Recent Comments
A true #GoACC moment
His basketball specific skills are not refined yet because he played soccer most of his life and only a couple years of basketball before college. NBA will see his athleticism as a huge upside and lots of tangible room to grow with continued skill refinement. He isn't someone who has been playing basketball for 20 years and has limited additional development opportunity - he still has a lot of low hanging fruit that would not scare away an NBA team
Not only that, but viewership is far from a science. If you follow the ratings industry, you'll see all these things like "highest rated 15 minute window"
A very small percentage of viewers watch an entire game start to finish. Im just curious what data is used.
If either can find an alternative, they will be gone sooner than later
The ACC is going to let FSU and Clemson walk for less money in a few years, but also pay them more money in the meantime. Absolute masterclass.
1000% this
I don't like it, particularly because of undue influence by the networks on ratings; but there hasn't been close to an equal effort/investment inside the conference to have watchable football games (and programs) either. There have been years where some schools played 3 power OOC games while a couple schools played zero.
I have favored letting teams own the revenue from their OOC games while evenly splitting the in-conference revenue. To me that would have been a more equitable way to do it.
"Basically ESPN will have the ability to choose who gets the money."- they already did this in spades, which is why we are here. There is not a 120% different between the SEC football product and the ACC product, but that's what ESPN pays the SEC. A fucking joke on all levels.
Yeah and so much of the TV ratings are based on promotion and opponent. A couple highly promoted games with good opponents could drive up even the least interesting team's viewership. And the reverse is true for medium-high brands playing snoozers that aren't promoted and thrown to lower networks.
Basically ESPN will have the ability to choose who gets the money. Then it will somewhat vary year to year on a variety of factors: schedule and circumstance (did you get your big opponents at the right time, ND early in the year for example), then how good your performs.
if the agreement is equitable- which it's not- but lets laugh and say it is... VT games have been pretty well rated over the years. If that is a real part of the deal, we should do OK. Nobody on earth has ever voluntarily watched a Syracuse or BC football game, so they are fucked probably. And- the ACC knows it's dead... that's the only reason you agree to this bullshit... kick the death can down the road a couple years
📡VT RESEARCH📲
|
1 year 4 months
# | Hokies Hoops Central: UNC (19-11) at Virginia Tech (13-16) 7pm ESPNU And if we minimize Rechsteiner's playing time and use more Hammond.
I have to agree. Leave, let the court process take over and then let time sort it out. And start talking to the SEC or Big10 (I'd prefer SEC) ASAP.
Yeah – that's my question; are we looking at raw numbers, or are viewership numbers adjusted for network, time, games broadcasted on other networks, etc.
TLDR; I wanna know exactly how this proprietary algorithm works
And I fully understand that won't happen, and I will be disappointed.
Well yea, as I started my comment:
absolutely hate the idea of unequal revenue sharing to begin with. Unable revenue share doesn't keep the conference together; it just lets the brand name schools make more money before they leave
They see is a lame duck conference. There's zero chance it remains in its current station after the next decade.
But I want to understand how much money Virginia Tech stands to make/lose under the new revenue deal.
As long as ESPN keeps putting them on TV to drive viewership numbers a 2-10 FSU will earn $15m more than a 10-2 Wake Forest because it's not merit based, it's about how many people watch your games, and they don't report ratings for the ACCN
"Would love to see historical information about this" - here you go... any conference that has done this has died... rather quickly.
His athleticism is not dime a dozen.- in the modern NBA it is. There are college all americans in the G league. It's a different ball game. He needs to be an elite 3 and D guy to get drafted in the first round. NBA role players are veterans and second round picks.
669TH MEMBER OF TKPC
|
1 year 4 months
# | Hokies Hoops Central: UNC (19-11) at Virginia Tech (13-16) 7pm ESPNU His athleticism is not dime a dozen. VCU tested him with a 49.5" vertical . If he matches that during the combine, it would break the combine record.
GMs are going to love his potential. He has a lot of work to do but I could easily see him as a high-floor role player in the NBA.
Conference standings don't matter anymore with these huge conferences and unbalanced schedules. You regularly see teams seeded higher in the NCAA tournament than teams that finished above them in conference. In fact the committee has said repeatedly they don't look at conference standings an only use conference tourneys for bubble teams and lower seedings. Most recently the committee has focused on the NET- your performance in Q 1 and 2 games and for bubble teams - who did you play in the non conference? If you are strong in those 2- like Michigan State last year for example, you are in the field. If you aren't - like Clemson in 2023.. you get left out.
First of all, absolutely hate the idea of unequal revenue sharing to begin with. Unable revenue share doesn't keep the conference together; it just lets the brand name schools make more money before they leave. I don't understand why the ACC did this; the only mildly rational answer I've seen is that money lost to be a revenue sharing is less than the legal fees.
All that said, it's possible (but maybe unlikely) that this won't be the absolute worst. I saw above that it's possible for some schools to see $15 million more in a given year. More than what? Does this mean that the "premiere" team in the conference could be making $15 million more than the worst, at least marketable team? eg; does this mean that undefeated FSU with wins over Florida Miami, etc. is making at most $15 million more than 2-10 Wake Forest? I don't have a huge problem with that... if we're deciding to commit to an uneven revenue share that seems relatively reasonable. BUT if you're telling me that 10 and two FSU is going to make $15 million more than the median ACC team? Fuck that.
Would love to see historical information about this. Like, if we applied this formula to the 2016 season, how would payouts vary?
Great news, excited for Mike Young. This season must've been absolute hell for him; just having to compete with your hands tied behind your back.
Without any other context or knowledge, I'm assuming that this is a signal that our boosters are coming to terms with a new reality of college sports. Great to see.
our peer institutions of "football first" like Clemson are planning to have ~15-20% of the 20M used for basketball.
The breakdown I've typically seen is 80% football/10% men's basketball/5% women's basketball/5% other sports
Obviously, it's going to vary by institution; for example, no way Chapel Hill is only giving men's basketball 10%. Additionally, there are other schools that might have a non-rev sport that is highly supported (eg Wake Men's tennis)
The wild thing is that there's still no direction from any sort of legal authority on if title nine applies to revenue sharing, so this could all get completely blown up
🍺MAKES "BEER" ⚗️🦃
|
1 year 4 months
# | OT: MLB terminates TV contract after ESPN tried to reduce payments for 2026 and beyond There are enough games that MLB could make a streaming service and you could buy an app for just your team's games. If this were the only option, it would quickly show you each teams market value. They would have to address password sharing, but I think there are enough streaming services they can copy am existing method.
Sons of Saturday had a video released this am suggesting that this is likely part of that $20M in revenue sharing funds and pointed out that our peer institutions of "football first" like Clemson are planning to have ~15-20% of the 20M used for basketball. I guess that we end up in the 2-3M range based on that.
I am not disputing any of this. What I am trying to say is that there are 30 first round draft picks each year. Lawal is not on any mock draft boards. There are the one and done type prospects and many international players are selected each year in round 1. Its a very small pool to swim in. Your post perfectly describes a second round/ FA type NBA prospect.