|
Replies: 41
| visibility 1
|
Commissioner [943]
TigerPulse: 67%
Posts: 1521
Joined: 10/2/03
|
$$$$$
Jul 10, 2012, 1:00 PM
|
|
Alot of "so-called" experts were saying how we needed to bolt for B12 because the grass/money would be so much greener....we needed it to be able to keep up with other schools (in particular the coots as the supposed reports that they were spending $22 mil more than us in AD).
For awhile, I was one of those that supported this...thought how are we going to keep up if we can't keep up with the Joneses.
But now, I believe we are best suited where we are at - regardless of the money. We aren't hurting obviously based on all the improvements we've done and are still currently doing. Our recruiting has proven that the facilities we have are impressing top recruits. But more importantly, it's the staff we have and the family atmoshphere Dabo has built and that these kids just love. One of the things you most often hear when a recruit comes here...feels like home/family.
The money will work itself out but I'm trusting our Pres, BoT, staff and AD that they have our best interests at heart and will not let Clemson fall behind.
Here's looking forward to Atlanta and what looks to be like a great year! Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [64591]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88998
Joined: 3/27/01
|
A couple of things....
Jul 10, 2012, 1:07 PM
|
|
The actual difference between the athletic department revenues of South Carolina and Clemson is currently closer to $6 million annually.
However, that figure is going to increase after the $EC negotiates its new TV deal next year.
Consequently, your belief that the President, BoT, staff and AD will not let Clemson fall behind is fundamentally flawed. We are already behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ambassador [6046]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 5708
Joined: 9/23/02
|
A couple of answers...
Jul 10, 2012, 1:24 PM
|
|
Take your pick:
- You are wrong.
- Clemson doesn't need the extra money.
- Fans should open up their checkbooks to cover the gap.
- Quit believing the B12 story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You both have valid concerns.
Jul 10, 2012, 1:27 PM
[ in reply to A couple of things.... ] |
|
Right now we are lagging behind other conferences. I'm not sure now that making a move would be in Clemson's best interest for a couple of reasons.
I don't think at this point we know or can know how much the SEC, Big12 or other conferences' revenue packages are. We also don't have any projections on what money the playoff system will bring to any of the conferences.
It's like measuring redworms. Though we may be able to say with honesty that the ACC is falling behind we can not prove it or quantify how much.
As the playoff system developed, even as obstinate as I am, and the announcement of the OB/ACC agreement came to light I have taken a neutral position on conference jumping. I'm not saying I want to stay in the ACC and I'm not saying I want to leave. I am saying that without the numbers to add and subtract there is no real way to form an opinion other than gut feeling which usually comes down to emotions.
I have no doubt the SEC and other conferences will come out ahead of the ACC on this new system because they went into the negotiations ahead of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10770
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: A couple of things....
Jul 10, 2012, 1:32 PM
[ in reply to A couple of things.... ] |
|
I posted a long item about this awhile ago. The host of the USC/Clemson game has a net gain over the other of about $4 million each host year. The real difference is about $3 million the last two years due to tv revenues. The SEC is actually about to take a hit in 2012 - 2013 as they split revenue 14 ways under their old tv deal. It is highly doubtful espn is going to up the SECs revenue for the coming year without new content - which it is late in the year to add. Project X isn't already on the air because cable subscribership in this country is shrinking and providers are not interested in adding expensive channels to non-pay tiers. Dish TV just let AMC, one of the most popular cable channels, go over a fee increase lower than the projected per subscriber asking price of an SEC network. It will happen, but will not be the game changer some folks are projecting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
Under the old (current) deals, the SEC has a $4 million
Jul 10, 2012, 2:14 PM
|
|
per school/year advantage over the ACC. If the SEC money goes up the same percentage as the ACC TV money, then the SEC advantage will increase to $5 million. The provisions in the current TV contracts automatically bump up the money from the networks for adding TAM and Mizzou so that the other 12 don't take a pay cut. My guess is that since ACC schools got a 30% increase, SEC schools will get at least that much, even without "Project X". They may not get as much more as their optimists think but, they will profit more than you think, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10770
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Under the old (current) deals, the SEC has a $4 million
Jul 10, 2012, 3:15 PM
|
|
I read 16.7 mill for the ACC this year versus 20 for the SEC, but that is splitting hairs. I never found anything definitive about Sec tv deal and expansion. But, ESPN is a business and a pretty savvy one at that. the "old" tv deal is paying around $240 mill per year for 12 teams. If they are throwing in an extra $40 million for two more teams - without receiving more games in return - then the SEC has already a 17% bump in revenue. I don't see the SEC adding a lot of Thursday night SEC games and there are only so many slots on Saturday to go around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
Re: Under the old (current) deals, the SEC has a $4 million
Jul 10, 2012, 5:08 PM
|
|
Both the ACC and the SEC are still operating under the TV deals struck 3 years ago. At that time, the SEC TV deal was for $17 million to the ACC'S $13 million. I'm not familiar with the contracts. But reading the Mr. SEC web site, the automatic bump up is a fact. Now remember too that the ACC added 2 teams and were bumped up 30% per school. So, I think it's safe to say that the SEC will get at least that.
