View Full Version : ACC asks NCAA to change Champ Game rule
Shocker
07-16-03, 12:03 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=531&ncid=531&e=4&u=/ap/20030716/ap_on_sp_co_ne/fbc_acc_expansion
Could the ACC stay at 11 if this rule is changed? Seems really possible. Cool that they would have a champ game in 2004 if the rule is overturned.
Originally posted by Shocker
[Could the ACC stay at 11 if this rule is changed?
yes
LitterBox999
07-16-03, 03:38 PM
They would have no reason to go to 12 teams if this is changed. All those slices of the pie are quite a bit bigger when your only cutting 11 pieces.
It all comes down to the same thing everything comes around to now. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I wonder how the Big East reps will vote.
Personally I think it's bullshit and wont be surprised if the other conferences that had to get 12 teams to have championship game protest.
politically, it's already doomed. There's no way the BigEast votes for it, and the teams with championships (esp. the SEC, geographically/demographically) have no interest in monetarily advancing another conference through vote.
but the pac 10 and big 10 could have a conference title game.
and the conferences could assure themselves that the acc wouldn't be going after one of their members.
if they get to have the title game with 11, there's no hunt for the 12th member.
Originally posted by LarryD
and the conferences could assure themselves that the acc wouldn't be going after one of their members.
Gonna be some back room deals cut for this very reason I would think.
but the pac 10 and big ten have alway had a championship to determine the rose bowl participants. The ACC just seems to have a tradition of grabbing the latest money maker when the top teams hit the skids.
McFly41
07-16-03, 10:36 PM
The Big Ten and PAC 10 have never had championship games as far as I can remember. The Rose Bowl has always pitted these two conferences top teams against each other until the Rose joined the BCS.
I don't forsee either conference getting in on this. The ACC has too big of an ego to think they can waltz in make such sweeping changes. The Big East won't bite...in fact this would benefit no one but the ACC.
But scheduling wise, isn't it still easier to have 2 6 team divisions vs. 1 11 team division :confused: ? ? With the 2 divisions, you can play the 5 teams in you division and then 3 (or 4 teams) in the other division (9 conference games vs. 8 would be better iMHO :) . . ). I still say ACC will find a 12th team to join the league (and please don't say NORTE DAME . . . They aren't going to join a primarily southern conference :rolleyes: :rolleyes: !!!!)
USC-IPTF
07-17-03, 09:50 AM
why won't the acc just take louisville and be done with it? don't those f'ckers think they've rocked the ncaa boat enough?! now they're out there trying to get ncaa rules changed just for them. i'm about sick of it. at first i was in favor of acc expansion, but it's been a grand royal f'ck-up since the start. hell, some conferences might vote to allow the acc to have their game just to get them to shut up.
chipshot
07-17-03, 10:09 AM
I love it. I am no diehard ACC fan but I grew up here. I love to see everyone get so bent out of shape about it. I couldn't care less what the SEC or Big 12 think about it. It's not like they don't think the world revolves around them as it is. They did the same thing to get where they got.
It's not like they don't think the world revolves around them as it is
who is the conference trying to get the NCAA to change the rules again?
chipshot
07-17-03, 10:20 AM
I don't see what it matters one way or another. It would be idiotic for them not to try. It only matters to those who are consumed by the conference rivalries.
Originally posted by chipshot
I don't see what it matters one way or another.
because it will give an 11 team league over $10 million to split instead of having a 12th team.
mathmajors
07-17-03, 10:30 AM
If they approve a championship game with 11 teams, maybe the SEC can get rid of Vandy.
LitterBox999
07-17-03, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by DaveW
because it will give an 11 team league over $10 million to split instead of having a 12th team.
I couldn't agree more that a difference of almost $78k.
Shocker
07-17-03, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by LitterBox999
They would have no reason to go to 12 teams if this is changed. All those slices of the pie are quite a bit bigger when your only cutting 11 pieces.
It all comes down to the same thing everything comes around to now. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The only question would be the division. How do you divide 11 teams into 2 divisions?
Would you even do it?
LitterBox999
07-17-03, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by DaveW
78k...how do you figure?
10 million / 11 = $909,090
10 million / 12 = $833,333
------------
subtract the 2 and you get $75,757
----------------------------
I was off by a little but thats pretty closed considering I was trying to do it in my head.
The acc teams will make over $10 million a team, not $10 million combined.
LitterBox999
07-17-03, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by DaveW
The acc teams will make over $10 million a team, not $10 million combined.
ok. I though they made just a combined 10 million off of the championship game.
chipshot
07-17-03, 12:43 PM
Where does this money come from?
Not sure where all of the money comes from. TV deals and bowl games are probably the main source. The SEC split 95 million between 12 teams last year. Thats why I'm guessing the split will be around $10 million this year for the split.
chipshot
07-17-03, 01:10 PM
So it's not taking money from the other conferences or schools then. The network envolved with the deal can use the fact that there is one less school to pay in their negotiations.
dude, they don't make $10 million per team. it's $10 million for a championship game, increasing everyone's take by about a million dollars.
they are going to make about $10 million when it's all said and done. I guess i got off topic a little. Started with just a championship game and I moved ahead to overall split. Regardless, the ACC still should have to come up with a 12th team if they want the money game.
SportsNC
07-17-03, 04:40 PM
The SEC payout per school this past year was $8.5 million. Some schools received less but that is the average.
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/053103/spo_sec001.shtml
The ACC payout per school was $9.7 million.
To match it's current payout for 11 teams, the ACC needs nearly $20 million in additional revenue. A 12th team takes that to close to $30 million.
