Big Ten schools getting record 50 million plus from conference payouts.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/06/2...

This is insane amounts of money. It would pay around 60% of Virginia Techs TOTAL athletic budget. The rich keep opening the gap on the rest of the programs.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

SEC gonna top that

I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction:
“I served in the United States Navy"

KCCO

Don't think so.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Maryland and Rutgers... not getting full payout for a few more years. Still tons of cash... Dang-a-lang!

via GIPHY

JP

And all it cost them was their soul to be the doormat of the Big 10.

Rutgers had a soul?

Chem PhD '16

I was thinking more of Maryland.

Nah. UMD went from soulless ACC also ran to soulless Big Ten doormat.

Yeah it was such a good idea to delay the ACCN by 3 years...

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

Swofford should be fired for how badly he screwed up getting the ACC Network set up. The nepotism with his son at Raycom is so blatant. He set the conference back years so he could give his son a sweetheart deal. How the presidents outside of Tobacco Road have not forced him out is nothing short of stupefying.

This seems like crazy money. Does ESPN really make that much on the Big 10? is the BTN a big seller?

I have to confess, I don't know the finances of cable deals.

Also, I find this interesting:

According to an NJ Advance Media analysis, six of the 13 Big Ten schools whose 2017 Fiscal Year athletics reports are publicly available lost money during the 2016-17 school year (Northwestern, as a private school, doesn't make the fiscal-year report it submits to the NCAA available).

But I guess they should all be able to get better with the new influx of cash.

I have no idea how well the BTN does. But I do know that during the offseason I find myself craving football so much that I watch Minnesota/Purdue or Northwestern/Illinois or some other unappealing Big Ten game. Just because it's football. It would be so nice to do that with ACC teams.

I gotta be honest. The thought that someone has enough free time to watch reruns of those games makes me die a little inside.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

I wish I actually had the free time to watch them. Typically I watch them for 20 minutes or so during my lunch break. Or right now I'm watching Penn State/Maryland because it's on and I'm having some bourbon.

And football is football.

I watch the VT games I recorded the previous season... every offseason...

My wife hates it.

Is it football season yet?

>>I have to confess, I don't know the finances of cable deals.

Clearly. The Maryland/Rutgers hatred is just stupid. If you are in charge at those schools the long term advantage with respect to facilities, etc. You certainly don't talk about a school's soul. Leave that talk for Sundays in church.

And in your next post you'll launch into a sisyphean tirade about how we don't have enough donors. LOL

Bigger picture is sometimes all that matters.

Biggest risk is that MD / Rutgers when they finally get full shares comes after young innovative soon to be successful coaches (like ours) or old established wanting to do their own thing coaches (like ours). As it is last year MD had 3QB injuries, and their first two guys could play, and their formation was getting them to the edge. Without the injuries their year would have been pretty amazing. Thankfully they lost a top end NFL receiver, but talent and a coach (Durkin is showing promise) and we'll have another competitor for in state talent.

Maryland best hope each year is finishing fourth in their own division.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

It was a crass move for the money. At the same time they did this, Maryland eliminated 7 other sports. Yow had spent too much money on premium seating, and Kevin Plank wanted football to be king at a school without a recent football tradition. Wallace Loh sold out any tradition Maryland had before to take this deal, but it didn't seem to be much of a factor because it was mostly regarding basketball.

They went from the ACC Atlantic, where they'd have to contend with Clemson, Florida State and NC State, to the Big 10 East, where they have to contend with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Michigan State, who by the way also have Big 10 money. They also left the better basketball conference, which is where their strength really was.

It might work out for them, but it might have been just as easy to have developed a winning tradition in the ACC. I'm making the argument that not just the money, but both the program AND the money have to be considered. I wasn't a fan of the decision, because it was made more from a spreadsheet analysis than anything else. I didn't buy it then, and I still don't buy it.

Maryland hatred is not stupid. It's the state school of Maryland.

