|
Replies: 54
| visibility 1
|
110%er [7598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15482
Joined: 2/2/01
|
17 mil per team per year in new deal
May 9, 2012, 2:41 PM
|
|
should have been 21. Extended to 15 years. Need to add ND and one other to get the better $ in the ACC
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1053]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1741
Joined: 5/28/06
|
Re: 17 mil per team per year in new deal
May 9, 2012, 2:43 PM
|
|
until the other conferences renegotiate their contracts for higher values
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15482
Joined: 2/2/01
|
just underlines the fact that they screwed up with the last
May 9, 2012, 2:43 PM
|
|
contract inked- should have negotiated with NBC/Fox etc. after short term deal that got them past when other conferences signed
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73570]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
how much was it before?***
May 9, 2012, 2:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15482
Joined: 2/2/01
|
13***
May 9, 2012, 2:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60330]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42609
Joined: 11/30/98
|
oh boy..........Friday ACC football contests
May 9, 2012, 2:48 PM
|
|
"three Friday ACC football contests annually which will include a standing commitment from Boston College and Syracuse to each host one game as well as an afternoon or evening game on Thanksgiving Friday. "
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
Re: oh boy..........Friday ACC football contests
May 9, 2012, 2:51 PM
|
|
WOW!! we pushed Conf USA out to that!! LMAO
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1210]
TigerPulse: 63%
Posts: 3928
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Didnt
May 9, 2012, 7:12 PM
|
|
lsu and arkansas use to play on fri after thanksgiving
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [0]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 35
Joined: 4/9/04
|
I am hearing there are 5 year look ins
May 9, 2012, 8:29 PM
|
|
Which would allow us to renegotiatawed we go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15482
Joined: 2/2/01
|
local radio was saying a release said Pitt and Syracuse on
May 9, 2012, 2:57 PM
[ in reply to oh boy..........Friday ACC football contests ] |
|
Fridays-- which would make more sense. BC and Syracuse on Friday would be BS as both are in our division. That needs to be split. Pitt and Syracuse I belive have already been playing some Fridays in BE which would also make more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
BC and Syracuse hosting Friday night games makes sense ...
May 9, 2012, 3:10 PM
[ in reply to oh boy..........Friday ACC football contests ] |
|
A lot of high school ball is played on Saturdays up there. I really don't care if they play their games on Sundays or Mondays as long as the check clears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19210]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14906
Joined: 12/11/04
|
ACC Friday at Noon ! Woo Hoo ! Woo Hoo, Hoo Hoo !
May 9, 2012, 3:16 PM
[ in reply to oh boy..........Friday ACC football contests ] |
|
I think I have just exposed all that is evil now in the world of Clemson football in the subject above, not including the Coots of course.
1. The ACC in general.
2. Much hated Noon games.
3. The much more hated Woo Hoo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
Re: 17 mil per team per year in new deal
May 9, 2012, 2:50 PM
|
|
how does this look compared to $30 mil from the BiG 12?????
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4960]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: 17 mil per team per year in new deal
May 9, 2012, 2:56 PM
|
|
The rumors are the the Big 12 will get 30M if they add more teams. Right now the Big 12 is expected to get 20M per team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15482
Joined: 2/2/01
|
which is why ACC should have gone to arbitration. They
May 9, 2012, 3:00 PM
|
|
should have never signed a contract that didn't open back up to all networks bidding or ability to establish own network if teams were added also. Arbitration should have gotten ACC above/at Big 12/Pac 10 level. There is viewership proof published that ACC #s are higher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15482
Joined: 2/2/01
|
ND contract with NBC ends in 2015 I believe, I'm starting
May 9, 2012, 3:04 PM
|
|
wonder if ND to ACC will happen then-- I think ESPN wants this but I think NBC will go to the mat for them and at the next open bid opportunity for a BCS confernece which appears to be the Big 10.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
NBC pays ND $15 million/year. They don't have to increase
May 9, 2012, 3:15 PM
|
|
the ND contract much to surpass the new ACC deal. And NBC says they are not going to lose Notre Dame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
Pathetic. SEC teams already get $17.3 million. And Slive
May 9, 2012, 3:10 PM
|
|
is currently in the midst of renegotiating their deals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
You do understand that the ACC will renegotiate again after
May 9, 2012, 3:29 PM
|
|
the new SEC and new Big 12 deals are done? This is simply how it works. I happen to think netting an additional $4M per year per school is pretty dang good simply for adding Pitt and Syracuse. The extra $4M is just gravy until the landscape changes again with a new round of renegotiations led by the SEC.