I have been reading the Mr. SEC web site to get some idea as to what the enemy is going to get versus us. I can tell you that they feel very confident that the SEC is going to get "game changing" TV deals out of all this. Now what their definition of "game changing" is, I don't know. But they had an article yesterday on the differences in SEC and ACC finances in the past 3 years. It was discomforting, to say the least. And they indicated that SEC schools will make 50-75% more money (I guess from all sources) during at least the next decade and further, than ACC schools. It's a nightmare too think about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10770
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Under the old (current) deals, the SEC has a $4 million
Jul 10, 2012, 5:43 PM
|
|
If it becomes that dramatic then it would be a nightmare. And your right those are tv numbers. I was actually showing the total conference payouts - which were less than $4 million different.
I've read some of the doomsday financial projections and I just don't find them credible. I don't think it means the acc should bury its head in he sand, but I don't think the situations as dire as certain factions would have us believe. For one, I have read projections that an sec network would more than double the leagues current tv revenue. But the big 10 with their own tv deals and network make roughly $5 million more the sec. An sec network will not be worth 4x a big 10 network - I don't care what anyone says, I won't believe I till I see. The Big 10 competes in more sports (more content), has dramatically more living alumni, their viewership makes considerably more money than the average sec fan (better for advertisers), and their network is distributed nationally on satellite. So for an sec network to somehow vault the worth of the sec to $40 million per school while the big 10 makes $25 mill makes no sense to me. Plus, there is nothing to stop the acc from doing the same and with the slightest success at football probably will.
I find most of the economic articles don't hold much water. There is a new garnet & black attack blog today that has USC fans all excited because they are convinced they're making and spending $20 million more a year than us when they slightest cursory review of the numbers show they're not counting Iptay but counting gamecock club and yes fees. But, there is post after post about how they're going to make $100 million more than us in 5 years and never look back, and it simply isn't true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 10, 2012, 7:49 PM
|
|
deals will be. Everybody is simply going to have to wait until Mike Slive makes his announcement. But, there are things we all do KNOW:
1. Each SEC school will see its annual TV revenue go up by at least the same percentage that ACC schools did. The ACC established a "floor" for the SEC renegotiations.
2. TV deals are now football-determined. The SEC is renegotiating with 6 straight national football championships in its pocket. NO other conference can match that bargaining chip.
3. The SEC increased its geographical footprint by 62% from 3 years ago. The SEC now has a larger geographical footprint than the Big 10, PAC 10 and Big 12, its chief competitors for football TV money. THAT is a renegotiating tool with the networks and also is a bonanza as it pertains to cable subscribers for a new SEC Network.
4. Bloomberg Finance was quoted last year, before the additions of Texas A&M and Missouri, saying TV marketing executives stated that the SEC TV deal is "undervalued".
5. Though TV deals tend to be football-centered, it does not hurt the SEC (probably helps some) that the SEC has won major national championships in baseball and basketball in recent years
6. There is a clause in the contracts giving the SEC the right to take ESPN and CBS to arbitration. Based on the above other points, I don't think ESPN and CBS have a desire to play Russian Roulette.
Again, none of us KNOW how these SEC TV negotiations will be redone. Having said that, I do like the position that the SEC is in during these renegotiations. I would rather have our bargaining chips than those of any other conference. Therefore, I like the SEC's chances for a "home run" new TV deals.
And not only that but, I like the fact that the SEC and the Big 12 are going to put their new Champs Bowl up for broadcasting bids. The SEC and the Big 12 have dominated the national championships over the past decade. A bowl pitting the 2 best available (after playoff participants) teams in the SEC and the Big 12, which are the 2 best football conferences in the nation, will attract a gold mine of bidders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10770
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 10, 2012, 8:39 PM
|
|
I don't disagree with much here and yes, we are all just speculating, but isn't that what tnets for?
I will say as to:
1) my point was that if the gross payout was bumped in full for both Missouii and A&M, then they have already seen a 17% increase in gross revenue. While the potential audience grows, the numbers of events that will be televised by ESPN is unchanged.
2) championships are great and sec undisputibally rules the roost right now. But there is the strong possibility, as evidenced by the last BCS championship rating, that sec dominance is actually intensifying regionalism which is bad for a national broadcaster like ESPN.
