While the SEC has nine of its 11 schools generating more than $80 million annually in revenue, and five that bring in more than $100 million, the ACC has no one at that threshold. Florida State is the league's top revenue producer at $78,575,788 according to the report.

The ACC doesn't have a school in the top 20 in the nation in revenue, according to USA Today. The SEC has nine in the top 20, while the Big Ten has six and the Big 12 has three.

Even the Pac-12 (Oregon) and Big East (Louisville) are represented in the top 20. FSU is No. 24.

Virginia ($78,439,006) is 25th and Virginia Tech ($66,909,557) is 32nd, according to the report.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/sports/20 ... r-1945632/

Knowing this, is there any reason why FSU shouldn't explore options?

Dream scenario's for FSU.

1. SEC wants to block the XII from expanding into the southeast, flinches, and invites FSU to stop it. SEC prefers expanding to North Carolina and Virginia (later) but it may be in their best interest to stop the XII now and add FSU then either a school in North Carolina or Virginia.

2. Join a SEC-like Big 12 with 3 of the 4 following ACC schools Clemson, Miami, Virginia Tech (SEC), Georgia Tech. Adding these additional schools helps with some travel, gives FSU some rivals, and helps with the feel of still be regional. FSU could maybe package their 3rd tier rights with those 3 schools to bring additional revenue.

3. Notre Dame joins the ACC. This reopens the ACC TV contract which is the main complaint of the football schools. Hopefully the ACC gets their 3rd tier rights back and they can do something with it.

4. FSU is 1 of 2 schools added to the Big XII. This helps with money and football, hurts all other sports. I'm still a fan of at least some geography and this move makes FSU the XII's Boise and SDSU which I don't like.

5. Nothing changes. FSU took a shot and no one bit. ACC schools no longer like them, so what. Hopefully FSU, Miami and Clemson join Virginia Tech as regular participants in the top 15 then maybe the 5 year "look in" improves the contract. That's on them, not the ACC.
Sometimes you have to look at yourself in the mirror.

Gotta think at soem point, if the SEC does go forward with it's own network, and the type of money it would produce, that VA Tech and NC State very well could be enticed. NC State really is in a position a bit similar to the A&M vs Texas issue. NC State would be in a good position, even if leaving the 3 NC schools, by being in the SEC, since it is such a big jump up from the ACC. Same goes for VA Tech. And for the SEC, really can see a huge benefit in adding VA, NC, Texas and Missouri over the span of a few years.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Seeing Virginia actually produce that sort of number despite inconsistent performance and a lot of irrelevancy shows just how strong inventory is within the ACC to certain programs. So what if Duke, UNC, UMD, or one of the many others don't perform well...people come to Charlottesville or travel with the Cavs to see these games. There is interest generated.

Where FSU rates condemns the Seminoles, not their conference. If Seminole fans don't want to travel to the Research Triangle/Tobacco Road, they needn't complain. It's clear UVA does and will, and the numbers reflect that.

I believe "reuniting" the old Big East will do wonders for a lot of these smaller programs. BC and Syracuse is going to be breath of fresh air. Pitt gets their old schedule back (they get PSU again soon). This is going to be pretty good.

Any further SEC expansion is going to fuel the debate of who becomes #16 if the Seminoles are on the board. So many people think it will naturally come from the ACC again. I think the Big XII is the real bleeder.

The difference in money between the ACC and SEC could change a lot of things. No doubt UNC and UVA prefer the ACC's strong academics but I think more and more that the SEC's cash will get them thinking. It's hard for me to believe that UNC will let their little brother NC State take in potentially 30 million from the SEC while they receive 17 million (much back loaded).
Same would apply for Virginia letting Virginia Tech go to the SEC. Virginia Tech and NCSU are the best football programs in their respected states but the SEC may prefer 2 more AAU schools giving them a new total of 6 AAU schools.

Then again, Virginia and North Carolina might just say we are going to the B1G with Duke and Maryland then the SEC would grab Tech and State.

