|
Post by dunninla3 on Nov 20, 2023 21:44:07 GMT -5
are you suggesting that the ACC will not generate enough revenue for member schools from its Media contracts? Sure. I’m saying the bigger revenue programs in the ACC - specifically the bigger football programs - are going to leave for either the Big Ten or the SEC as soon as they can figure out how to make that exit from the grant of rights affordable. Then the rest will have to either try to make a go of it as a lesser conference, competing with the Big 12, or make some kind of merger with the Big 12 to maximize the revenue of all the schools who can’t get into the Big 10 or SEC. It’s not really about “enough” revenue. That’s all relative. But the difference in revenue between the Big 10 and SEC versus everyone else is now so gargantuan - and I don’t see anything that would lessen the gap - that anyone who can get into those conferences is going to. Sure, I can see how that is a problem, but as you say there are media rights transfers in place that are very difficult for Florida St. or Clemson to get out from. My rudimentary understanding is: B1G: $75M per member SEC: projected to be similar to B1G starting with 2024 renegociation. ACC: $40M per member B12: $30M per member (after Conference expenses)
Florida St. rightly has concluded that it will be difficult to compete with SEC and B1G with only about 55% the revenue from football and basketball. But it is stuck. They signed the long term contract, so they are going to have to live with trying to get more from less.
All while Stanford and Cal will see big increases to their annual revenue with that $40M.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Nov 20, 2023 22:07:29 GMT -5
Sure. I’m saying the bigger revenue programs in the ACC - specifically the bigger football programs - are going to leave for either the Big Ten or the SEC as soon as they can figure out how to make that exit from the grant of rights affordable. Then the rest will have to either try to make a go of it as a lesser conference, competing with the Big 12, or make some kind of merger with the Big 12 to maximize the revenue of all the schools who can’t get into the Big 10 or SEC. It’s not really about “enough” revenue. That’s all relative. But the difference in revenue between the Big 10 and SEC versus everyone else is now so gargantuan - and I don’t see anything that would lessen the gap - that anyone who can get into those conferences is going to. Sure, I can see how that is a problem, but as you say there are media rights transfers in place that are very difficult for Florida St. or Clemson to get out from. My rudimentary understanding is: B1G: $75M per member SEC: projected to be similar to B1G starting with 2024 renegociation. ACC: $40M per member B12: $30M per member (after Conference expenses)
Florida St. rightly has concluded that it will be difficult to compete with SEC and B1G with only about 55% the revenue from football and basketball. But it is stuck. They signed the long term contract, so they are going to have to live with trying to get more from less.
All while Stanford and Cal will see big increases to their annual revenue with that $40M.
Yep. They’re difficult to get out of until they’re not. You and I are on the same page there. So 2036 the ACC will cease to exist as we currently know it. How much sooner than that we won’t know until it happens. Edit - I can’t remember the particulars, but I thought Stanford/Cal/SMU agreed to reduced payouts of varying levels to gain admittance.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Nov 20, 2023 22:22:04 GMT -5
Sure, I can see how that is a problem, but as you say there are media rights transfers in place that are very difficult for Florida St. or Clemson to get out from. My rudimentary understanding is: B1G: $75M per member SEC: projected to be similar to B1G starting with 2024 renegociation. ACC: $40M per member B12: $30M per member (after Conference expenses)
Florida St. rightly has concluded that it will be difficult to compete with SEC and B1G with only about 55% the revenue from football and basketball. But it is stuck. They signed the long term contract, so they are going to have to live with trying to get more from less.
All while Stanford and Cal will see big increases to their annual revenue with that $40M.
Yep. They’re difficult to get out of until they’re not. You and I are on the same page there. So 2036 the ACC will cease to exist as we currently know it. How much sooner than that we won’t know until it happens. Edit - I can’t remember the particulars, but I thought Stanford/Cal/SMU agreed to reduced payouts of varying levels to gain admittance. SMU agreed to no money for nine years. Cal and Stanford will only receive a 30% share of TV revenue during their first seven years in the ACC [eta: but will get 100% of other revenues]. That's a big hit for Cal who has the biggest athletic dept debt among public universities. ($439,974,051 based on FY 2021-22). But if Clemson or Florida State want to buy their way out, Stanford and Cal will reportedly share in that $$. I don't think it will happen for several years. If they'd found an affordable way out, they'd be gone already (IMO).
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 20, 2023 23:21:47 GMT -5
Wow, I had no idea about the extent of debt. How does/did this happen? Covid? Mismanagement?
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Nov 20, 2023 23:28:57 GMT -5
Wow, I had no idea about the extent of debt. How does/did this happen? Covid? Mismanagement? It's mostly the stadium debt, though COVID made things worse.
"Issues with the Bears’ balance sheet have been known for the better part of a decade. In 2013, upgrades were made to Memorial Stadium; in addition to seismic updates and training facilities, Cal also accrued $445 million in debt in the process, according to reporting from Bleacher Report.
The annual interest-only payment on the debt sits at $18 million, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. This value, which will jump to an annual bill of as high as $82 million in 2054, is eating up a substantial part of Cal Athletics’ revenue.
In the 2022 fiscal year, Cal Athletics managed to finish in the green with $118.2 million in revenue against $105 million in expenses. However, this figure includes direct institutional support that totals $29.8 million.