3) media markets are more about who actually watches than footprint. People are frequently confused on this topic. If geography and relative media markets were the most important factor, Rutgers would be the most sought after school in football. This year will be the litmus test. If everything else remains consistent and suddenly a huge percentage of A&M fans and Mizzou fans start turning into all sec games giving all the games a significant boost in ratings then the sec has hit a home run and will be in the drivers seat. Perhaps espn and the sec are playing chicken which is why there is no new deal yet. I think a great earlier indicator will be the UGA/USC game. That delivers huge numbers in south carolina and Georgia and probably highly respectable numbers in nc, Florida, and decent numbers around the rest of the southeast. But, will people in Texas and Missouri who until today could have cared less tune in?
4) sec deal was undervalued, particularly against the retarded PAC 12 deal. But, the PAC 12 probably has the most valued tv entity in college sports in USC. They are a national brand villain that wins championships and draws incredible tv ratings. They also happen to be one of the only top media markets to field a college team anyone cares about ( see Rutgers and New York, for example)
I'll also beg to differ on the Big 12 as the second best football conference. They were viewed as being on life support last year. The SEC, PAC 12, and Big10 are the big boys of college football right now. The champions bowl was a lifeline to the Big 12 the same way that the Orange Bowl deal has been one for the ACC.
Anyway, thats my two cents worth.
Message was edited by: viztiz®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Re: Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 10, 2012, 9:20 PM
|
|
1. But then you have to treat the additions of Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC the same way. The bottom line is what everybody looks at. When the smoke is all clear, adding the percentage increase to the SEC schools that ACC schools got is the worst case scenario. After all ACC football marketability and the populations of Pittsburgh and Syracuse are no match for SEC football marketability and state-wide populations of the states of Texas and Missouri. Also, we don't know how the SEC content will be in a renegotiated deal.
2. The SEC footprint now is 91 million, unmatched by any conference that does not hold city-wide schools.
3. The south, southeast and Midwest are much more college football oriented than the noetheast.
4. Again, Blommberg Finance quoted unbiased TV marketing professionals saying the SEC TV deal is "undervalued".
When rumors were hot here about clemson going to the Big 12, poster after poster said the Big 12 was a stronger conference than the SEC last year and would be in the future. Regardless, the SEC first and the Big 12 second, have been the dominant fottball conferences since 2000.
Like I posted in a prior post, the bargaining chips that the SEC has in renegotiating its TV deals is unmatched by any other conference. That's why I like the SEC's chances for striking gold and silver when it concludes negotiations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10770
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 10, 2012, 9:56 PM
|
|
Well, I wasn't one of those blowing the Big 12 horn. I still disagree with your Big 12 assessment. If we look at BCS records post realignments, and I think you should since it's the teams that win, not the conferences commissioners here is the entirety of the BCS era. These are current conference affiliation records:
SEC: nine title appearances, 8 championships
Big 12: six title appearances, 2 championships
ACC: six titles appearances, 2 championships
Big10: four title appearances, 1 championship
Pac10: three title appearances, 1 championship
The ACC has as much potential going forward as any conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Re: Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 10, 2012, 10:18 PM
|
|
The problem for the ACC is that it has not been a player on the national stage for over a decade. And when it was most recently, it was Florida State as the sole big boy on the ACC block. The Big 12 has at least won a couple of national championships since the turn of the century. I think that the PAC 10 and Big 10 have won national championships since the turn of the century; but in their case, it has been one team dominating their respective conferences: Southern Cal and Ohio State respectively.Therefore the Big 12 has sort of stood out there in the eyes of the public due to having 2 powerhouses in recent years: Texas and Oklahoma. Of course, they all badly lag the SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10770
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 10, 2012, 10:46 PM
|
|
Miami won it in 2002 and played again in 2003. The BCS has only been around since 1998. The SEC has one six straight so no other conference has distinguished themselves in more than half a decade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Re: Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 10, 2012, 11:19 PM
|
|
Miami was a Big East team in those days. The ACC can't get credit for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10770
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 10, 2012, 11:46 PM
|
|
Well then you missed the whole point of the post you responded to. No, "the ACC" doesn't get to hang a banner for Miami. But those teams, who are in the ACC now, and have won championships. And Miami in particular is a program that always find their way back to the top of the game. It may take them a little longer with all the trouble they've had, but I bet any sports book in the world would give you long odds if you wanted to pick Clemson or Carolina to win a national championship before Miami wins another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Re: Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 11, 2012, 7:58 AM
|
|
No, you simply want to base marketbality on ancient history, rather than recent history. In that case, Army should be in the pool of possible opponents for the ACC in the Orange Bowl. Since both the Champs Bowl and the Orange Bowl will be put out for bids, separately, we will see which bowl will be the most attractive to the bidders: the SEC vs Big 12 pitting either their numbers 1 or 2 teams against each other or the Orange Bowl pitting either the numbers 1 or 2 ACC team against the leftovers after the Champ and Rose
Bowls make their selections. I like the Champ Bowl's chances for a higher payout over the Orange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10770
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 11, 2012, 8:31 AM
|
|
So 2002 and 2003 are "ancient" history and Miami's football program is to be likened to Army's? You're the one that said turn of the century. Army last won a championship in 1946. Not real comparable with Miami (2002) and Florida State (2000) doing it since the turn of the century - which was your standard. I enjoy a good back and forth but you don't really respond to wha's being said, just jump around to another party line bash the acc response.
