|
Replies: 38
| visibility 1
|
110%er [5014]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2672
Joined: 11/30/98
|
This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue
Dec 6, 2012, 11:30 AM
|
|
This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/alabama_and_auburn_stay_among.html#incart_river_default
(much easier to read at the link above!)
School
Conference
Total Athletic Revenue
% of Revenue Attributed to FB
2012 Football Wins
Texas
Big 12
$163.3 million
64%
8
Ohio State
Big Ten
$142.0 million
41%
12
Michigan
Big Ten
$128.8 million
66%
8
Alabama
SEC
$124.1 million
66%
12
Florida
SEC
$120.3 million
62%
11
LSU
SEC
$114.0 million
60%
10
Penn State
Big Ten
$108.3 million
61%
8
Oklahoma
Big 12
$106.5 million
56%
10
Auburn
SEC
$106.0 million
73%
3
Tennessee
SEC
$105.9 million
50%
5
Wisconsin
Big Ten
$101.5 million
48%
8
Arkansas
SEC
$99.8 million
64%
4
Iowa
Big Ten
$97.4 million
52%
4
Notre Dame
Independent
$97.1 million
71%
12
Georgia
SEC
$91.7 million
82%
11
Stanford
Pac-12
$89.1 million
29%
11
Louisville
Big East
$87.8 million
27%
10
South Carolina
SEC
$87.6 million
55%
10
Kentucky
SEC
$85.6 million
39%
2
Oklahoma State
Big 12
$84.1 million
49%
7
USC
Pac-12
$84.1 million
41%
7
Minnesota
Big Ten
$83.6 million
39%
6
Washington
Pac-12
$82.6 million
64%
7
Nebraska
Big Ten
$81.6 million
68%
10
Florida State
ACC
$81.4 million
42%
11
Virginia
ACC
$81.3 million
30%
4
West Virginia
Big 12
$80.0 million
31%
7
Kansas
Big 12
$79.2 million
19%
1
Texas A&M
SEC
$79.0 million
56%
10
Michigan State
Big Ten
$79.0 million
63%
6
North Carolina
ACC
$78.8 million
35%
8
Duke
ACC
$78.6 million
32%
6
Arizona
Pac-12
$76.0 million
32%
7
Oregon
Pac-12
$73.9 million
70%
11
Syracuse
Big East
$73.3 million
39%
7
Indiana
Big Ten
$72.0 million
35%
4
California
Pac-12
$71.2 million
37%
3
UCLA
Pac-12
$70.7 million
36%
9
Purdue
Big Ten
$70.5 million
27%
6
TCU
Big 12
$68.1 million
38%
7
Baylor
Big 12
$67.8 million
29%
7
Clemson
ACC
$67.0 million
59%
10
Boston College
ACC
$66.2 million
33%
2
N.C. State
ACC
$65.5 million
39%
7
Virginia Tech
ACC
$64.8 million
51%
6
Illinois
Big Ten
$64.0 million
48%
2
Arizona State
Pac-12
$63.8 million
55%
7
Connecticut
Big East
$63.8 million
20%
5
Kansas State
Big 12
$63.6 million
41%
11
Maryland
ACC
$62.6 million
31%
4
Miami
ACC
$62.1 million
47%
7
Missouri
SEC
$61.3 million
25%
5
Northwestern
Big Ten
$61.2 million
45%
9
Georgia Tech
ACC
$60.3 million
53%
6
Texas Tech
Big 12
$59.6 million
56%
7
Rutgers
Big East
$57.5 million
37%
9
Colorado
Pac-12
$57.1 million
42%
1
Pittsburgh
Big East
$56.3 million
39%
6
Vanderbilt
SEC
$55.8 million
38%
8
Iowa State
Big 12
$55.2 million
54%
6
Mississippi State
SEC
$54.9 million
46%
8
Oregon State
Pac-12
$53.8 million
38%
9
BYU
Independent
$53.0 million
42%
7
Wake Forest
ACC
$48.8 million
36%
5
Washington State
Pac-12
$48.0 million
38%
3
Utah
Pac-12
$46.2 million
45%
5
South Florida
Big East
$43.6 million
39%
3
Ole Miss
SEC
$42.9 million
63%
6
Cincinnati
Big East
$39.6 million
39%
9
Temple
Big East
$39.0 million
44%
4
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
with spacing?***
Dec 6, 2012, 11:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
that chart addresses none of my issues***
Dec 6, 2012, 11:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I'm with you...
Dec 6, 2012, 11:39 AM
|
|
It doesn't show an apology from Dabo
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6208]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8857
Joined: 5/30/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Wow...