The SEC wants to be in Carolina and Virginia. That's a lot of cable subscribers for the new SEC network. One estimate has North Carolina with 3.2 million cable subscribers and Virginia with 2.8 million. If the SEC can get $1 per month (B1G gets .70) from the cable companies, that's 72 million from those 2 states.
The only way that the SEC does not expand to those 2 states if the SEC believes that the Big XII is really gonna invite FSU and they decide they want to get the Big XII out of their footprint. Then only 1 of the 2 states gets in. Possible but unlikely.

NOTE: According to Clay Travis, the 12 team SEC had 20.8 cable subscribers, Texas A&M and Missouri added 9.5 million subscribers if you add Virginia and North Carolina's 6 million, that's 36.3 million. At a dollar a subscription, that brings the SEC Network $435.6 million per year. Split 50/50 with the network, that's 13.6 million per school. If the SEC can get $25 million from ESPN/CBS on their new extention, you are looking at 38.5 million per school. Now, compare that to the ACC's 17 million which would go down if FSU goes to the Big XII and I think you start to see why I think UNC may leave Duke.

Everyone seems to believe that the current model of CableTV channels paying big bucks to conferences, which depends on the current model of Cable TV surviving, will sustain. What happens with Internet Television, a la carte programming, etc. Will ESPN (as a live programming "channel") even be around in 15 years? (One could ask: Will football even be around, or as popular?). This feels a lot like when the Dodgers and Giants left New York to go to California for Pay Television ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_O'Malley ), among other reasons, in the 1950s (Pay Television wasn't viable until the late 1970s). Having a "channel" in a "market" makes little sense in a world where anyone can watch anything live. Who should be concerned about whether the Big 10 Network will be carried in a particular state or metro area. Anyone will access the programs from anywhere. There needs to be some gatekeeper for funding the coverage, but that can be done without TV networks, and that will change the economics enormously, which makes worrying about these networks at best transient.

I agree there is no stability here. This is what "Gales of Creative Destruction" are all about.

The most stability you could achieve is if the teams in a conference are all roughly equal, so no one is free-riding off the others, and no one is feeling like they are supporting the others. But that assumes that a club of 9, 10, 12, 14, or 16 schools can somehow maintain that level of no cross-subsidies for an extended period. The number of colleges may be roughly fixed (and this of course assumes colleges and universities are stable in a decade or two, and that is doubtful too), the number of permutations and combinations of those colleges is enormous.

Cable is playing the game hard. We all have asked ourselves: if we have 1 wire in our homes for internet, why does it have to be through a traditional cable company? Why dont' the internet only providers create their own resource for internet TV. And the answer always comes back to advertisers. For instance, time shifting doesn't count in the ratings. The record them, and people know who DVRs shows, who watches on Hulu, etc...but they dont' count for the overall ratings. It's a dinosaur industry that needs that big ole' meteor to hit the planet...but internet has not been that force. Look at hulu...they will be switching their model within months where you no longer will get free TV the day after, likely forcing the Hulu Plus model for hulu to continue. Internet provider companies...mostly run by cable companies...have the bandwidth quotas in place in many communities already, some specifically to cut back on people downloading large video files of TV and movies via torrents, etc.

I cut the cord years ago...have been a hulu and other means viewer of TV for 4 years now and haven't missed a beat. In many cases you can get the east coast feed of a show with the commercials edited out just 10 minutes after airing. So if you're on the west coast, you get to view something 2 and 1/2 hours before the west coasters with no commercials.

But sports are the last hope, and a powerful one, for the networks and cable companies.

Because they are live...very few want to watch a day old game.

I use MLB.tv, huge fan, get to watch Yankees games on YES anywhere in the world. Other leagues have similar options.And ESPN had ESPN3. For eSPN3, you still need to be a cable subscriber...there is no way to pay for ESPN3 without it to use only on a computer/internet TV/xbox, etc. Because their revenue is tied to subscriber rates they get from cable companies. Cable drives ESPNs business with other internet companies paying for the rights to provide ESPN3, hence driving up those internet service fees in the same model.