As for the higher payout - are you referring to the new champions bowl or the champs bowl. Because if you think the Champs bowl will pay out more than the orange bowl you've lost your mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Re: Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 11, 2012, 8:54 AM
|
|
I enjoy good debate too. But you continue to post inaccurate and/or misleading information. Miami was not a member of the ACC when they last won the national championship. And Florida State last won the national championship in the 1999 season, not the 2000 season.
I have not read that the Champ, Rose and Orange Bowl will each get the same payouts. Having said that, the Champ Bowl will feature the SEC vs Big 12. The Orange will pit the ACC vs leftovers. Now you want to say that the ACC has teams with great pasts and therefore will boost their bottom line, making them more valuable to the networks or anyone bidding on a bowl they are in. Yet, the ACC had the same teams with the same history that you talk about. However, their most recent TV deal is pathetic, as many clemson fans have moaned about. We will see soon enough what the SEC will get. Like I listed in a prior post, the cards that the SEC has to play in their renegotiations are very impressive, much more so than the ACC had to play. I like the SEC's chances for a very impressive TV deal set up, one that will have a gap in TV revenues (between SEC and ACC schools) of no less than $5 million per school annually in favor of the SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10770
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 11, 2012, 9:20 AM
|
|
I have prefaced every reference to Miami with the fact that they weren't in the acc at the time. Is it not still Miami? Once again you're not reposnding to what I'm actually writing. Florida State won the 2000 BCS bowl, yes, for the 1999 season. Splitting hairs a little bit. I'm not arguing that FSU and Miami are great programs of the past. I'm arguing that they're great programs period - whether or not they've gotten done at the highest level recently.
I have no issue that the SEC will command $5 million more than the ACC. That sounds reasonable, if not conservative. Again, if you actually read my posts- I pointed out that a number of websites have argued that an SEC network was worth $20-$30 million more, per school, than the current deal and that is lunacy. And I used the Big10 as an example of why a tv deal plus own network doesn't generate anything close to that kind of revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Re: Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 11, 2012, 9:42 AM
|
|
There you go again. Go back and read what you wrote at 10:46 last night. There was no mention that Miami was in the Big East those years that you referred to. "Every reference"? I don't think so. There was no splitting hairs regarding Florida State; just being accurate.
We can go back and forth about each program. But, the bottom line is what did their "past" bring the ACC for the future? The crying and whining here on Tnet regarding the recent ACC Tv deal, speaks for itself. I read what you said about other web sites regarding the SEC Network. If you read what I said, I (pro-SEC) and you (anti-SEC) don't "know". We are stating what we "want"; that's a big difference. What we do "know" is that the SEC has a lot of assets to bring to the negotiating table. I have not read obviously the web sites you have read stating the outlandish numbers you quoted. I would love to read those if you have a link, so that I could read their justifications. I do agree with you though when you say that my $5 million gap in payouts that I referred to, might very well be "conservative".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10770
Joined: 1/25/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Re: Neither clemson nor Carolina fans KNOW what the new SEC TV
Jul 11, 2012, 10:34 AM
|
|
I read that in the prior post. But to read what you posted in the next post, one could take that to mean that Miami won the NC as an ACC member. I understand what you are saying about their impact on the future. However, the bottom line is that the ACC got a pitiful TV deal with the lineup of teams it went to bat with in the spring. That was how much ESPN valued the "past" of the current members as it pertains to the future.
Not very valued at all.
I hope all those people in their analysis of the coming, and make no mistake about it, "Project X" is coming, are even close to being right. I do believe that when it is all said and done, the SEC will get a very good TV deal set up. So good, that I predict that lots of Tnetters are going to be fusssing and cussing about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junkie [590]
TigerPulse: 34%
Posts: 1615
Joined: 10/4/09
|
Re: Under the old (current) deals, the SEC has a $4 million
Jul 11, 2012, 1:18 AM
[ in reply to Re: Under the old (current) deals, the SEC has a $4 million ] |
|
Here is that article.
The Clemson-South Carolina Rivalry: Are the Gamecocks putting the Tigers in the Financial Rear-View Mirror?
