|
Replies: 50
| visibility 3614
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
2
Aug 25, 2023, 4:51 PM
|
|
without any other baggage than some very long travel once very couple of years,
Is that not worth consideration?
If not, how big of a % increase would it Clemson need for it to make sense to pursue? 15%, 25%?
It’s interesting how dogmatically cynical some of you are with a “leave the conference or bust” attitude. In my own business, I quickly dismiss people who are incapable or unwilling to fully vet alternatives.
I’m hopeful ACC and Clemson leadership can tune out a lot of the ranting and drive this to a place that generates more revenue for Clemson.
|
|
|
|
 |
Paw Warrior [4848]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Eventually these new teams will be taking a full share, so
2
Aug 25, 2023, 4:55 PM
|
|
if we stay we'll end up just subsidizing more bottom feeders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders.
2
Aug 25, 2023, 5:16 PM
|
|
Stanford has won 134 NCAA team national championships, the most of any Division 1 school in the NCAA.[48][21] Stanford has won these NCAA team championships in 20 different sports.
Men's (70)
Baseball (2): 1987, 1988
Basketball (1): 1942
Cross country (4): 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003
Golf † (9): 1938, 1939, 1941, 1942, 1946, 1953, 1994, 2007, 2019
Gymnastics (9): 1992, 1993, 1995, 2009, 2011, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023
Outdoor track & field (4): 1925 (unofficial), 1928, 1934, 2000
Soccer (3): 2015, 2016, 2017
Swimming (8): 1967, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1998
Tennis (17): 1973, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000
Volleyball (2): 1997, 2010
Water polo (11): 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1994, 2001, 2002, 2019
Women's (64)
Basketball (3): 1990, 1992, 2021
Cross country (5): 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007
Golf (2): 2015, 2022
Rowing (2): 2009, 2023
Soccer (3): 2011, 2017, 2019
Swimming (11): 1983, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2017, 2018, 2019
Tennis (20): 1982, 1984, 1986 through 1991, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2019
Volleyball (9): 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2016, 2018, 2019
Water polo (9): 2002, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2022, 2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4795]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders.
3
Aug 25, 2023, 5:23 PM
|
|
None of those sports are revenue generators(outside of basketball).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2926]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
I was just going to post the same thing, football and BB to
1
Aug 25, 2023, 5:42 PM
|
|
a lesser extent are the only revenue sports there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6779]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders.
2
Aug 25, 2023, 5:47 PM
|
|
The point is that Stanford is clearly NOT a bottom feeder in college athletics,
Let’s try it this way…This is dated(2018), and I remind you that Stanford is a private school with an enormous endowment.
2018 Total Sports Revenue—
19 Stanford University CA $137,965,999
32 Clemson University SC $111,852,105
“How many of those sports generate revenue not only for the school but their entire conference (1942 basketball aside)? Ah that’s what I thought.”
Answer: None. Like every other school football is king, but they shell out a-lot of money to bring in a lot of money in order to put out what are usually competitive products.
So now let’s try it your way. Why exactly is Stanford a bottom feeder??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [9014]
TigerPulse: 97%
43
|
They are in the only sport that matters - football
1
2
Aug 25, 2023, 5:54 PM
|
|
All that other crap you listed, is, frankly, irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Re: They are in the only sport that matters - football
1
Aug 25, 2023, 6:08 PM
|
|
No Pioneer, that Clemson generates more revenue or not while preserving exit options is the only crap that’s relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6779]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders.
2
Aug 25, 2023, 6:28 PM
[ in reply to Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders. ] |
|
My only point is we have no business trying to associate in a conference with schools all the way across the country we have nothing in common with. So when people like you try to justify it through some pie in the sky scheme that we will somehow take in more TV deal revenue by associating with them and all their glorious Olympic sport achievements I have a much lower opinion of your ability to reason. You’re smoking a crack pipe and the pointy headed ivory tower types only want to expand their cocktail party circuit at the expense of our love for a regionally based sport. Tell Condi Rice and GW Bush to find another landing site for their charity cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders.
Aug 25, 2023, 6:39 PM
|
|
When you start a sentence with “My only point” it’s customary to make one.
I’m a graduate of Clemson University. I love my school…and my football. It’s possible one of us in this thread is utilizing a crack pipe, but it ain’t here.
Here’s what “people like me” want;
-an understanding of all options down to the penny and drop of sweat.
-a bridge strategy in the absence of one offsetting an otherwise greater loss in revenue,
-a landing spot that ensures our ability to compete at the highest level, and there’s only one real spot, the SEC.
-more national championships done the right way making them all the sweeter.
Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3570]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders.
Aug 25, 2023, 8:35 PM
|
|
So you’d be ok with us going from $41 mil a year to $43 - $47mil while sec and big10 schools are getting close to $100 mil a year because you are a closet Stanford fan??? Explain to me how that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders.
Aug 25, 2023, 10:59 PM
|
|
No LemonTiger, I’m not ok with it.
