Swofford confident ACC Network will close revenue gap with SEC, Big Ten

[CuseJacket]

During the fiscal year that ended in 2015, the ACC reported more than $403 million in revenue, an increase of 33.3 percent from the previous year and an increase of more than 80 percent over three years.
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/unc-now/article151306102.html


Also from Syracuse.com

The $22.8 million is a slight dip from last year, when SU received $24 million from the ACC.

Syracuse's payout ranked third-to-last in the conference ahead of Georgia Tech and Wake Forest. Clemson received the most money at $27.9 million.

http://www.syracuse.com/orangesport...m_acc_in_2016_acc_ranks_last_in_power-fi.html

 

[lauraee]

During the fiscal year that ended in 2015, the ACC reported more than $403 million in revenue, an increase of 33.3 percent from the previous year and an increase of more than 80 percent over three years.
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/unc-now/article151306102.html


Also from Syracuse.com


http://www.syracuse.com/orangesport...m_acc_in_2016_acc_ranks_last_in_power-fi.html

How come tech is at the bottom with wake in acc revenue?

 

[DH9387]

How come tech is at the bottom with wake in acc revenue?

The main reason is most likely due to the fact that we field the fewest total sports teams in the conference. We compete in 17 varsity sports while UNC leads with 27. Duke (26), BC (25), UVA (25), and ND (24) make up the rest of the top 5. If we added women's golf (which seems like a no brainer since we already compete in men's golf) along with men's and women's soccer and lacrosse, that would bring us to 22 and put us in the top half of the conference (T - 7th). Obviously adding varsity sports right now is a bit of a pipe dream (both for financial reasons within the athletic department and the fact that we would have to procure a significant amount of land to field soccer and lacrosse), but it could be something that we look into if our athletic revenue continues to grow as Swofford and ESPN predict. I personally have wanted GT to start buying properties in home park with the hope of one day expanding the campus northward past 10th St. If this were ever to happen, maybe they could add fields for some new sports on that newly procured property.

 

[4shotB]

I may be missing the big picture but why add sports to increase revenue when those sports add disproportionate amount of costs? In short, revenue may increase but costs increase at a higher rate. Is there tangible, bottom line ROI (simply beyond meeting federal requirements for opportunities) to adding "minor" sports. Or is this something that simply would be 'fun" to do?

 

[JacketFromUGA]

I may be missing the big picture but why add sports to increase revenue when those sports add disproportionate amount of costs? In short, revenue may increase but costs increase at a higher rate. Is there tangible, bottom line ROI (simply beyond meeting federal requirements for opportunities) to adding "minor" sports. Or is this something that simply would be 'fun" to do?

this line of thinking leads one to believe that the point of GT Athletics is to make money.

 

[4shotB]

I know there are some people who think that having financial discussions taints the "purity' of "amateur athletics" but like it or not, prudent management of one's resources is a necessary and vital component of athletics at the varsity level.

 

[DH9387]

I may be missing the big picture but why add sports to increase revenue when those sports add disproportionate amount of costs? In short, revenue may increase but costs increase at a higher rate. Is there tangible, bottom line ROI (simply beyond meeting federal requirements for opportunities) to adding "minor" sports. Or is this something that simply would be 'fun" to do?

You are correct. For most schools, these sports simply lose the athletic department money. And although I do want them due to the "fun to do" factor, I also think that adding sports, especially soccer and lacrosse, will help the Institute in the long run. Soccer is exploding in America, especially Atlanta (see ATL UTD and their burgeoning youth academy), and I believe that it could genuinely be a money making sport in the not too distant future. As for lacrosse, our club team is already top 5 in the nation and it just seems like a sport that goes hand in hand with a lot of the types of students that we are bringing in now and a lot of the schools that we want to be seen on the same level as.

 

[Blumpkin Souffle]

You are correct. For most schools, these sports simply lose the athletic department money. And although I do want them due to the "fun to do" factor, I also think that adding sports, especially soccer and lacrosse, will help the Institute in the long run. Soccer is exploding in America, especially Atlanta (see ATL UTD and their burgeoning youth academy), and I believe that it could genuinely be a money making sport in the not too distant future. As for lacrosse, our club team is already top 5 in the nation and it just seems like a sport that goes hand in hand with a lot of the types of students that we are bringing in now and a lot of the schools that we want to be seen on the same level as.