Ape-rogers-g-sc-8x10_tiny by tryptic67 on Jul 7, 2012 4:49 PM EDT
One of my closest friends is a big-time Clemson fan from a dyed-in-the-orange-wool Clemson family. We've given each other static since the 1980s about CU-USC; based on the record book it's no surprise that he has had the upper hand in smack-talk for most of that time. You all probably have friends just like him.
Since the three-peat, however, I've taken to telling my buddy that Clemmy is now firmly planted in USC's "rear-view mirror" - that not only do we not foresee ever losing to the Tigers again, but that we no longer view them as much of a rival - e.g., compared to Georgia. Good natured trash talk like this is what keeps the rivalry interesting.
While my pal dismisses the notion that the worm has turned in the rivalry, he will admit concern, however, about the revenue disparity that's emerged between the two Palmetto State programs. In that vein, over at Shakin the Southland the redoubtable Figure Four has posted about public university financial data recently released from USA Today; vis-a-vis Clemson-USC, the numbers don't look good for the Tigs.
Should our Clemson friends be concerned? Is there an actual advantage for Carolina emerging on the ledger books? Have we put the Tigers into the financial rear-view? Keep reading after The Jump to see the tale of the (ticker) tape.
Star-divide
As Figure Four reports, the Gamecocks (20th) led Clemson (39th) in FY2011 total revenue by $83,813,226.00 to $61,174,977.00 for a difference of $22,638,249.
Likewise, in FY2011 expenditures, Carolina (19th) out-spent CU (43rd) by the sum of $80,525,711.00 compared to Clemson's $58,367,884.00 - or by $22,157,827.
Tiger Athletics did turn in a respectable profit of $2,807,093.00 (31st), but if you go to the source material, you learn Carolina was not far behind with a net revenue-to-expenditure number of $3,287,515 (adjusted to $1,039,240 when the $2,248,275 subsidy from the University is taken into consideration).
Lest you think that our subsidies (2.7% of the budget) are artificially high, keep in mind that Clemson subsidized $5,106,024 (8.3%). By way of comparison, UGA subsidized $3,197,387 [3.5%] while Florida put $4,367,071 [3.5%] into its program from general funds.
We all know the old saw about lies, #### lies and statistics - but the numbers tell a pretty convincing tale. When you look at the raw data from 2007-2011 (by clicking on both schools), Clemson's revenues and expenditures have stayed fairly static (typically in the $55-$60m range) while South Carolina's have exploded over the last three years. The Gamecocks are leaving the Tigers behind not only in generating athletic dollars but also spending them on athletic programs.
The causation is clear. South Carolina is riding the SEC's unprecedented money-making wave, while the ACC is holding Clemson down like a sea-anchor. Figure Four concludes as much:
You don't have to be a mathematician to realize that Clemson trails quite a few schools in revenue generation. This severely limits how much Clemson can, in turn, spend on their athletic programs. What you also noticed was the lack of ACC representation in the above statistics, particularly inside the top 20. You see many SEC, Big Ten, and Big XII. Those are the leagues committed to football and their commissioner goes out and fights for things like better television deals and in-house networks. There is no way one can argue that the ACC is a big reason Clemson ranks so low in many of these financial categories.
My Clemson pal sees the problem, too. To paraphrase his sentiments, he - like many CU fans- believes that the combination of IPTAY and Clemson's adherence to more conservative budgets (overall) have kept them competitive with USC so long as the financial gap was in the $3m-$5m range. In other words, the Tigers felt they could more than offset Carolina's financial lead so long as the delta wasn't unreasonable. Recently, however, the numbers are making him uneasy; as much as he loves the ACC (and more particularly the Tigers' football domination of that league) he was of a mind that perhaps a Big XII move would be the only way to bridge the gap - if not now, then in the immediate future. It was a bit of a bitter pill for him to consider.
I'm not going to pass judgment on whether he's right or wrong; I'm just passing along what is probably a common sentiment among savvy Clemson fans - even if it is not yet the received wisdom at Tiger Town. The handwriting is spray-painted on the wall, however. Carolina is going to start out-earning Clemson by anywhere from 50-75% in the very near future. That translates to $9m-$13m more dollars going to Columbia than Clemson every year for at least a decade if not longer.
Contemplate that, Tiger faithful, on the tree of woe.
Bluntly, this is a total role-reversal for the Clemson and Carolina. When Governor "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman (later U.S. Senator) used his clout to convert John C. Calhoun's old country place into the Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina, his faction made sure that it was funded with fertilizer taxes, while USC's budget was slashed to the bone - which made Clemson much stronger financially in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It really was not until after the Second World War, when powerful state senator Sol Blatt and visionary USC President Donald S. Russell (himself a future governor and US Senator) pushed USC firmly ahead with respect to state support. In terms of football fund-raising, however, Clemson's IPTAY has long been richer and larger than the Gamecock Club; IPTAY was the gold standard in booster clubs in the post-WWII era. But that's all firmly rooted in the past.