The current ACC football contract is worth around $20 million and should escalate to $25 million for the '05 season under the current deals. A new football package, not including a championship game, should be worth around $35-40 million a year.
A football championship game should generate between $6-12 million additional dollars.
All other TV rights, Basketball plus the non-revenue/Olympic sports, pay out around $30 million a year. The new conference alignment may add no more than $3 - $5 million a year, if any.
So the average numbers look a little like this based on what I've heard discussed:
New Football Revenue: $15 Million
Championship Game: $ 9 Million
Additional Sports $ 4 Million
Total $28 Million
This doesn't include additonal Bowl or BCS revenue which could be another $4 - 6 million.
The dollars should be there to match the current payout which is still $1.2 million a year more per school than the SEC's.
Don't be surprised if you hear more rumblings of SEC schools joining the ACC. The NCAA vote to drop the Champ game requirement to 10 teams could put a stop to any further ACC additions.
For a 12th team, how about . . . Memphis :confused: ? ? This would open up the State of TN/Memphis TV markets . . . The only minor negative would be they are in a different time zone (Central) . . . Football they would be Duke & Wake at least and their hoops program is middle of the pack (i.e. they would be halfway competitive) . . I would still go after Louisville first though . .
Originally posted by magnus
politically, it's already doomed. There's no way the BigEast votes for it, and the teams with championships (esp. the SEC, geographically/demographically) have no interest in monetarily advancing another conference through vote.
I bet the Big East votes for it. They don't want the ACC raiding them again for #12.
The Big 12 has already said they will vote for it. They think having a championship game puts them at a competitive advantage. I think I read the SEC will vote for it too, for the same reason.
You've got to think the Pac 10 and Big 10 will love this too.
I think this will pass in a walk.
USC-IPTF
07-19-03, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by SportsNC
The SEC payout per school this past year was $8.5 million. Some schools received less but that is the average.
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/053103/spo_sec001.shtml
The ACC payout per school was $9.7 million.
To match it's current payout for 11 teams, the ACC needs nearly $20 million in additional revenue. A 12th team takes that to close to $30 million.
The current ACC football contract is worth around $20 million and should escalate to $25 million for the '05 season under the current deals. A new football package, not including a championship game, should be worth around $35-40 million a year.
A football championship game should generate between $6-12 million additional dollars.
All other TV rights, Basketball plus the non-revenue/Olympic sports, pay out around $30 million a year. The new conference alignment may add no more than $3 - $5 million a year, if any.
So the average numbers look a little like this based on what I've heard discussed:
New Football Revenue: $15 Million
Championship Game: $ 9 Million
Additional Sports $ 4 Million
Total $28 Million
This doesn't include additonal Bowl or BCS revenue which could be another $4 - 6 million.
The dollars should be there to match the current payout which is still $1.2 million a year more per school than the SEC's.
Don't be surprised if you hear more rumblings of SEC schools joining the ACC. The NCAA vote to drop the Champ game requirement to 10 teams could put a stop to any further ACC additions.
the thing about this is that abc gave the acc a very good tv contract and are now unsatisfied with the acc's football tv ratings. they most likely weren't gonna give the acc that kinda deal again unless the acc did something to get more viewers, that's one of the main reasons for expansion. the sec is the most watched conference in the country every saturday, or at least it claims to be, and when the time comes for conferences to re-up in 2005, the acc needed something to make themselves more attractive to tv networks.
all i'm saying is that just because the conference gives out 9.7 million to each school in 2003, doesn't necessarily mean that it'll be giving out 9.7 million every year from here on out.
as always, jmho
Originally posted by USC-IPTF
the thing about this is that abc gave the acc a very good tv contract and are now unsatisfied with the acc's football tv ratings. they most likely weren't gonna give the acc that kinda deal again unless the acc did something to get more viewers, that's one of the main reasons for expansion. the sec is the most watched conference in the country every saturday, or at least it claims to be, and when the time comes for conferences to re-up in 2005, the acc needed something to make themselves more attractive to tv networks.
all i'm saying is that just because the conference gives out 9.7 million to each school in 2003, doesn't necessarily mean that it'll be giving out 9.7 million every year from here on out.
as always, jmho
Excellent comment. Just remember what happened with the Southwest Conference. Everyone is always looking forward.
SportsNC
07-19-03, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by USC-IPTF
the thing about this is that abc gave the acc a very good tv contract and are now unsatisfied with the acc's football tv ratings. they most likely weren't gonna give the acc that kinda deal again unless the acc did something to get more viewers, that's one of the main reasons for expansion. the sec is the most watched conference in the country every saturday, or at least it claims to be, and when the time comes for conferences to re-up in 2005, the acc needed something to make themselves more attractive to tv networks.
all i'm saying is that just because the conference gives out 9.7 million to each school in 2003, doesn't necessarily mean that it'll be giving out 9.7 million every year from here on out.
as always, jmho
All very valid points. Also keep in mind that ABC/ESPN has taken a beating on the financial front lately. They are looking to lessen payouts if at all possible. From my understanding, the NBA deal has been a financial disaster, Disney (ABC/ESPN's parent Comapny) is bleeding ink and ESPN is looking more and more for equity partnerships as opposed to outright "rights" purchases.
That said, the market has leveled off in the last 3 years and the only way to increase a conference's rights fee revenues is more inventory, ie. expansion.
If expansion didn't take place and the current contracts remained valid, the payoffs for Basketball & non/revenue sports were guaranteed through 2011. The football deal would run out following '05. ABC/ESPN is the determining factor if the ACC is going to meet it's financial goals.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.