Dec 6, 2012, 11:44 AM
|
|
It should not be. It is meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
did you date amanda too?***
Dec 6, 2012, 12:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3311]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1973
Joined: 7/23/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue
Dec 6, 2012, 11:43 AM
|
|
These charts are retarded because they are based on completely non standardized reporting. It is apples to oranges and it is either ignorant or willfully deceptive journalism. Clemson chooses not to report Iptay funds as a part of athletic department revenue. Other schools (South Carolina included) do include their booster revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17756]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16652
Joined: 9/1/12
|
^^^ Nice insight ^^^***
Dec 6, 2012, 11:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5014]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2672
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue
Dec 6, 2012, 11:54 AM
[ in reply to Re: This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue ] |
|
> These charts are retarded because they are based on
> completely non standardized reporting. It is apples
> to oranges and it is either ignorant or willfully
> deceptive journalism. Clemson chooses not to report
> Iptay funds as a part of athletic department revenue.
> Other schools (South Carolina included) do include
> e their booster revenue.
I hear the point that you are attempting to make, but I am not sure that it is accurate. My understanding is that IPTAY dollars are pretty tightly controlled. How they can be spent , is very different than other athletic revenue dollars.
Those of us that continue to stick our head in the sand are in for a shock sometime in the next decade. Make it even more basic USUc 27 million TV alone, probably 40 million after renegotiated with A&M , Mizz, and two others. Clemson 15 Million with a backended deal bringing it to 17 million in a decade. This will luikely decrease if any one of (FSU, GT, Va Tech, or Miami )
bolt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6980
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue
Dec 6, 2012, 12:29 PM
|
|
Some of IPTAY funds are counted but if you look at the numbers of contributions reported by the AD and the total contributions to IPTAY their is a large amount that is not accounted for.
There will be a disparity in the TV contracts between the ACC and SEC but the real money will come from how the playoff is structured. The plan is to divide the money more evenly between all the conferences and to pay extras based on winning and academic performance. If the ACC finds away to stay competitive in that respect they can survive.
Also of note is the TV networks that are coming soon. The SEC is more attractive viewership wise but contains smaller markets. The ACC is currently in discussions with ESPN/NBC (Because of ND) to create a TV network. That may prove to be the ACCs only hope to sustain itself. Although not in football the national following of ND and the NBC connection is huge in the TV deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Going into this season, the SEC had the 2nd largest
Dec 6, 2012, 12:36 PM
|
|
population base in the nation, 2nd by a small margin. And the SEC has no "city" school in its membership and only one private school. Adding Texas A&M and Missouri really jumped the SEC way up there. The coming SEC Network will be a gold mine for the SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Going into this season, the SEC had the 2nd largest
Dec 6, 2012, 1:08 PM
|
|
Yes, that's why they haven't put it on the air yet. Because they're being offered too much money and don't think it will be fair. The days of premium priced programming being forced unto the basic tiers of cable/sat providers is coming to an end - which is the basis for all the pie in the sky projections. Dish network spent over a year without AMC, pretty much the most popular basic cable station on TV these days, over numbers not dissimilar to what SEC pumpers think they are going to make. Cable and Sat is in a fight for its life and its not going to be handing anymore money out than they have to. And, they hate ESPN and will be very reluctant to up their carriage fees anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Re: Going into this season, the SEC had the 2nd largest
Dec 6, 2012, 3:37 PM
|
|
We shall see what the arrangement is when the SEC announces its SEC Network. I definitely would rather be in the SEC shoes regarding TV than in the ACC shoes. Evidently there is real good money to be made by having your own conference network. If that was not the case, the Big 10 would have dropped its Network. Instead, it is expanding it with the additions of Maryland and Rutgers. And I can assure that Maryland is not jumping to the Big 10, taking a paycut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Going into this season, the SEC had the 2nd largest
Dec 6, 2012, 4:56 PM
|
|
Do you understand how the networks work? Of course there is a ton of money in it. But, the Big 10 struck while the iron was hot. Before cable cutting was a common phrase and before the recession, the Big 10 was able to convince the largest cable providers in their footprint to add their network as a basic channel at approximately $2 per subscriber - regardless of whether they want or ever watch the channel. This is guaranteed money and they got a 25 year deal - why in Gods name would they drop it? No one else is ever going to get this deal. Texas could barely convince anyone in Texas to add their network. When we see an SEC channel it will either be a part of some premium sports pack or they will be making substantially less per subscriber than the Big 10.