The real problem is that all visible options entail picking the one we all hate least, and you internalize and respond to it in an immature way inferring that I’m the enemy.
I’d like Clemson to vet whether this is a good decision on its merits or not, negotiate more money, negotiate a ‘no voting rights clause’ as I’ve mentioned.
Closet Stanford fan? What?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3570]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders.
1
Aug 26, 2023, 12:43 AM
|
|
I really can’t name a single reason why bringing them into the ACC is a good idea. I’d be open to it, if it wasn’t the same as bringing in another BC or Wake, but that’s all it is. None of their other accomplishments are going to help Clemson financially. The only way it would be a good idea, is if it somehow helps us out of the GOR. It looks more like it would do the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders.
Aug 26, 2023, 12:24 PM
|
|
I’m not sure Clemson can be further hurt by a GOR in that the only out thru the front door is dissolution of the conference, and there are already more boat riders than rowers. The votes aren’t there, and it’s not close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [460]
TigerPulse: 98%
18
|
Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders.
1
Aug 26, 2023, 1:44 PM
[ in reply to Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders. ] |
|
Opens new TV markets which will eventually mean more money. Grabbing SMU brings Texas also. These three teams are at the top of what is available as of now because getting ND most likely won't happen. Will still need one more team
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [9]
TigerPulse: 95%
1
|
Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders.***
Aug 28, 2023, 11:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [9]
TigerPulse: 95%
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [9]
TigerPulse: 95%
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [276]
TigerPulse: 96%
14
|
Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders.
Aug 26, 2023, 7:36 PM
[ in reply to Re: Well here’s the 411 on one of those aforementioned bottom feeders. ] |
|
Stanford’s endowment has nothing to do with their athletic budget. Endowments have very strict rules. The money has to be used in accordance with the wishes of the benefactor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [25]
TigerPulse: 100%
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35474]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 17291
Joined: 2008
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
1
Aug 25, 2023, 5:14 PM
|
|
What is your fully vetted alternative to stay in the ACC and get the amount of money that you could get in the SEC or BIG? Every one is all ears, including the ACC, but esp. CU and FSU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
1
Aug 25, 2023, 5:25 PM
|
|
I didn’t say there was one. I don’t think that option exists, and the two things are not mutually exclusive.
The conference and its members made a poor business decision with the GOR, and that ship has sailed.
You can’t look at sunken coats when making the next decision.
Clemson can and should continue seeking a more profitable exit, but Clemson would be negligent if they ignore an opportunity to improve their current position along the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [6079]
TigerPulse: 88%
39
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
1
Aug 25, 2023, 5:16 PM
|
|
I would like to think Clemson has the leadership in position to not in any way associate the University with Cal or Stanford. Hope I’m wrong, but I don’t believe the silence out of Clemson the last month is from a position strength but more out of a position of “we aren’t sure what to do”. People do keep saying how smart Neff is though
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4374]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
2
Aug 25, 2023, 5:21 PM
|
|
The list of National Championship teams for Stanford were all in non-revenue sports except the 1943 basketball championship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35474]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 17291
Joined: 2008
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
Aug 25, 2023, 5:32 PM
|
|
Were they broadcasting college BB games in 1943? With a world war raging, I doubt that 1943 BB season or game generated very much revenue. So, I think it is safe to say that Stanford has never had a national Championship revenue generating team. And most likely never will. Stanford, Cal. SMU, what a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62760]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 62783
Joined: 2007
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
Aug 25, 2023, 5:26 PM
|
|
It would only weaken our conference schedule more than it already is, would it be worth a measly 10% revenue raise, I don't think so!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11361]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
3
Aug 25, 2023, 5:26 PM
|
|
Clemson needs to get to 75-80 million a year to stay in the ACC… still in a deficit but we can manage that like we have for the last 10 years… being 60-75 million per year being like we will currently be is not sustainable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22310]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 18026
Joined: 2005
|
The cost for non-revenue sports to travel will make it a
3
Aug 25, 2023, 5:33 PM
|
|
wash, maybe even a money loser in the long run
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Re: The cost for non-revenue sports to travel will make it a
1
Aug 25, 2023, 5:52 PM
|
|
I’m don’t think that’s the case, but that should be pretty easy to calculate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [215]
TigerPulse: 100%
13
|
Re: The cost for non-revenue sports to travel will make it a
1
Aug 25, 2023, 6:12 PM
|
|
We spent $300k to travel to Tallahassee during Covid before all this inflation. That equals close to $500k for just football. If we only get a 10% increase then we are worse off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Re: The cost for non-revenue sports to travel will make it a
1
Aug 25, 2023, 6:29 PM
|
|
Thank you.
Looks like our ‘Game Expenses and Travel” for 2022 was 10% of the budget at $14MM.