The present reality is that the SEC is contemplating future TV contracts which are expected to eclipse the Big Ten and Pac-12 TV deals - all while the ACC is getting left behind at the television altar. In other words, with the new ACC-ESPN contract Clemson can look forward to making what USC makes now - while Carolina (and its SEC sisters) will see revenues skyrocket up over $25m per annum even before third-tier rights are calculated into the equation. The fact that a true SEC network is also back on the drawing board will likely push that figure up further.
By contrast, the ACC has re-pledged third tier rights to ESPN to the league's detriment (at a time when other conferences have clawed back third tier rights in their new network deals); plus the ACC doesn't have plans for its own in-house network a la the B1G, Pac-12 or the SEC. In light of its married-to-the-mob deal with ESPN, the ACC is probably precluded from creating a network anyway. Things aren't going to be getting better for the Atlantic Coast Conference anytime soon.
Dabo - in classic Swinney-esque fashion - is on record saying ‘going to the Big 12 would be the worst thing we could do’ and 'doesn't make any sense.' Obviously, Coach Swinney didn't major in math while he was at Bama. Otherwise, he hasn't wrapped his head around what the difference between $25 million versus $17 million will mean to his program. It's not just South Carolina, but Georgia, Florida and Tennessee - all CU recruiting rivals - who are going to be rolling in cash very soon. If ACC football doesn't somehow magically transform itself into a moneymaking machine in the next few years (which is highly doubtful), Clemson is going to see all of its non-ACC competitor programs begin to out-spend them at unprecedented levels - unless it finds a new conference home, that is. They won't be able to keep up. It's a simple as that.
I'm not saying that Clemson will turn into a paper tiger anytime soon. Clemson has been recruiting elite players and will always have some excellent selling points to lure in top prospects. IPTAY is still a formidable weapon it the Tiger arsenal - as demonstrated by its funding of a new indoor practice facility. If it comes down to money, Clemson will always make sure football is funded; it will cede basketball to us and won't bother adding sports. Maybe CU can make a run in the ACC that puts it in the future "FBS" playoff hunt. It might work out for them in the end. IPTAY funds might not be taken into full consideration either. In any event, Tiger football isn't going away without a fight. If it jumps to a new league, or the ACC fixes what ails 'em, then its back to spur-and-claw on relatively equal financial footing.
But I suspect the cumulative effect is going to be real. Already, South Carolina has been addressing long-term systemic problems - e.g., the lack of ambience around Williams-Brice Stadium - that put us at a disadvantage with schools like Clemson and Georgia that had more aesthetically pleasing on-campus surroundings for their stadia, which doubtless gave them a leg-up on recruiting against us. With the Farmer's Market Project, the new video board scheduled to be unveiled this season, plus the recent fair grounds makeover and stadium renovation, South Carolina is rapidly turning Williams-Brice into a jewel. Think about what it will mean for W-B to have an on-campus feel - after years of being criticized as a run-down facility in an even-more run-down light industrial zone - and in the process rectifying what I consider to have been a grave mistake made in the 1930s by moving our football facilities out to the fairgrounds.
Facilities upgrades worth $154 million are putting us on a different level in terms of locker room, weight room and recruiting rooms inside W-B too. Plus, the Dodie academic center is already another jewel in our cap. Phase II of the master facilities plan calls for our own new indoor practice facility in 2014 ($14m) and a new Athletics Performance Facility ($15m) in 2016. Consider that we might be able to pay for those projects out of current funds. Put yourself in the mindset of a recruit visiting Carolina in the next couple of years. It's going to be dazzling.
Without SEC money, it would all be an impossible dream. Instead, it's a present-day reality.
No, we're not talking about Clemson-USC turning into Vandy-Tennessee. But the money advantage can't be ignored by the Tigers forever. Clemson may be happy to stick with the ACC - for the time-being. But they're definitely in the rear-view on the money front for the foreseeable future. That has to warm Gamecock hearts everywhere.
And give palpitations to Clemson fans.
Comment 5 comments | Add comment | 1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Read More: South Carolina Gamecocks
Comments
Display:
Another great and informed
post from Tryptic.
My oh my, how times have changed and for the better. Let’s hire a good AD and keep moving forward.
by wilmywoodcock on Jul 8, 2012 5:41 PM EDT reply
Thanks, Wilmy
Agree 100% on making sure we get the right guy in the AD’s office.
Here's a health, Carolina, forever to thee! UNIVERSITAS CAROLIN MERID. 1801 Emollit mores nec sinit esse feros (Ovid)
by tryptic67 on Jul 8, 2012 7:45 PM EDT up reply
This really illustrates just how important the AD hire is.