Besides, do you think that the ACC contract should be worth as much as the SEC contract? I don't. Would Clemson be better off in the SEC? quite possibly. It is a moot point because we arent going to be invited to join the SEC. We just don't bring anything to the tv contract renegotiating table. That's all conference expansion is about - television market share. We could go 12-0 and sell out every game with 82k in the stands and it wouldn't net the SEC anything at the table. It's nothing personal, it's just geography.
As far as the Big 12 goes, the ONLY reason they are interested in us is for the new television markets. The ONLY reason we are even thinking about them is money. Obviously, we would gross a whole lot more revenue in the Big 12. You better believe that the university has bean counters cranking out projected nets as we post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7963
Joined: 2/27/02
|
The ACC can't renegotiate unless they expand again***
May 9, 2012, 3:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
Bingo.***
May 9, 2012, 3:35 PM
|
|
***
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
False
May 9, 2012, 3:38 PM
[ in reply to The ACC can't renegotiate unless they expand again*** ] |
|
The ACC may not be guaranteed a renegotiated contract unless it expands, but that doesn't mean the parties won't be back at the table long before 2027. I would be shocked if there is not a new contract in place by 2017, 2020 at the absolute latest. IF the ACC were to expand, the renegotiations would commence immediately as a matter of right. The only way that ESPN would let the ACC go past 2020 without a new contract is if they didn't want our business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
That is not in the current contract. And I have not read
May 9, 2012, 3:40 PM
|
|
that being in this new contract. If it is, post a link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
Let me rephrase. Any contract in any profession can always
May 9, 2012, 3:43 PM
|
|
be redone. But, it takes both parties to agree to it, unless there's a clause specifying a requirement. You can't redo a bad deal just because you find out later that it is a bad deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
Actually - that IS my point. ESPN would have every right
May 9, 2012, 3:48 PM
|
|
NOT to renegotiate with the ACC if the ACC does not expand. But, it would be foolish for them to exercise that right unless they want to be done with the ACC.
Contracts are routinely renegotiated in every profession by mutual assent of the parties. You don't have to have a contract provision allowing renegotiation to be able to renegotiate - in fact I don't know why you would put such a provision in most contracts (the current expansion fever among athletic conferences may be the exception).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
But, that's not unique to the ACC. That's available to all
May 9, 2012, 3:52 PM
|
|
conferences. The point is that we will be starting at less than what SEC teams get annually, even BEFORE the SEC renegotiates its own contracts. That's not good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
Exactly...
May 9, 2012, 4:02 PM
|
|
The point is we are not in the SEC, have never been invited to be in the SEC, and most likely (due to geography) will never be invited to join the SEC. The only way it was going to happen was if the SEC went for market concentration and brought in Clemson, Ga Tech, Florida State and Miami - completely ejecting the ACC from Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. When the SEC decided that expanding into Kansas City, St. Louis, Dallas and Houston was better than owning Atlanta, Miami, Tampa, and Jacksonville, Clemson's fate with the SEC was probably sealed.
So, if we are not going to be in the SEC, forget about the SEC. We are in the ACC and might well remain in the ACC. The ACC added Pitt and Syracuse whether we wanted them to or not. The reason they were added was their television markets (Pittsburg, Philadelphia, several markets in Upstate NY and a small piece of the Big Prize - the NYC market. An additional $4M a year for the next few years is a pretty good deal in my book. The comparison is not with the SEC, the comparison is with what we had without Pitt and Syracuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
I guess whatever the SEC gets will be for the next 4 years
May 9, 2012, 4:30 PM
|
|
or so as well, until they go even higher from where their current renegotiations lead them too. I'm just afraid that their current renegotiations is going to put SCAR way, way well ahead of us in TV revenue; even further ahead than they are right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
That's a very likely scenario ...
May 9, 2012, 4:50 PM
|
|
and a legitimate concern re: SCAR. Let's face it being in over your head in a power conference has its reward. Why does Vandy stay in the SEC? or, for that matter, why does Wake stay in the ACC? its the money. Vandy, Duke and Wake could form their own little conference full of pointyheaded intellectual schools and be much more compeititive in football and other sports. But, there is no money in that.