In other words, without campus’s injection of nearly $30 million, Cal Athletics would be running deep in the red. What’s more, UC Berkeley has committed to pay for 54% of the stadium debt, totaling $238 million over several decades."
|
|
|
Post by geodi58 on Nov 21, 2023 6:08:18 GMT -5
At least I won't have to subscribe to Sling or Fubo during the volleyball season any longer. I hope to watch all of Stanford's matches next year on YouTube TV and ESPN+ (fingers crossed ;-) )
|
|
|
Post by statsqueen on Nov 21, 2023 10:30:14 GMT -5
So it was a slow morning- as usual, Stanford scheduled a tough preseason. Or so it seemed. Skipping Northern Colorado there were 8 matches that seemed challenging at the time (Colorado State had just beaten Kentucky). Of those teams, Nebraska and Louisville have been consistent. Texas has righted things, but they were floundering at the time. After that, Colorado State, Rice and Florida have 6 losses each in conference, Minnesota has 7, Ohio State 10. What to make of this- other than it's not easy to predict how teams will play- I'm not sure, but I found it interesting. I'm late to this party and catching up--don't come at me if others have already mentioned. BUT it's really hard to include Florida in this list when they lost their starting setter. There are things you can say about a team being bigger than one person, but we all know how important having a top-notch setter is, and how much a difference she can make. I'm not knocking their back-up either. The impact of the difference between the top 1% setters and the top 5% setters is just exponential.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Nov 21, 2023 14:33:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Nov 21, 2023 16:58:29 GMT -5
I assume they were flying out of LAX. A few years ago at the season opening scrimmage Hambly said the one thing that would have the biggest impact on the team would be the ability to fly charter. I believe Nebraska volleyball flys charter to every match.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Nov 21, 2023 19:23:36 GMT -5
So it was a slow morning- as usual, Stanford scheduled a tough preseason. Or so it seemed. Skipping Northern Colorado there were 8 matches that seemed challenging at the time (Colorado State had just beaten Kentucky). Of those teams, Nebraska and Louisville have been consistent. Texas has righted things, but they were floundering at the time. After that, Colorado State, Rice and Florida have 6 losses each in conference, Minnesota has 7, Ohio State 10. What to make of this- other than it's not easy to predict how teams will play- I'm not sure, but I found it interesting. I'm late to this party and catching up--don't come at me if others have already mentioned. BUT it's really hard to include Florida in this list when they lost their starting setter. There are things you can say about a team being bigger than one person, but we all know how important having a top-notch setter is, and how much a difference she can make. I'm not knocking their back-up either. The impact of the difference between the top 1% setters and the top 5% setters is just exponential. To add, Florida also lost their starting middle and leftside.
|
|
|
Post by tristen on Nov 22, 2023 3:00:56 GMT -5
Too bad Cameron Brink didnt stick with volleyball lol
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Nov 22, 2023 5:01:22 GMT -5
I assume they were flying out of LAX. A few years ago at the season opening scrimmage Hambly said the one thing that would have the biggest impact on the team would be the ability to fly charter. I believe Nebraska volleyball flys charter to every match. I can’t imagine the athletic teams flying commercial next year. But I don’t understand how the conference slate is going to look, either. Oregon has said everyone other than football and men’s/women’s basketball is going to fly commercial. I sure hope they change their mind somehow prior to next season starting. I know Texas volleyball flies charter for all out of state matches, and then busses to instate matches. Well, not to Texas Tech. That’s a charter flight as well. But TCU, Rice, UH, A&M, and of course, Baylor.
|
|
|
Post by Turlington on Nov 22, 2023 22:13:23 GMT -5
Jenna's second MVP award.
Gerdau Minas x SESC Flamengo - Full match (went to 5 sets)!
Gerdau Minas x Maringa - Full match
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 25, 2023 3:51:48 GMT -5
I'm so tired of our announcer in Maples. I sincerely hope that this is just a one-year stint, and he moves on. Why can't he EVER say "point Stanford" ?? He just says "point," and hopes or expects the audience to say Stanford. After so many weeks or months, will he NEVER learn that nobody is going to yell "Stanford?" My oh my. Please find somebody else for next year. I've been so tempted to go up and say something to him, but I'm on shaky ground, after getting in trouble for yelling at an opposing coach a few years back. In the end they didn't kick me out, but just moved me to the other side of the court, away from the bench. hehe If Ulmer would have just sat his butt down...
|
|
|
Post by oldunc on Nov 25, 2023 10:11:32 GMT -5
So it was a slow morning- as usual, Stanford scheduled a tough preseason. Or so it seemed. Skipping Northern Colorado there were 8 matches that seemed challenging at the time (Colorado State had just beaten Kentucky). Of those teams, Nebraska and Louisville have been consistent. Texas has righted things, but they were floundering at the time. After that, Colorado State, Rice and Florida have 6 losses each in conference, Minnesota has 7, Ohio State 10. What to make of this- other than it's not easy to predict how teams will play- I'm not sure, but I found it interesting. I'm late to this party and catching up--don't come at me if others have already mentioned. BUT it's really hard to include Florida in this list when they lost their starting setter. There are things you can say about a team being bigger than one person, but we all know how important having a top-notch setter is, and how much a difference she can make. I'm not knocking their back-up either. The impact of the difference between the top 1% setters and the top 5% setters is just exponential. They're on the list because Stanford played them in the preseason. This does not pretend to be a detailed analysis of particular teams' situations, all of which no doubt changed since the schedule was made.
|
|