One thing to keep in mind when adding any sport is you also have to add an equivalent one for women because of Title 9. So even if men's soccer might one day be profitable it might still end up being a net expenditure when coupled with a women's team.

 

[augustabuzz]

How come tech is at the bottom with wake in acc revenue?

We didn't play in a bowl game that year, so we didn't get expense money.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

We didn't play in a bowl game that year, so we didn't get expense money.

Not playing in a bowl game also means we did not lose $ going to a bowl game.

As to another posters question about GT being toward the bottom with WFU in revenue - the obvious answer is Calculus. If adding additional sports increased revenue then we would just need to start adding other teams. Do not think it works that way.

 

[augustabuzz]

Not playing in a bowl game also means we did not lose $ going to a bowl game.

As to another posters question about GT being toward the bottom with WFU in revenue - the obvious answer is Calculus. If adding additional sports increased revenue then we would just need to start adding other teams. Do not think it works that way.

Yes, it's The Hill's fault we didn't receive expense money for missing a bowl.

 

[GTFLETCH]

Georgia Tech’s payout from the conference fell to a conference-low $22.6 million from the $27.4 million it received in fiscal 2015. Georgia Tech played in the Orange Bowl following the 2014 season; we did not play in a bowl game after the 2015 season.

The ACC ended up at low end of the Power 5 in per-school distributions for fiscal 2016.

The SEC's ranged from $41.9 million to $39.1 million.
The Big Ten gave about $34.8 million to each of its 11 longest-standing members, and smaller amounts to Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers.
The Big 12's ranged from $28.9 million to $28 million.
The Pac-12's were about $28.7 million per school.

The ACC's average distribution to its 14 full-member schools was $23.8 million to $26.2 million. Partial member Notre Dame received $4.3 million.

ACC SHARES FOR 2015-16
Clemson: $27.9M
Florida State: $24.8M
North Carolina: $24.2M
Duke: $24.0M
N.C. State: $23.9M
Virginia Tech: $23.8M
Louisville: $23.7M
Miami: $23.7M
Pittsburgh: $23.6M
Virginia: $22.9M
Boston College: $22.8M
Syracuse: $22.8M
Wake Forest: $22.6M
Georgia Tech: $22.6M

Notre Dame: $4.3M

The ACC also paid its institutions more than $13.2 million in championship reimbursements, $900,000 per school not shown on the tax return.

Link
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...-post.html

 

[GTFLETCH]

Georgia Tech Shares from 2012 to present..

2015-16/GT - 22.6M
2014-15 /GT- 27.4M
2013-14/GT - 19.2M
2012-13/GT - 17.7M

My Take Away..
Despite the decrease in 2015-16, the ACC received more revenue from its television payout, up $9 million to $226 million. It also received $85.9 million in bowl payouts, and $20.6 million from the NCAA basketball tournament (also an increase). So I would expect the 2016-17 Monies to be a bump!! Why?? Each ACC team should get a 3M bump for the ACC network being delayed to 2019 and we had the OB back and Clemson won the Natty... The question would be how much will Georgia Tech's share be worth???

Also the OB contract needs to be reworked!!

 

[GTFLETCH]

ACC Network Could Be Worth $15 Million Per Team, According To Florida State’s AD

Link
http://thespun.com/acc/florida-state/acc-network-revenue-launch-payout

 

[GTFLETCH]

How much has ACC revenue grown in the last 9 years? How much is it expected to grow in the next 5? Here are your answers courtesy of David Teel and Hokie Mark's ACC Blog...

Recent ACC Revenue Growth
2007-08 $11.8M
2008-09 $13.6M
2009-10 $11.7M
2010-11 $12.3M
2011-12 $16.9M
2012-13 $17.6M
2013-14 $19.3M
2014-15 $26.2M
2015-16 $23.8M
* Average full share, not including partial ACC member Notre Dame.


Projected ACC Revenue Growth
2016-17 $24.1M
2017-18 $27.6M
2018-19 $27.6M
2019-20 $32.8M
2020-21 $38.2M

BOTTOM LINE: ACC average share payouts have more than doubled in the last 9 years, and I expect them to almost double again in the next 5, thanks to the ACC Network launch in 2019. While this won't match the revenues enjoyed by teams in the Big Ten or the SEC, it will put ACC teams in the same ballpark (I'd estimate it will ultimately settle in at about 85% of what those teams will be making).