You will see this game, this upset and this sign next on ESPN Sportscenter. Virginia Tech 31 Miami 7

When it comes to media deals, the B1G is playing 3-D chess. The SEC is playing regular chess, and the Big 12 is playing checkers. The ACC and PAC 12 are playing a busted-ass version of Candyland where the PAC 12 keeps losing the cards and the ACC is knawing on the pieces and drooling all over the game board.

Swofford has consistently screwed the pooch when it comes to the potential ACC Network. First, with the already mentioned nepotism where he funneled conference money to his son's company for substandard quality for a few years and second, the continued "wait and see" approach that has left the ACC in the dust with no network to show for it. The failure of the PAC-12 Network has only reinforced this approach, despite the unbridled successes of the B1G Network (developed on their own) and the SEC Network (developed with ESPN). The only positive is bringing in ND which gave a small boost, which of course has to be shared with ND.

The ACC missed the money train when it came to traditional cable networks. Traditional cable networks will still generate tons of money even as the cord-cutting revolution progresses because it will take years for it to stop being profitable when executed properly. It also takes years to get one up and running and the longer the ACC waits, the more money they miss. Profits may slowly decline in the next few years, but some money is better than no money. The window is still open but Swofford's approach is to not even try because ESPN won't do the heavy lifting for him anymore because they are hemorrhaging money.

So put on your big boy pants and do it yourself! You might screw around and make some cash while simulaneously developing the ACC into being not reliant on a single entity for media revenue so your success would no longer be solely dependent on theirs or the whims of their interest in helping you out.

The ACC has now put all of their money in the online network model, despite having no idea how it will pan out. And good luck with that now that net neutrality is gone. I cannot imagine that the large internet providers won't want their pound of flesh for streaming all of that content.

"Scared money don't make no money." So far the ACC's approach to a network has been clutching their pearls on the deck of a sinking ship waiting for someone else to selflessly present then with an artisanally-crafted, bespoke life boat. Meanwhile, the B1G and SEC saw the problem, rowed to shore and have already built beachfront resorts.

"Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill our heart with tolerance."
-Stan Lee

"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson

"11-0, bro"
-Hunter Carpenter (probably)

Is this because the Big 10 and SEC deals were made when networks were willing to overpay for content?

Part of this seems to boil down to: "Timing is a bitch", but the ACC does still have content that a lot of people would be willing to pay for. Seems like they'd have ample examples of how to do that by now.

It's like the ACC missed the absolute best possible time to do it because they weren't paying attention and just gave up even though there is still ample time and opportunities for revenue. Its a mixture of complacency and laziness buoyed by making just enough money to justify doing more of the same while ignoring the mountains of money a little effort could have gotten them.

"Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill our heart with tolerance."
-Stan Lee

"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson

"11-0, bro"
-Hunter Carpenter (probably)

I think you're right, and the most important thing is moving in the right direction now.

It's not like the ACC doesn't also have some fans.

Reminds me of the old saying "you never want to be the first to try something new and never want to be the last"...right now the acc is being the last in this realm.

This notion of the ACC missing the window is amusing.

Who exactly was lining up to partner with the ACC when this supposed missed window was open?

Exactly. People forget about this too easily.

When the ACC signed their deal in May 2010 (before expansion to bring Pitt & Syracuse, which then reopened negotiations in 2011), the last time an ACC team had appeared in the BCS Championship was 2000. That's ten years without a conference rep in the national title game of the biggest revenue producer in college athletics.

On top of that, in the BCS era the ACC had the fewest number of BCS appearances and the worst winning percentage of the P5 leagues.

There's some truth to that, but lately they've been doing pretty well.

Yes, the ACC has won 2 national titles since then.

But to marc's point, one of the reasons the ACC is behind in the TV rights deals NOW compared to other P5 conferences is because in May 2010, there was no pattern of success.

His point is that timing has a lot to do with it. The ACC had terrilbe timing, since the conference was poor in the years preceding the new TV deal.

And the ACCN deal with ESPN was closed "lately". Coincidence?

IIRC, our Sugar Bowl appearance against Michigan was the first time an ACC team earned an at-large BCS berth. So yeah, we were way behind in the "appearances" category, especially considering that both the SEC and B1G had at-large appearances more often than not.

