ACC AD Meetings - New Revenue Distribution Model?

[davesbrain]

It seems that uneven distribution of revenue based on success will become the new screaming reason for poor - biased officiating on behalf of tobacco road...

 

[bobongo]

Just one fools opinion.
Revenue distribtion will happen

Another fool's opinion:
Revenue distribution won't happen any time soon because with the GOR in place there is no reason for half the conference to vote themselves a smaller piece of the pie.
Maybe later, as we approach 2036, but by then Clemson and FSU (and hopefully Tech) will be ready to bolt, anyway.

 

[roadkill]

Another fool's opinion:
Revenue distribution won't happen any time soon because with the GOR in place there is no reason for half the conference to vote themselves a smaller piece of the pie.
Maybe later, as we approach 2036, but by then Clemson and FSU (and hopefully Tech) will be ready to bolt, anyway.

You might be right. But I would expect tying post-season revenue to the teams that earn it is attractive to enough of the conference to get the rules changed. Not just the teams that expect to regularly make the football playoffs, but also those teams that are frequent participants in the NCAA tourney. Add in a few more schools that see it as a performance incentive, and you have enough votes. The holdouts would have to make an inherently selfish argument that they want something they didn't earn.

 

[g0lftime]

So most recent payout was roughly $40M per team. However some were more than others. So how is the current formula for members. ND is obviously different. Why did some get more than others unless the league is already rewarding teams differently. Do we get less because we field fewer teams?

 

[slugboy]

So most recent payout was roughly $40M per team. However some were more than others. So how is the current formula for members. ND is obviously different. Why did some get more than others unless the league is already rewarding teams differently. Do we get less because we field fewer teams?

I didn’t see anything published as to how revenue is allocated, but there was some discussion about uneven distribution even last year: https://richmond.com/sports/college...cle_7d4520d2-9f5e-597d-938a-a01fb21f4ac4.html

Men’s football is 75% of revenue, and men’s basketball is the majority of the remainder. I doubt fielding lacrosse and golf teams makes a substantial dent in distributions

 

[LT 1967]

ACC Board of Directors support new Distribution Plan giving more Money to CFP and NCAA participants. Perhaps this is old news to our members. I just saw a scroll on ACC Network.

 

[LT 1967]

This may be old news to the members, but I just noticed a scroll on the ACC network that the ACC Board of Directors support(Approved) a new Revenue Distribution Plan
giving more money to Participants in the CFP and NCAA tournament.

 

[orientalnc]

This may be old news to the members, but I just noticed a scroll on the ACC network that the ACC Board of Directors support(Approved) a new Revenue Distribution Plan
giving more money to Participants in the CFP and NCAA tournament.

I saw that also. No details yet.

 

[LT 1967]

I saw that also. No details yet.

I noticed a couple of articles that said ESPN had estimated an additional 10 to15 million for the "schools" that participate.

I assume they meant per school, but the wording was a little vague.

 

[CEB]

I noticed a couple of articles that said ESPN had estimated an additional 10 to15 million for the "schools" that participate.

I assume they meant per school, but the wording was a little vague.

The rumor / speculation / inference is that the additional money generated for post season tournaments IS INDEED going to be kept by the schools that participate in the post season tournament. Essentially, the base deal is split equally amongst members and when GT wins the ACC and goes to the CFP, we keep the additional CFP money for ourselves.

 

[TooTall]

ACC Board of Directors support new Distribution Plan giving more Money to CFP and NCAA participants. Perhaps this is old news to our members. I just saw a scroll on ACC Network.

They've agreed to a higher payout for those that achieve post season success. BUT they have not figured out any of the details yet.

 

[slugboy]

They've agreed to a higher payout for those that achieve post season success. BUT they have not figured out any of the details yet.

this article doesn’t have the details, but the ACC is announcing this news as if they have worked out the model already.

If they haven’t, it wouldn’t be the first time an organization overstated an announcement.

ACC approves new revenue distribution model

The ACC board of directors endorsed a new revenue distribution model Wednesday that will reward success based on postseason performance.

www.espn.com

 

[g0lftime]

this article doesn’t have the details, but the ACC is announcing this news as if they have worked out the model already.

If they haven’t, it wouldn’t be the first time an organization overstated an announcement.