But the ideal situation would be for all the leagues to get together to create a sports TV app. Many would pay $150 a month for access to all MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, NCAA BB, NCAA FB games that are on TV. Instead, it's all done in weird packages, or ala carte plus the mandatory minimum package. So to get all sports games...the main driver of live TV for many, you need to spend a ton of money. So people don't. They pick and chose what sports. For me, it was the MLB package on DirectTV, and now via MLB.tv. I borrow a friends internet login for a ESPN friendly internet provider for ESPN3 for most college games. But CBS games, NBC, etc...I have to watch some crap stream via the old channelsurfing using some justin.tv feed. No fun.




As for football not being popular one day...I doubt it. Of the top 50 valued sports franchises in the WORLD, all NFL teams are on the list, even Jacksonville. Only a few MLB and NBA franchises, a few soccer (ManU #1 in world).

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

In theory, there is no reason why the internet should be a distant second to cable at this moment. There are many perceived reasons, but few concrete; and nothing is more concrete than resolving the issues/hesitations advertisers have with internet advertising. It was, and still is, A MESS to advertise online.

A reality is, in football, for some schools, there are no "third-tier" rights in certain years. Where the quibble even arises is when traditionally strong programs near no major market experience down-cycles and are left doing business with the other shlubs who are perpetually of no worth to broadcasters.

I thought that was sort of why the ACC didn't have to worry so much. If I'm in Charlotte, it shouldn't be a problem to find any of the Tobacco Road schools or Clemson on a TV set. In Richmond, I will see the Hokies and Cavaliers with ease. I guess the issue is, if I'm in Kansas City, will I find the Cyclones? Should I expect to?

CSNBBS MB thread discussing ACC VS SEC revenue distributions and "possible" future realignment impact at http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=572886

CSNBBS MB thread discussing tomorrow's FSU BOT meeting at http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=573401

If every school including Clemson and Florida State are truly happy and committed to the ACC there is one way to prove this and stop any future rumors of schools leaving the ACC. Every ACC school needs to sign the GOR to the ACC for the length of the current ACC TV contract.

Until the commitment is made by all ACC schools similar to the current 6 year Big 12 BOR and soon to be 13 year, there is no real commitment to the ACC. This is true regardless of how many times the BOT or Presidents of those schools make public statements to this effect we are commitment.

For example if the Big 12 share per school is 20 million per year and Florida State and Clemson sighed the GOR and bolted anyway to the Big 12, the Big 12 legally would have to pay the 20 million per year to the ACC and not to the particular school that left the ACC

Hey Clemson and Florida State it is time to sign over GOR or shut up about commitments to the ACC because talk is cheap and actions are much more revealing of true intentions.

Why would any outstanding school sign such? Few prominent schools would want to shut-off options or make it more costly if they ever decided to leave as circumstances can change quickly and unforseen events do happen. They sign these exit fee deals with their peers in mind, moreso than for themselves since departures will impacts the rest and may weaken the current conference.
The idea the ACC is suppose to be a feeder conference for the B12 was delusional and got shut-down by the named schools themselves, coupled with B12 not officially asking them. The B1G and the SEC are closer and more desirable, and where any departing ACC schools would look first if the need fell upon them. .

Sec03, just curious why are you so concerned about the ACC? Most SEC fans I know could care less about what goes on within the ACC.

Because this is the ACC thread on a Conference Realignment forum.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Yea so what.

My question for Sec02 was for having so much love for the ACC and hate for the Big 12?

The Big 12 is the conference providing some support to the SEC and not the other way around in the ACC balking against the favored BCS plan of the SEC.

SEC fans usually hate each other in the SEC must less supporting a rival conference is all I pointing out here.

Just curious is all! Why an SEC fan is likely to support the ACC at this time.