LINK
http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2017/05/acc-revenue-growth-2007-21.html

 

[GTFLETCH]

Georgia Tech Shares from 2012 to present..

2015-16/GT - 22.6M
2014-15 /GT- 27.4M
2013-14/GT - 19.2M
2012-13/GT - 17.7M

The distribution to GT from the ACC for 16-17 is $27.8 million.... WOW.. So with the ACC Network in 2019 the ACC should be racking in some dough.

Link
http://www.myajc.com/sports/college...eases-athletic-budget/n7kerJgMZeSowrJeABDStM/

 

[takethepoints]

You are correct. For most schools, these sports simply lose the athletic department money. And although I do want them due to the "fun to do" factor, I also think that adding sports, especially soccer and lacrosse, will help the Institute in the long run. Soccer is exploding in America, especially Atlanta (see ATL UTD and their burgeoning youth academy), and I believe that it could genuinely be a money making sport in the not too distant future. As for lacrosse, our club team is already top 5 in the nation and it just seems like a sport that goes hand in hand with a lot of the types of students that we are bringing in now and a lot of the schools that we want to be seen on the same level as.

I agree that soccer and lacrosse could and probably will recover costs if established. Koolaid is right; soccer is growing like a weed in the US. It isn't simply demographic changes either; football is being seen more and more - correctly, I might add - as a dangerous sport. Result = parents are more reluctant to allow their kids to play football and more likely to push soccer. Lacrosse is a different story. Here I think the main thing would be that fielding a team increases the exposure of the institution nationwide. Lacrosse isn't that big down here, but, in the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and up North, it is huuuge. If Tech fields teams that compete in the NCAAs - and I bet we would - a lot of potential students and athletes will take notice. That can't hurt.

I say do it if the money situation improves as much as some speculate above.

 

[GTHomer]

I agree that soccer and lacrosse could and probably will recover costs if established. Koolaid is right; soccer is growing like a weed in the US. It isn't simply demographic changes either; football is being seen more and more - correctly, I might add - as a dangerous sport. Result = parents are more reluctant to allow their kids to play football and more likely to push soccer. Lacrosse is a different story. Here I think the main thing would be that fielding a team increases the exposure of the institution nationwide. Lacrosse isn't that big down here, but, in the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and up North, it is huuuge. If Tech fields teams that compete in the NCAAs - and I bet we would - a lot of potential students and athletes will take notice. That can't hurt.

I say do it if the money situation improves as much as some speculate above.

I like this idea but wouldn't we need to establish a women's team in both sports also due to Title IX? That wouldn't be a bad thing. We you consider the youth sport talent for both sports in the metro ATL area, it could only result in a positive trickle effect the all other sports also due to a GT presence at more schools.

 

[Skeptic]

During the fiscal year that ended in 2015, the ACC reported more than $403 million in revenue, an increase of 33.3 percent from the previous year and an increase of more than 80 percent over three years.
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/unc-now/article151306102.html


Also from Syracuse.com


http://www.syracuse.com/orangesport...m_acc_in_2016_acc_ranks_last_in_power-fi.html

Yeah, well. Another way to report this is that in the last calendar year the Atlantic Coast Conference has had one hall of fame basketball coach suspended and the program punished for recruiting violations; another now facing the the draconian but well-earned penalty of forfeiting a NC, a Final Four appearance, and as of yet undetermined number of wins over three seasons for the sordid affair of hiring prostitutes for its 18-year-old recruits, and a third waiting for the shoe to drop for passing grades in non-existent classes or classes that never met, and in each instance the head ball coach swearing on a stack of embarrassed Bibles that he knew nothing, nothing, about any of it, a greater sin than actually owning up to knowing. All of this is caused by the root financial problem. A little humility is called for, and maybe -- dare we say? -- Swofford's resignation as ACC commissioner as his interest is purely cash.

 

[takethepoints]

I like this idea but wouldn't we need to establish a women's team in both sports also due to Title IX? That wouldn't be a bad thing. We you consider the youth sport talent for both sports in the metro ATL area, it could only result in a positive trickle effect the all other sports also due to a GT presence at more schools.

Yes, I took establishment of women's teams into consideration. The main thing is that, aside from amortization of the land for the fields and coaching costs, these are fairly cheap sports to field. Result = you don't have to fill Grant Field to get to balance on the books. This one reason that so many small colleges have these sports; they're cheap. And, as you say, putting these teams out there would widen the presence of Tech in high schools all over the place.