ACC approves new revenue distribution model

The ACC board of directors endorsed a new revenue distribution model Wednesday that will reward success based on postseason performance.

www.espn.com

[/QUOTE
I am surprised the members of the conference don't have to vote to approve this proposal. My opinion is to let FSU leave the ACC and give up their media rights for 13 years. They sure have a bloated opinion of their own relevance. Why is the conference willing to appease a few schools that already generate more revenue than others with attendance and merchandise sales. Just creates more division within the conference. The B1G is finding their tv negotiations aren't going as swimmingly as they thought.

 

[g0lftime]

Good source was that vote in Charlotte on post season ACC distribution that GT voted no. Only one other school voted no. It's done. It was pushed hard by Clemson and FSU. I guess others figured they would be bowling and playing in BB tournament. My personal view is that this is very divisive among members and it is a short sided view. Clemson and FSU will want more and more concessions. It's a $30M difference and $3M doesn't close the gap.

 

[CEB]

Good source was that vote in Charlotte on post season ACC distribution that GT voted no. Only one other school voted no. It's done. It was pushed hard by Clemson and FSU. I guess others figured they would be bowling and playing in BB tournament. My personal view is that this is very divisive among members and it is a short sided view. Clemson and FSU will want more and more concessions. It's a $30M difference and $3M doesn't close the gap.

Interesting... I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that GT voted “no” but I also wouldn’t take that as a concession of weakness.
It’s certainly divisive if revenue distribution is not equal, and I think it will have a net negative effect going forward. The worms won’t go back in that can.
The post season dollars typically don’t amount to a lot when divided 15 ways, so it’s a much bigger gain for the winner than it is a loss for the rest. That said, it’s hard to know how media dollars will factor into post season going forward with all of the playoff changes they are tossing around.

 

[slugboy]

Interesting... I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that GT voted “no” but I also wouldn’t take that as a concession of weakness.
It’s certainly divisive if revenue distribution is not equal, and I think it will have a net negative effect going forward. The worms won’t go back in that can.
The post season dollars typically don’t amount to a lot when divided 15 ways, so it’s a much bigger gain for the winner than it is a loss for the rest. That said, it’s hard to know how media dollars will factor into post season going forward with all of the playoff changes they are tossing around.

I’d be more likely to consider voting “yes” to be a sign of weakness, for the reasons in your second sentence. Unequal revenue distribution didn’t keep Texas in the B12, and it didn’t make Texas happy, and it didn’t make the other schools happy either.

 

[Techster]

I’d be more likely to consider voting “yes” to be a sign of weakness, for the reasons in your second sentence. Unequal revenue distribution didn’t keep Texas in the B12, and it didn’t make Texas happy, and it didn’t make the other schools happy either.

I think everyone understands ACC members are just playing the waiting game. The ACC as we know it is on borrowed time. When the clock hits midnight (in 2036), the Expansion Portal will be open and the B1G and SEC will start picking off the valuable teams, and the ACC and its remaining teams will have an existential crises on their hands.

Until then, ACC teams (especially the ones perceived to be the "big brands") will extract as much money as they can bully from ACC and its members until it's time to move onto the B1G or SEC.

 

[stinger 1957]

I think everyone understands ACC members are just playing the waiting game. The ACC as we know it is on borrowed time. When the clock hits midnight (in 2036), the Expansion Portal will be open and the B1G and SEC will start picking off the valuable teams, and the ACC and its remaining teams will have an existential crises on their hands.

Until then, ACC teams (especially the ones perceived to be the "big brands") will extract as much money as they can bully from ACC and its members until it's time to move onto the B1G or SEC.

By 2036 the ACC will be irrelevant, so it won't really matter. IMO since it's agreement by the ACC membership the GOR was the eventual death of the ACC. If it only had say 4-5 yrs to run maybe not but 13 yrs, ACC has very little meaning on the National college sports scene in 2035.

 

[g0lftime]

By 2036 the ACC will be irrelevant, so it won't really matter. IMO since it's agreement by the ACC membership the GOR was the eventual death of the ACC. If it only had say 4-5 yrs to run maybe not but 13 yrs, ACC has very little meaning on the National college sports scene in 2035.

It's more the 2035 tv deal than the GOR. It is just too far out before a new deal can be negotiated.

 

[stinger 1957]

Not sure what discussion this belongs under, but makes some interesting points regarding CFB and realignment, be interested in others thoughts on what he's saying.