ACC’s record revenue surpasses $300 million

[CuseJacket]

For the sake of comparisons, here is how the conference revenue share numbers stack up so far for the most recent year (Big Ten data is pending);

1. $435 million – SEC

2. $302 million – ACC

3. $254 million – Pac-12 (source)

4. $252 million – Big 12

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/12/accs-record-revenue-surpasses-300-million/

 

[ATL1]

435 Million
It's hard to justify not providing the kids something.

 

[00Burdell]

435 Million
It's hard to justify not providing the kids something.

coughtitleIXcough

 

[Buzztheirazz]

Add in ticket sales, concessions and most importantly merchandising and there's plenty in the coffers for the kids in the major revenue sports to be getting much more. Think of what professionals are getting paid. But then again...bleeding heart....what's fair?!

 

[dressedcheeseside]

They already get paid, it's called a tax free scholarship. If they want to get paid, get a job.

 

[mmbt0ne]

They already get paid, it's called a tax free scholarship. If they want to get paid, get a job.

You realize there are rules stopping this, right? The NCAA limits how much student athletes can earn in an academic year of private employment ($2,000)

 

[JorgeJonas]

They already get paid, it's called a tax free scholarship. If they want to get paid, get a job.

If you think they're worth less than the value of their scholarship, then remove the restrictions, since they won't make any more. If you think they're worth more than their scholarship, then I, for the life of me, can't understand why anyone would begrudge them getting paid what they're worth. We all expect the same.

 

[Ibeeballin]

coughtitleIXcough

There are cases that would overrule Title IX on the grounds of there doesn't have to be equal financial distribution if there those particular sports are not bring in the same revenue

 

[Animal02]

If you think they're worth less than the value of their scholarship, then remove the restrictions, since they won't make any more. If you think they're worth more than their scholarship, then I, for the life of me, can't understand why anyone would begrudge them getting paid what they're worth. We all expect the same.

Then let the NFL provide a minor league and let the kids who think they are worth it go for it. I don't see the baseball players complaining....many if not most passed on the minors

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

This whole argument of paying the players smacks of redistribution of wealth. For one thing guys, revenue does not equal profit. And that's the bottom line we should be looking at. For another, what is the current cost of a degree at Tech assuming 5 years to earn it? I haven't looked that number up but I'd imagine it's fairly substantial nowadays. It's even more for out of state kids. On a final note, even if that number was profit....no one is forcing players to play. It's voluntary. And players are free to opt out. If elite players did opt out you can bet the NFL would set up a minor league.

 

[augustabuzz]

For the sake of comparisons, here is how the conference revenue share numbers stack up so far for the most recent year (Big Ten data is pending);

1. $435 million – SEC

2. $302 million – ACC

3. $254 million – Pac-12 (source)

4. $252 million – Big 12

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/12/accs-record-revenue-surpasses-300-million/

Are you sure this is not last year's number for the ACC? For example, I know we should have more bowl revenue this year (2015).

 

[cyptomcat]

Are you sure this is not last year's number for the ACC? For example, I know we should have more bowl revenue this year (2015).

it does say 2013-2014, so 2015 bowl season is probably not included

1. $435 million – SEC

2. $302 million – ACC

3. $254 million – Pac-12 (source)

4. $252 million – Big 12

per team with those numbers:
$31.07 million - SEC
$25.20 million - Big 12
$21.57 million - ACC*
$21.17 million - PAC 12

* used 14 teams, since ND is not a full member, and because I am biased

 

[33jacket]

There are cases that would overrule Title IX on the grounds of there doesn't have to be equal financial distribution if there those particular sports are not bring in the same revenue

yeah but I think what he is saying...is many/most of these schools that make money in football in the SEC lets say, have to use it to fund scholarships, facilities, etc to all the non money making women's sports that just lose money, but the school has to have them for ratio purposes to keep football around etc due to title IX. Which is why, even though the numbers look great...they simply go straight to deal with debt from other programs

its not just distributions, its about keeping the other programs affloat since they lose money every year....and the only way to do that is where you profit...in this case football. Now, obviously, many schools that are not in the big 5 lose money in football...but we are just referring to the SEC lets say in this case....