And again, the ACC has a larger footprint and more people in that footprint. A little winning will go along way to our own network. Even more - what doesn't really get brought up - is that the conference networks are all about tier two sports. The ACC competes in more Olympic sports than the SEC and with the addition of Notre Dame as a full partner in everything but football will create a very attractive option for a network going forward. Notre Dame is one of the most valuable properties in all of college sports and their value towards an ACC network may very well be what makes it worth having them as a partial member in football. And, as a member who came into the league agreeing to a $50 million buyout there is very little legal recourse they would have to avoid it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Re: Going into this season, the SEC had the 2nd largest
Dec 6, 2012, 7:41 PM
|
|
Good. Then YOU, should be happy, even though your fellow clemson fans are worried sick over the ACC TV situation compared to that of the SEC. I know I am VERY happy with the television position and prospects of the SEC compared to the ACC. We will all soon see why. And I am VERY happy with the SEC being part of the $80 million Sugar Bowl to that of the ACC and the $55 million Orange Bowl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue
Dec 6, 2012, 12:53 PM
[ in reply to Re: This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue ] |
|
Uneducated overreaction is no more an appropriate response than sticking ones head in the sand and I am doing neither. There is a disparity in the two schools revenue - but it is not remotely as great as anything that gets hinted at around here. I don't which is worse: sports beat writer who think they have the economics background to analyze the athletic budgets of major college athletic departments or the fans that continue to give the credence. Or perhaps we should continue to refer to that business of college sports blog that has never properly referenced a single entry. There is no standardized reporting requirement for how athletic departments report their p/l. I spent a considerable period of time last year researching actual disparity between USC and Clemson and it was not anything remotely like what would be implied here. I don't see how to look up posts over a week old and don't feel like sound the homework all over again. Yes, Clemson needs to be paying attention to its financial situation. No, nothing in the linked article is remotely close to economic reality.
Found link to old post mentioned above: http://www.tigernet.com/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=19&threadID=1116773&messageID=12407461#12407461
Message was edited by: viztiz®
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5014]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2672
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue
Dec 6, 2012, 2:10 PM
|
|
> Uneducated overreaction is no more an appropriate
> response than sticking ones head in the sand and I am
> doing neither. There is a disparity in the two
> schools revenue - but it is not remotely as great as
> anything that gets hinted at around here. I don't
> which is worse: sports beat writer who think they
> have the economics background to analyze the athletic
> budgets of major college athletic departments or the
> fans that continue to give the credence. Or perhaps
> we should continue to refer to that business of
> college sports blog that has never properly
> referenced a single entry. There is no standardized
> reporting requirement for how athletic departments
> report their p/l. I spent a considerable period of
> time last year researching actual disparity between
> USC and Clemson and it was not anything remotely like
> what would be implied here. I don't see how to look
> up posts over a week old and don't feel like sound
> the homework all over again. Yes, Clemson needs to
> be paying attention to its financial situation. No,
> nothing in the linked article is remotely close to
> economic reality.
>
> Found link to old post mentioned above:
> http://www.tigernet.com/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=19
> &threadID=1116773&messageID=12407461#12407461
>
>
> Message was edited by: viztiz®
Speak for yourself about "uneducated overreaction". Please explain the economics that would allow a school (Clemson) with it's small alumni base as compared to SC, to make up ground on a 10-15 million deficit by some counting of a portion of Iptay dollars that is locked away and not available for use by the athletic department?
Look Iptay is fantastic, many schools have modeled their "scholarship funding orgs" after our program. Iptay has done a great job of raisng serious money on a relatively small alumni base. You have twice responded in this thread without a single number in support of your position. What "pray-tell" is the money gap per year between SC and Clemson over the next 1o years? 1 million? 5 Million? 15 Million? 20 Million?
