP Forbes Fab 40: The Most Valuable Brands In Sports
+ show more + show more
Forbes Fab 40: The Most Valuable Brands In Sports
The Forbes Fab 40 comprises the 10 most valuable sports brands in the world in four distinct categories: businesses, events, athletes and teams. What does it mean to be one of the 40 most valuable sports brands in the world? It means that the brand commands a big monetary premium to comparable rivals due to a combination of its size and profitability. How that premium is measured depends on the category.
The Forbes Fab 40 comprises the 10 most valuable sports brands in the world in four distinct categories: businesses, events, athletes and teams. What does it mean to be one of the 40 most valuable sports brands in the world? The brand commands a big monetary premium to comparable rivals due to a combination of its size and profitability. How that premium is measured depends on the category.
Nike is the most valuable sports brand in the world, worth $15.9 billion (excluding its autonomous brands like Cole Haan, Converse, Umbro, and Hurley), an increase of $1.4 billion, or 9.7%, since our first Fab 40 in 2007. That means the Nike name accounts for over one-third of the athletic gear maker’s market value. Sales of Nike-branded merchandise in fiscal 2012 were $21.8 billion and the company’s shares trade at price-book value ratio of 4.4, almost double the market average. The growth of Nike’s brand value is not just an academic exercise: During the past five years its shares are up 65%, compared with a gain of 28% for the S&P consumer discretionary sector and a decline of 5% for the overall S&P 500 index.
For business sports brands, I first calculated how much the branded enterprise would fetch in an arms-length transaction, and then subtracted the average enterprise value of what similar businesses the same size have been sold for, or are being valued. The difference between the branded business’s enterprise value and industry average enterprise value captures the brand’s premium. I gathered the relevant information from public documents and from speaking with experts in the various industries. A special thanks to SNL Kagan, my primary source for media businesses. (Note: we excluded Gatorade from our business brands this year because much of its consumption is not sports related.)
Credit the escalating value of sports programming, and the ability to generate revenue from both carriers and advertisers, and the popularity of video streaming, for sports distributors making up half of the top business brands.
The ESPN brand, worth $11.5 billion (roughly one-fourth of the amount Walt Disney would get for its national cable network in an arms-length transaction), is the second-most valuable sports business brand in the world. ESPN is seen in over 100 million U.S. households and commands an average monthly affiliate fee per-subscriber of $5.06, 18 times the basic cable network average, according to SNL Kagan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
Why the $8 million gap in regular season money?
Jan 22, 2013, 12:32 PM
|
|
I know it's not official. But I don't think USA Today would have a large column on it, if they weren't connected to the decision-makers. And its not like it was written in the National Enquirer.
When the big TV contracts started, ACC schools received $13 million each annually to the $17 million for SEC schools. Now, the ACC has signed up to receive, on average, $17 million annually per school. It appears that SEC schools will get, on avaerage, $25 million annually per school. Why is the gap doubling? Is it not enough that the SEC 's favorable bowl situation has gotten better? Is it not enough that there won't be a limit on the number of teams from one conference going to the playoffs and to major bowls, as there has been under the BCS system. This imbalance is going to kill college football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1103]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 652
Joined: 12/23/10
|
I don't know, nor does it matter....
Jan 22, 2013, 12:59 PM
|
|
The numbers show the ACC will make $5M more per team in 2012.
I don't have care to speculate what the SEC will get, because frankly conference realignment, playoff restructuring, and TV contracts are not nearly complete.
But even if Clemson ends up receiving less than an SEC team, that doesn't mean we're not going to be able to continue competing at the highest level.. Just like we're doing now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 20%
Posts: 119
Joined: 4/25/00
|
Re: "SEC Money"
Jan 24, 2013, 3:32 PM
|
|
Hate to bust your bubble, but SEC money does NOT include third tier rights as do the others who have given them up. Future SEC disctribution will be in 35-40 million range per school. Clemson in ACC will be definitely at a disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 89
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