Yes, and that turned into a debacle when 1) People argued that VT and Michigan weren't the best picks, and 2) the refs robbed us of the win.

It was a catch!

Most of the whining about the ACC's TV deal comes from FSU fans...which is ironic, because a big part of why the ACC's contract isn't as good as other schools is because FSU spent a decade eating paste.

Yah, but hey, Clempson and Miami bak.

Short answer, YES.

Minor point - BTN was developed with Fox, who owns 51% of the channel. That puts them in roughly the same boat as the ACC and SEC, they just chose a different corporate partner.

But I'd say the ACC is still in better position than the Pac-12, even without the network launched yet, simply because they don't have their heads shoved as far up the backside. The Pac-12 made their own network with no support, but they insist on keeping it a regional thing, and then keep running into carriage issues.

They aren't trying to keep it regional, but rather there isn't much demand for the channel east of the Rockies. If people don't request a channel from their carrier, they aren't going to get it added to their available packages, and the Pac-12 has always struggled with generating interest in the eastern 2/3 of the country.

Your average college football fan on the east coast is more likely to want to watch Arkansas and South Carolina than Oregon State and Arizona. It's all about visibility, and the Pac-12 has much less than the rest of the P5.

This is true, however I think the Pac-12 could take more advantage of the time differences. It may be anecdotal, but I don't mind watching Zona and Oregon State duke it out at midnight on a Thursday/Saturday. I know an ESPN channel will have those games but it seems the Pac-12 network could take advantage of that as well.

I don't mind watching Zona and Oregon State duke it out at midnight

This is a great ending to a 15 hour Saturday of tailgating, pounding bourbon and going to Lane and then back to the tailgate and then Tots / Souvlaki / Rivermill / Sharkeys / Tots / Bennys...

You will see this game, this upset and this sign next on ESPN Sportscenter. Virginia Tech 31 Miami 7

Sounds like something to turn on while you sleep.

Exactly. Most of the east coast is either asleep or too drunk to really internalize the significance of the game they're watching.

Is there actually any significance to west coast football?

I think the problem is that we DO realize it, just not the way they think.

IDK if the Raycom contract is where the ACC screwed the pooch, more so than the deals the ACC cut with ESPN giving them almost all of the fb rights outside of Raycom. I didn't seem as if the ACC shopped the conference around to see if they could leverage more money. ESPN was subsidizing the SEC network yet the ACC got a much smaller contract. Not all of that is the ACC front offices fault though. The ACC as a whole was not a good fb conference for years leading up to the new contracts. Now we're in a situation where a school like KY has better facilities than FSU (from what I was told by someone whose kid was recruited for both in soccer) an the gulf seems to be widening.

Correy

If it's any consolation BTN may make less money next year. Comcast is dropping BTN in all their markets that aren't In Big Ten country.

Why yes, I believe that does make me feel a little bit better. Thank you.

#FUENTEenFUEGO
Waho's suck
Uva swallows

Hell yes, that's a consolation at least.

Eh, as more people cut the cord, geographic availability will mean less and less. I feel like within 5 years or so we'll see the emphasis switch from cable markets to streaming services. It'll be interesting watching that transition happen.

The Big 10 has always had money. Doesn't change the fact that one team has pretty much dominated the conference. I also think we all need to step back from the ledge regarding finances. We should never stop making fundraising a priority. However, somebody posted a very nice graph on the law of diminishing returns the other day. Most of this big money will end up wasted on a multimillion dollar barber shop and putt putt course, falling squarely in the bad part of the graph. I don't fear the arms race as much as others. We need to boost up the HC to reinforce our excellent coaches. We are moving in the right direction and are going to be fine.

"with all due respect, and remember I’m sayin’ it with all due respect, that idea ain’t worth a velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin gettin’ it on" - Ricky Bobby

I'd like to see Tech not worry about paying scholarships obligations and endow at least three coaching positions.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Interesting news today that Raycom got sold to Gray. The deal will finalize in 4th quarter 2018. While I don't think it really plays into anything, this is the last season for the Raycom version of the ACC Network (at least for football, I'm not as up on basketball deals).