Is it your position that there is not a gap? Or that the gap doesn't matter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue
Dec 6, 2012, 2:50 PM
|
|
my position, which was pretty clearly spelled out in the attached link is that the differential is not nearly as great as contended. Yes, it needs to be addressed. First, every year the host of the Clem/Carolina will net approx. 4 million more in ticket revenue. This is just how it is. I don't know what your insistence that Iptay money shouldn't count in the total. 100%. of Gamecock club fees and YES fees are reflected in the numbers South Carolina releases. Clemson only reflects money spent from Iptay to cover scholarship tuitions as a part of its athletic budget. I'm not sure where you get the idea Iptay withholds million of dollars per year that isn't being spent on athletics. It simply isn't true. After everything is said done, after all available real numbers are counted, SC made about $6 million more than Clemson. That's gross - not profit. Clemson athletic department is actually in better financial shape than SC's - most simply reflected in a higher bond rating from Moody's. And the difference in gross revenue was actually only $3 million more due to conference affiliation. The massive increase in seat fees at Carolina is what accounts for the other $3 million and led them to raise more booster funds than us for the first time in their history. But those were based in 2010 numbers when they won their first division championship and a national title in baseball - while we sucked. I'd love to see a breakdown for 2011 but haven't been able to find hard financials readily available for that year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue
Dec 6, 2012, 12:55 PM
[ in reply to Re: This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue ] |
|
Btw - SEC just finished an entire season with aTm and Mizz in the conference and their ratings are down across the board. Do you think ESPN pays them more just because they're such nice guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6858]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6499
Joined: 10/7/07
|
only KS did more with less than Clemson
Dec 6, 2012, 11:45 AM
|
|
But Jesus, we need a better deal!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savant [470]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 324
Joined: 10/13/02
|
We're at 42nd in revenue, and SCAR's at 18th.
Dec 6, 2012, 11:46 AM
|
|
That can't possibly have anything to do with on-the-field results. No way.
I would love to see the same data from, say, ten years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19803
Joined: 1/15/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5014]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2672
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: RE read and understand.
Dec 6, 2012, 11:57 AM
|
|
Thanks for the slap. I have already apologized in another thread. It was inadvertent on my tablet. Thanks again for your diligence and critique 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virtuoso [625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 834
Joined: 1/30/00
|
Is this the longest post in Tigernet history?
Dec 6, 2012, 11:49 AM
|
|
When you provide the link you shouldn't have to copy and paste. I notice that our percentage from football is lower than a lot of others. I guess baseball/basketball brings in a little as well??? Must be tv money too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [2]
TigerPulse: 49%
Posts: 12
Joined: 2/25/01
|
Re: This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue
Dec 6, 2012, 11:57 AM
|
|
Does this include IPTAY which is separate from the AD?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [721]
TigerPulse: 75%
Posts: 3544
Joined: 2/1/06
|
Re: This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue
Dec 6, 2012, 12:08 PM
|
|
Looks like we fell off the chart compared to socar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: as you know, the score doesn't matter to Dabo***
Dec 6, 2012, 12:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10763
Joined: 1/25/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4144]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3983
Joined: 1/22/03
|
Wow, no wonder we can't compete with these other teams, some
Dec 6, 2012, 1:10 PM
|
|
out spend us 2 to 1!! Hard to overcome that!! Win anyway!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [2]
TigerPulse: 49%
Posts: 12
Joined: 2/25/01
|
Re: This Chart (link) makes it pretty clear there is an issue
Dec 6, 2012, 1:38 PM
|
|
Does this include Iptay revenue as IPTAY is separate from the University?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
Here is what we do KNOW that can't be explained away:
Dec 6, 2012, 3:29 PM
|
|
After getting its TV deal renewed, ACC teams are to get $17 million annually from TV. That's equal to SEC teams PRIOR to renewing their TV deals. So, the Gamecocks will have a leg up on us when the TV situation is finalized. The bowl tie-ins for the SEC provide $1 million more annually to each SEC school than ACC tie-ins provide to the ACC. To that, add this:When the playoffs begin in 2 years, the Orange Bowl (ACC) participants wil split $55 million. The Sugar Bowl (SEC/Big 12) participants will split $80 million. Any Clemson fan who does not think we have a math problem in Clemson athletics compared to SCAR, is delusional
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [548]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1298
Joined: 10/16/00
|
Exactly.
Dec 6, 2012, 5:15 PM
|
|
When you consider the existing contracts, bowl payouts, playoff revenue, and Tier 3 rights, in two years SEC and Big 12 schools will collect $10M more annually than ACC programs. $100M (or more) over the course of a decade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6272]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7290
Joined: 9/21/03
|
there is an issue
Dec 6, 2012, 7:52 PM
|
|
with your html skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
Why are ACC schools, including Clemson, so far below SEC
Dec 7, 2012, 6:34 AM
|
|
schools, including So Car, in athletic revenue? I know that some here explain away Clemson being so far behind So Car by saying IPTAY is not counted among Clemson's athletic revenue. I don't know if that is true or not true. I do KNOW that ACC schools generally lag the SEC and others in athletic revenue. Are all ACC schools not counting booster clubs in their revenue figures? What a coincidence that would be!!!! For sure, ACC schools lag far behind. For sure, the ACC has the worst TV deal. For sure, the ACC has the worst bowl tie-ins. The ACC is a drag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 38
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