It is simply a fact that SCAR will have more television revenue than us for the foreseeable future. They will still be an academically inferior institution located in the armpit of the state. When it comes to recruiting, we simply have to play to our strengths and to their weaknesses and know that they have more money than us. They have always had more students, more alumni and more money than us. So what? We have a better academic institution by any measurable indicia and we have beat them on the football field two out of every three times we have played them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addict [400]
TigerPulse: 24%
Posts: 1255
Joined: 11/3/06
|
2 out of 3 would make the record 66-33
May 9, 2012, 4:57 PM
|
|
Or 66% It's much closer to 6 out of 10. 65-44.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
How about 10 wins in the last 15 games? That would be 2 out
May 9, 2012, 6:07 PM
|
|
of three. Or how about 35 wins in the last 50 games? That would be 70%, not 66.6% . Note that I am giving you coots all ties. A tie to the coots is a loss.
If you want to look at the MODERN age of college football (that is, the end of segregated, white boy ball), you would start at about 1971. Again, 28-12-1 or 70% of all wins or 68% of games played...
You are correct that our winning percentage going back to the 19th Century is much closer to 60%. Only a place drenched in mediocrity would want to look back to the glory days of the 1890s and 1910s to prove that you actually only got beat by your archrival 60% of the time instead of 2 out of 3....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addict [400]
TigerPulse: 24%
Posts: 1255
Joined: 11/3/06
|
how about 4 of the last 6
May 9, 2012, 7:08 PM
|
|
thats 2 out of 3 in our favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16469]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12844
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Keep in mind Tiger fans that coot history can only go back
May 9, 2012, 8:44 PM
|
|
as far as there are fingers to count them on, and best when limited to one hand, which improves accuracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7963
Joined: 2/27/02
|
Any contract they agree to wouldn't start until after 2027***
May 9, 2012, 3:41 PM
[ in reply to False ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
Re: You do understand that the ACC will renegotiate again after
May 9, 2012, 3:34 PM
[ in reply to You do understand that the ACC will renegotiate again after ] |
|
Where does it say that we can renegotiate after the other conferences? It didn't happen before. And what's to keep the other conferences from doing the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
There is no such contract provision - of course. It is just
May 9, 2012, 3:43 PM
|
|
the way the world works. It has happened before and it will happen again. And there is nothing to keep other conferences from doing it. Some conferences certainly have more leverage than others. If the SEC says renegotiate with us now or we will not negotiate with you upon expiration of our contract, it means more than if the ACC says it. But, then again, if the ACC says it, it means more than the Big East. Regardless, nobody waits until the end of a 15 year contract to start renegotiating unless they are prepared to part ways. This is really pretty basic stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7963
Joined: 2/27/02
|
You remind me of Kramer tell Jerry just to "write it off"***
May 9, 2012, 3:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7963
Joined: 2/27/02
|
telling Jerry, sorry***
May 9, 2012, 3:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7963
Joined: 2/27/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7963
Joined: 2/27/02
|
While opinions can change once the new deals for
May 9, 2012, 3:56 PM
|
|
other conferences are official, I'm not completely happy with this deal, but I think at the very least it keeps us in the ballpark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
Exactly - if you look back to 9 months ago before Pitt and
May 9, 2012, 4:21 PM
|
|
Syracuse were hastily added to the conference, the conventional wisdom on here and elsewhere was that "the ACC is the new Conference USA ... Maryland and Georgia Tech are going to the Big 10 ... Florida State and Virginia Tech are going to the SEC . . . we are going to be left behind, etc., etc..
All of that whining and moaning stopped (for a few months anyway) when we added Pitt and Syracuse. While Clemson and FSU might not have been thrilled with the new addition, Maryland was very happy and Georgia Tech was certainly not opposed to it. The ACC's further flirtation with UCONN and Rutgers (or more correctly, UCONN's and Rutgers' propositioning the ACC) threatened to exterminate the Big East (as the SEC's flirtation with Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State threatened the extermination of the Big 12). The result of all this was that the powers that be (not the NCAA, but ESPN) stepped in and put a lot of pressure on folks to NOT exterminate a major conference. It may seem like a given now that the ACC will survive (and perhaps even prosper), that the Big 12 will survive and prosper, and that even the Big East will survive. But that was not case 9 months ago. The ACC did what it had to do to survive and as a result Clemson will receive an additional $4M per year for at least the next few years. A play out of the entire 15 years of the new contract is an absolute worst case scenario that is highly unlikely to happen - AND it is better than what we had...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16469]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12844
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Did the ACC's contract with ESPN play all the way out
May 9, 2012, 8:48 PM
|
|
before the new deal was signed last year? Seems to me like it did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 2479
Joined: 6/2/11
|
Re: While opinions can change once the new deals for
May 9, 2012, 4:36 PM
[ in reply to While opinions can change once the new deals for ] |
|
It keeps us in the ballpark until the other conferences soon (probably in the next 2 or 3 months) redo their own TV deals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3910]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7987
Joined: 11/30/98
|
"We just don't bring anything to the tv contract...."