Whomever the eventual hire is will surely understand the importance of keeping this trend alive
by stapleears on Jul 9, 2012 7:45 AM EDT reply
Great column. Loads of excellent info.
Still can’t believe Dabo went on that rant about the B12. Well, I can believe it, because it’s Dabo, but it was beyond stupid. Clemson people have told me that there is large-scale support for a move to the B12 in the CU BOT—maybe not a majority, but certainly support. Many Clemson people know about the numbers tryptic is running here and can see the writing on the wall—national irrelevance and, at best, winning 3 out of 10 or so against USC. Those folks were probably very upset with Dabo for trying to grapple with them in the media. The guy is going to talk himself out of his job.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog by and for Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Jul 9, 2012 11:53 AM EDT reply
It's not just about how they feel like the ACC doesn't put football first.
But most Clemson fans I talk to are not excited at all about visiting Syracuse or Pittsburgh. Can’t say I blame them though.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Jul 9, 2012 12:51 PM EDT up reply
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Connect_with_facebook
» Create a new SB Nation account
» Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
? Top of comments
? Top of page
? Stories
? Garnet And Black Attack
? SB Nation
Welcome to the SB Nation blog about South Carolina Gamecocks.
Start posting about the Gamecocks
Garnet And Black Attack on Facebook
Follow @GABAttack
Follow Garnet And Black Attack on your Android Device!
Subscribe to Garnet And Black Attack Stories
Who was the best player of these Heisman runners-up?
Vince Young (Texas)
Tommie Frazier (Nebraska)
Marshall Faulk (San Diego St.)
Peyton Manning (Tennessee)
169 votes | Results
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Sir_big_spur_small
College World Series Weekend Open Thread
by The Feathered Warrior 15 days ago
290 comments
Rogers_slideshow_0_small
18 Straight Wins
by wilmywoodcock about 1 month ago
15 comments | 4 recs
Small
Phil Steele Ranks South Carolina #23 in Pre-Season Top 40
by CSlice about 1 month ago
11 comments | 1 recs
+ New FanPost All FanPosts >
Recent Posts
NCAA Football 2013 Heisman Feature: What If the Gamecocks Had Cam Newton on the Roster in 2010?
PODCAST: Isaiah CrowLOL and Ray Tanner, the heir apparent
South Carolina Athletic Director Search: Words of wisdom from Eric Hyman, or being a butt-insky on his way out?
South Carolina and Frank Martin Close Out Class with PF Michael Carrera
EA SPORTS NCAA 2013: How fare the Gamecocks? Exclusive interview with producer Ben Haumiller
The Clemson-South Carolina Rivalry: Are the Gamecocks putting the Tigers in the Financial Rear-View Mirror?
Connor Shaw and Under Armour - If the shoe fits ...
Programming Notice
South Carolina AD Search: The Other Candidates
CFL Football: Stephen Garcia *not* injured? Was it all a crazy Canadian ruse? (Updated)
SBNation.com Recent Stories
Mar 31, 2012; New Orleans, LA, USA; A general view of the tip off between Kentucky Wildcats forward Anthony Davis (23) and Louisville Cardinals center Gorgui Dieng (10) during the first half in the semifinals of the 2012 NCAA men's basketball Final Four at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome. Mandatory Credit: Derick E. Hingle-US PRESSWIRE
99 College Hoops Thoughts, Facts And Predictions For The 2012-13 Season
WEST LAFAYETTE IN - JANUARY 09: Head coach Fran McCaffery of the Iowa Hawkeyes coaches during the Big Ten Conference game against the Purdue Boilermakers at Mackey Arena on January 9 2011 in West Lafayette Indiana. (Photo by Andy Lyons/Getty Images)
Iowa Signs Fran McCaffery To New 7-Year Deal
Mar 15, 2012; Louisville, KY, USA; The Kentucky Wildcats cheerleaders performed during the second half against the Western Kentucky Hilltoppers in the second round of the 2012 NCAA men's basketball tournament at the KFC Yum! Center. Kentucky defeated Western Kentucky 81-66. Mandatory Credit: Jamie Rhodes-US PRESSWIRE
Kentucky Releases Non-Conference Schedule For 2012-13
More from SBNation.com >
Vox Media Hot Topics
UFC Interviews
London Olympics 2012
UFC on FUEL 4 Results
MMA News
Tour de France 2012
NBA Free Agency
MLB All-Star Game
Managers
Gabalogo2_small cocknfire email this user
Uscgamecocks_small Gamecock Man email this user
Authors
Sir_big_spur_small The Feathered Warrior email this user
Images_small GwinnettGamecock email this user
South_carolina_gamecocks_4_small skandrewj62j email this user
Ape-rogers-g-sc-8x10_small tryptic67
Roflbot_small Connor Tapp email this user
Dscn2426_small Gamecock'n'Balls
Copyright © 2012 Vox Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
Newsletter Signup About SB Nation Frequently Asked Questions Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guiding Principles Advertise With Us Jobs @ Vox Media Contact Us
OpenCalais - Powered by Thomson Reuters
Site Meter
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6937]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 22594
Joined: 5/4/03
|
Re those idiots don't know what to do with it when they...