 

[dressedcheeseside]

yeah but I think what he is saying...is many/most of these schools that make money in football in the SEC lets say, have to use it to fund scholarships, facilities, etc to all the non money making women's sports that just lose money, but the school has to have them for ratio purposes to keep football around etc due to title IX. Which is why, even though the numbers look great...they simply go straight to deal with debt from other programs

its not just distributions, its about keeping the other programs affloat since they lose money every year....and the only way to do that is where you profit...in this case football. Now, obviously, many schools that are not in the big 5 lose money in football...but we are just referring to the SEC lets say in this case....

Why do college sports have to make money anyway? It's just another part of the schools operating expenses. The school brings in money through various streams then they decide how to spend that money. If they don't want to spend it on sports, then don't.

 

[33jacket]

Why do college sports have to make money anyway? It's just another part of the schools operating expenses. The school brings in money through various streams then they decide how to spend that money. If they don't want to spend it on sports, then don't.

let me state it this way. Making money means expansion, facilities improvements...which means you spend it, have debt then break even. I am referring to making $ on top of normal day to day operating expenses. This are overhead, utilities, scholarships, staff, facilities maintenance, equipment for all sports, not just football. Now, you add it making $ on top of that, it allows for facilities upgrades, adding indoor facilities etc etc. If all you did was bring in enough to maintain....then it would be hard to justify adding since you would "never pay it off". Sure donations help...hence why we fundraise too.

So in this sense, AA's want to show good revenue stream and making money on top of operations.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

let me state it this way. Making money means expansion, facilities improvements...which means you spend it, have debt then break even. I am referring to making $ on top of normal day to day operating expenses. This are overhead, utilities, scholarships, staff, facilities maintenance, equipment for all sports, not just football. Now, you add it making $ on top of that, it allows for facilities upgrades, adding indoor facilities etc etc. If all you did was bring in enough to maintain....then it would be hard to justify adding since you would "never pay it off". Sure donations help...hence why we fundraise too.

So in this sense, AA's want to show good revenue stream and making money on top of operations.

I guess my point is that sports have an intrinsic value outside of producing profit. Sports that don't make money should not be demeaned because of it. I rowed in college and we didn't make a dime doing it. In fact, my wallet and my gpa both suffered because of it. However, my college experience would have been far less meaningful without it.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

For the sake of comparisons, here is how the conference revenue share numbers stack up so far for the most recent year (Big Ten data is pending);

1. $435 million – SEC

2. $302 million – ACC

3. $254 million – Pac-12 (source)



4. $252 million – Big 12

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/12/accs-record-revenue-surpasses-300-million/

Does this include licensed apparel and merchandising for each school?

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

I guess my point is that sports have an intrinsic value outside of producing profit. Sports that don't make money should not be demeaned because of it. I rowed in college and we didn't make a dime doing it. In fact, my wallet and my gpa both suffered because of it. However, my college experience would have been far less meaningful without it.

Lacrosse here. I agree.

 

[33jacket]

I guess my point is that sports have an intrinsic value outside of producing profit. Sports that don't make money should not be demeaned because of it. I rowed in college and we didn't make a dime doing it. In fact, my wallet and my gpa both suffered because of it. However, my college experience would have been far less meaningful without it.

oh. The intrinsic true value is the opportunity for kids to get scholarships as well....but u need money to do that....otherwise lets just all move to club sports....

 

[JorgeJonas]

This whole argument of paying the players smacks of redistribution of wealth. For one thing guys, revenue does not equal profit. And that's the bottom line we should be looking at. For another, what is the current cost of a degree at Tech assuming 5 years to earn it? I haven't looked that number up but I'd imagine it's fairly substantial nowadays. It's even more for out of state kids. On a final note, even if that number was profit....no one is forcing players to play. It's voluntary. And players are free to opt out. If elite players did opt out you can bet the NFL would set up a minor league.

Yes, it would be a redistribution of wealth ... in the direction the market demands. Again, if they aren't worth more than their scholarship, then why would anyone object to eliminating the rules capping what they can make and the means of payment? As for the revenue/profit line, that's also accurate. I would question whether a school would spend money on waterfalls or million dollar coordinators if their player expenses were more market based, though. It's almost like they're trying to make their top line expenses greater to reduce their bottom line profit, or something. Lastly, regarding an NFL minor league, that's deflecting. It doesn't exist, and its absence is not a reason for the failure to allow a player to realize his/her monetary value.

Of course, none of this has to be so black and white. There could be a state where players are allowed to have scholarship or get paid directly, leaving them to pay their tuition and fees, or there could be the Olympic model, where Justin Thomas gets his scholarship from the school and receives payment from Jim Ellis Honda to put his face on a billboard or ten.