We should have a good idea of how that would change. To your and Striper’s point, a 20% increase in that would offset $2.8MM in additional revenue. A 10% bump wouldn’t suffice at all if that’s the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10808]
TigerPulse: 60%
45
Posts: 13872
Joined: 2006
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
2
Aug 25, 2023, 5:34 PM
|
|
It's not just football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [79977]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 29568
Joined: 2018
|
And you're not just moronic.***
2
Aug 25, 2023, 6:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [619]
TigerPulse: 98%
21
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
1
Aug 25, 2023, 5:38 PM
|
|
Worth consideration? Yes. Likely to be sufficient? Highly unlikely. B1G and SEC are going to be in the $80M range soon while we are wallowing around $40M. Even a 50% boost might not be enough. Especially considering the extra money is only there as long as the concessions from the new schools are there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
Aug 25, 2023, 11:36 PM
|
|
Agreed.
Clemson needs three things;
-an SEC invite,
- an agreed or litigated exit from the GOR. and
-a willing ‘partner’/contractual agreement with ESPN to make it all work.
That’s three lock tumblers that all need to line up to open it.
I don’t know if this opportunity is +\~\- interim step or not. I’d just like our leadership to weigh it and do the right thing for Clemson today without jeopardizing tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7663]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
2
Aug 25, 2023, 6:02 PM
|
|
Adding new members just makes it tougher to leave in a year or two or three which is what's going to happen anyway.
Clemson theoretically getting a 10, 20 or even 50% revenue boost at some point in the future is irrelevant if they aren't in the ACC anymore, or if the ACC doesn't even exist.
Adding these teams will just make it tougher to dissolve the conference at some point, which reports indicate was perilously close to happening within the last few months. It is the ultimate middle finger to the programs earning the money in football to add 2-3 teams that'll immediately make it more difficult to leave, without incurring a massive financial penalty, just for the implied possibility of a few more dollars down the road.
The ACC as we've all known it is a dead man walking. Anything that makes it harder for Clemson to leave without being financially crippled is a big no for me dog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12666]
TigerPulse: 86%
47
Posts: 12291
Joined: 2011
|
This is nothing short of a fight for
2
Aug 25, 2023, 6:04 PM
|
|
Survival as a tier 1 football program. When pay for play comes, and it is coming, anyone not making within $15 million per year of BIG and SEC, will not compete. Not only that, anyone not in those leagues will be considered the equivalent of a mid-major. We will not be playing for the same goals, that will have a spiraling effect on fund raising, attendance, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14588]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 13548
Joined: 2001
|
Pay for play is already here but I get your point.***
1
Aug 25, 2023, 6:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29549]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 12748
Joined: 1998
|
as long as the GOR is over after this year
1
Aug 25, 2023, 7:57 PM
|
|
I'm in total agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-96]
TigerPulse: 39%
-1
|
Please delete this post
Aug 25, 2023, 8:25 PM
|
|
and give yourself a temporary ban from posting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [253]
TigerPulse: 95%
14
|
What Clemson should do
1
Aug 25, 2023, 11:26 PM
|
|
Is say they will only vote yes if Notre Dame joins fully for football. That is what my stance would be.
Either that or let us out of the GOR.
Message was edited by: snowtiger®
Message was edited by: snowtiger®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Re: Please delete this post
Aug 25, 2023, 11:45 PM
[ in reply to Please delete this post ] |
|
You have been a member on this site for 25-years.
Your pulse is 39%.
Why? Because you’re unable to have a productive conversation.
That’s at least half a lifetime of transcribed waste without any reflection on your part.
That’s sad stuff…. Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [528]
TigerPulse: 84%
19
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
Aug 26, 2023, 2:15 PM
|
|
No - West coast teams would be disastrous for the ACC!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [276]
TigerPulse: 96%
14
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
1
Aug 26, 2023, 7:33 PM
|
|
I’d like to see a very well done cost benefit analysis on the time and cost for non-revenue sports to travel to California and Texas. The cost of travel isn’t too hard to calculate. The impact of lost time is much more difficult to evaluate. A student athlete with a mid-week game (e.g., baseball and basketball) would be away from campus a full day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [206]
TigerPulse: 100%
13
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
1
Aug 27, 2023, 5:40 PM
|
|
They should give half of the proceeds to Clemson and then split the remaining money amongst the other teams. Then Clemson could have comparable money to the teams they recruit against (while they carry the rest of this sorry conference in football).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [0]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
1
Aug 28, 2023, 11:13 AM
|
|
10% boost is roughly $4MM without netting additional costs related to travel so what is the net benefit? Maybe $3MM at best? That bridges less than 10% of the revenues gap we face against the SEC and BIG. The bang isn’t worth the buck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [9]
TigerPulse: 95%
1
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
Aug 28, 2023, 11:40 AM
|
|
Good thing about SMU, they have a very nice High School stadium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [9]
TigerPulse: 95%
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [9]
TigerPulse: 95%
1
|
Re: So if Clemson were to get..say a 10% boost in revenue from the CalFord+SMU
Aug 28, 2023, 11:48 AM
|
|
Follow up,SMU average attendance last year 24,971
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 50
| visibility 3614
|
|
|
50