Jul 10, 2012, 2:54 PM
[ in reply to A couple of things.... ] |
|
get it. More money is wasted on that rat hole than any five entities in this state. Boy, do they know how to blow and very little accountability for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3257]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7167
Joined: 7/27/99
|
How about bail money or paying rent at The Whitney?***
Jul 10, 2012, 3:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1660]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 3659
Joined: 9/16/07
|
Re: A couple of things....
Jul 10, 2012, 6:16 PM
[ in reply to A couple of things.... ] |
|
Money is nice but it is not worth the folks you have to sleep with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67851]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115481
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: $$$$$
Jul 10, 2012, 1:09 PM
|
|
In another conference we could make several million more $ per year. Of course we would spend it all on air, hotels, vans, gas, etc. to travel and compete. We'd be no better off but we would stimulate the economy with this extra spending. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [98]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 152
Joined: 10/13/08
|
Re: $$$$$
Jul 10, 2012, 1:20 PM
|
|
This may be "small potatoes" - but part of our OC & DC salaries came from Dabo taking a pay cut ...
In the "arms ($$$) race" - what if another school came & offered our coordinators a significant increase. $$$ matter - which leads us back to the ACC (& Swofford) who has done a poor job in the various contract negotiations.
(... & yes I understand we need to win also ... )
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67851]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115481
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: $$$$$
Jul 10, 2012, 1:25 PM
|
|
Dabo got a raise not a cut in pay. It just wasnt as large a raise as it could have been as a portion he used to fund assistant salaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [98]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 152
Joined: 10/13/08
|
Re: $$$$$
Jul 10, 2012, 1:28 PM
|
|
You said it better than I did - but that was what I meant. He gave up part of his (increased) salary for his staff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67851]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115481
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: $$$$$
Jul 10, 2012, 1:40 PM
|
|
your overall concern about finances versus others is still valid BTW
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1639]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2314
Joined: 10/6/11
|
Re: $$$$$
Jul 10, 2012, 2:15 PM
[ in reply to Re: $$$$$ ] |
|
and how many "name" coaches would do this???
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6937]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 22594
Joined: 5/4/03
|
Re:According to the Coots, no one wants them anyway.***
Jul 10, 2012, 2:56 PM
[ in reply to Re: $$$$$ ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9666]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11416
Joined: 9/10/99
|
With less $$$$$$$, we will eventually lose the facilities
Jul 10, 2012, 3:07 PM
|
|
arms race.
In the '80s, we won the facilities arms race because of IPTAY and our rabid football fan base.
In the '10s, we lose the facilities arms race because of our conference affiliation.
Times have changed. IPTAY money is only a drop in the bucket compared to TV money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2253]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2967
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: With less $$$$$$$, we will eventually lose the facilities
Jul 10, 2012, 3:11 PM
|
|
What do you propose we do to remedy this situation. I'm being completely serious here. Not trying to flame !! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9666]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11416
Joined: 9/10/99
|
I'm one of the folks who believes we need to leave the
Jul 10, 2012, 3:22 PM
|
|
ACC if we can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10770
Joined: 1/25/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9666]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11416
Joined: 9/10/99
|
Poor choice of words on my part. But IPTAY bucks do
Jul 10, 2012, 3:19 PM
|
|
not make up the difference in TV money vs. other conferences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [435]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 555
Joined: 10/30/09
|
Re: $$$$$
Jul 10, 2012, 3:31 PM
|
|
If money was the determining factor in a football team's success, Texas would never lose a game and certainly wouldn't have gone 5-7, 7-6 the last two seasons. Their AD brought in 150MM and spent 133MM last year. They have a lot more varsity sports than we do, but still they outspent the next Big XII team by almost 40MM!
Clemson, by comparison, was 10th in the ACC in revenue, but 3rd in profitability, and we won the league. Our facilities are as good as anyone's. It's not all about how much money you have, but how wisely it's spent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9666]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11416
Joined: 9/10/99
|
Texas is the 3rd winningest (is that a word?) football team
Jul 10, 2012, 3:46 PM
|
|
since 2000 with a Nat. Championship. Sounds like money does help a little bit.
"They have more varsity sports than we do" - that's because they have more money.
I agree that it's not THE determining factor - but it sure gives you a greater margin for error in trying to spend wisely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 41
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