May 9, 2012, 4:00 PM
[ in reply to You do understand that the ACC will renegotiate again after ] |
|
That's just not true, and shows folks spouting off on the internet that don't really know what they are talking about.
A) Not suggesting the SEC will invite us.
B) I am suggesting getting Clemson (or FSU) would in fact be greatly beneficial to the SEC, in particular if the SEC network really takes off (as they want, and should).
Getting Clemson and FSU would lock up the entire states of SC and Florida with NO real competition (don't think Miami would even survive as a major power if FSu went to SEC or Big 12). Eliminating the ACC competition is a MAJOR thing in tv contract negotiations...doing this would mean the ACC would have no presence in SC, and would greatly diminish the ATL market as well.
Not saying SEC will invite us, or they should, or anything of that nature - but to say we would offer "nothing" for TV is just not right.
FSU and Clemson, w/ or w/o GT, would turn ACC only in to a mid-atlantic/pseudo northeast conference and SEC would own the entire southeast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1282
Joined: 6/19/03
|
I agree with you. I should have prefaced with "on our own,"
May 9, 2012, 4:09 PM
|
|
The mostly likely path for Clemson to the SEC would have been as part of a SEC objective to eject the ACC from Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. Instead of going west for Missouri and A&M, the SEC could have added Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech and Clemson. It would own Atlanta, Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa and Orlando. Instead, it opted for a share of Houston and Dallas/Ft. Worth, and a bigger share of Kansas City and St. Louis.
If the SEC expands to 16, there is perhaps a chance Clemson could go with either FSU or Ga Tech. But, Clemson wouldn't give the SEC ownership of the Atlanta market nor would it give them a dominating share of Tampa, Orlando and Jacksonville or a bigger share of Miami. Clemson would give the SEC ownership of Charleston, Columbia, and a dominating share of Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville. I just don't think that will be enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
The SEC and all the conferences are about "new markets".***
May 9, 2012, 4:40 PM
|
|
***
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3910]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7987
Joined: 11/30/98
|
No, it's about increasing power for tv negotiations.
May 10, 2012, 6:20 AM
|
|
Which new markets is a major, and often most important, piece....but monopolizing a market is almost as good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16469]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12844
Joined: 11/14/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [176]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 12/7/98
|
Not only that....
May 9, 2012, 3:33 PM
[ in reply to Pathetic. SEC teams already get $17.3 million. And Slive ] |
|
But the renegotation includes an SEC Network channel that is going to put SEC money on a completely different level than every other conference. SEC teams will likely get $25-30 million or more per team per year after deal with ESPN and new network are established.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addict [400]
TigerPulse: 24%
Posts: 1255
Joined: 11/3/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
Posts: 4271
Joined: 8/7/99
|
Re: The new SEC contract will be 25-30 Mil per team
May 9, 2012, 4:43 PM
|
|
Closer to 30 mil from what I'm hearing. But that does not take into account the establishment of a SEC Network, that is estimated will bring the SEC $1 billion per year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15482
Joined: 2/2/01
|
not allowed under the current contract to form a network
May 9, 2012, 11:34 PM
|
|
at least not one that would have any programming worth a #### left. However I expect the SEC will demand lookin's like the ACC has apparently done with this round of negotiations-- they'll take closer to $25 to get this because in the end, having your own network is by far the best way to go-- not even close
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3488]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5059
Joined: 4/12/01
|
Re: 17 mil per team per year in new deal
May 9, 2012, 3:32 PM
|
|
Wonder how much more Swofford's kid got in salary and pension benefits?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1400]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1393
Joined: 11/30/10
|
So..
May 9, 2012, 4:10 PM
|
|
We start out each year in the hole the following amounts to these conferences:
Big XII & Pac12 - $3 million
Big 10 - $3+ million
SEC - $7 million (potential)
And we get to do it for 15 years.
How long is it going to take to get to the point where we simply aren't financially able to compete for championships, much like Conference Usa, the Mountain West, and the Wac are today?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 54
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
