Maryland 247sports site reporting UNC has a Big Ten offer

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
43
kraizy.art
ACC football profits - Forbes

The two top revenue producers in the ACC, are not Virginia Tech and Clemson
Fixed it for you.

This is where I get on my soapbox. The SEC does not only compete in football, SEC revenue is not only generated in football, and perhaps more importantly SEC teams will win as many as they lose. This means Virginia Tech can not be considered to continue their current level of success in the SEC. So, telling me how well they are doing in football is a bit like telling me how well Boise St. is doing in football.

Virginia Tech is riding success under Beamer. However! There is no history beyond Beamer, and nothing at all to indicate this would continue in the SEC. It is as simple as that. I can't believe people think you can add 10 wins to the SEC football by adding a school. Now you can't! You are adding 4 more wins, and 4 more losses! That is the reality!

The point was already clarified. Both Virginia and North Carolina generate more revenue than Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech and North Carolina State combine for revenue of: 130 million. North Carolina and Virginia combine for athletic revenue of 160 million. I already alluded to that, but now I'll say BOOM! :)

They're in the same conferences, but UNC and Virginia generate 30 more million each year in athletic revenue. If you can't tell which programs are bigger then I'm not sure what to say. There's a reason the ACC didn't want Virginia Tech, their athletic department is small time and their fans are Johnny-come-latelies.
 
Last edited:

RTRCharlotte

Scout Team
Jul 26, 2010
122
0
0
History lesson - before Bobby Bowden, FSU was nothing.

Also, ALA2262 makes a good point above. Which fanbase supports their athletics without subsidies.

RevenueExpensesSubsidyPercent SubsidyRevenue (net Subsidy)Net Income
North Carolina State$51,076,345 $50,560,564 $1,088,895 2.10%$49,987,450 ($573,114)
Clemson
$61,174,977 $58,367,884 $5,106,024 8.30%$56,068,953 ($2,298,931)
Virginia Tech$66,909,557 $62,594,797 $7,591,114 11.30% $59,318,443 ($3,276,354)
Virginia$78,439,006 $72,400,342 $12,973,298 16.50%$65,465,708 ($6,934,634)
Georgia Tech$54,354,409 $55,065,262 $6,454,071 11.90%$47,900,338 ($7,164,924)
North Carolina$75,606,311 $74,312,602 $8,829,369 11.70%$66,776,942 ($7,535,660)
Maryland$61,634,829 $61,632,000 $15,861,641 25.70%$45,773,188 ($15,858,812)
Florida State$78,575,788 $86,949,804 $7,528,006 9.60%$71,047,782 ($15,902,022)
 

BamaFossil

All-American
Jun 3, 2008
3,216
357
107
Williamsburg, VA
UVA does indeed bring in a lot of money to their sports programs. They have a lot of wealthy alums. Here's UVA's breakdown of mid 2009 to mid 2010 non-sports-specific athletic revenue...
Contributions: $26M
Student Fees: 12M
Royalties/Sponsorships/etc.: 6.6M
Conference Distributions: 1.8M

This revenue is not available for sharing with other conference schools any more than the contributions of Alabama donors are shared with our fellow conference members. IOW, it's my opinion that the total revenue brought in by a school's sports program isn't a particularly good metric for determining the suitability and value of that school to a conference. Heck, if total sports revenue was a determining factor, I suspect Harvard would rank pretty high... :wink:

Interesting match-ups; fans that can fill their own stadium and will travel to away games; eyes-on-TV coverage; operate profitably... These sorts of things should matter more than total revenue IMO.

Having said that, I wouldn't lose sleep over it if UVA were extended an invitation to the SEC. But I do politely disagree with the contention that UVA is a slam-dunk better choice than VaTech. It isn't.
 
Last edited:

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,487
39,555
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
They are efficient at Subsidy, as defined in the following link as:

Subsidy: The sum of students fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money. The NCAA and others consider such funds "allocated" or everything not generated by the department's athletics functions.

Tops in the ACC now that Maryland is gone.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ollege-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1
I was just about to say that. You don't have to be a trained auditor, although I am, to see that something smells in the case of UVA, when you look at their skinny football revenues and profit. The only way their AD can be showing a "profit" like that is subsidy. When looking at AD revenues and profits, it's best only to look at football and basketball revenues and profits. Those are the sports which carry all the others at almost every school...
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
43
kraizy.art
I was just about to say that. You don't have to be a trained auditor, although I am, to see that something smells in the case of UVA, when you look at their skinny football revenues and profit. The only way their AD can be showing a "profit" like that is subsidy. When looking at AD revenues and profits, it's best only to look at football and basketball revenues and profits. Those are the sports which carry all the others at almost every school...
Where the investments are coming from don't really matter though do they? Investment is investment. Virginia Tech doesn't have much investment...
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,487
39,555
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Where the investments are coming from don't really matter though do they? Investment is investment. Virginia Tech doesn't have much investment...
Yes, they do. When we start thinking about adding conference members, I'm only concerned about the health of their football and basketball programs. I'm underwhelmed by all these possibilities...
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
43
kraizy.art
Yes, they do. When we start thinking about adding conference members, I'm only concerned about the health of their football and basketball programs. I'm underwhelmed by all these possibilities...
The health of VT's basketball program is not very good, and you really think VT would continue football success in the SEC? Their "health" is a recent occurrence contingent on success. There is 0 proof it would continue without success, which is the likely (and hopeful for other SEC schools) outcome. The rest I wrote isn't a direct response to you of course...

This is a complicated subject and something in much greater depth could be written. For starters, I have to make it clear why total athletic revenue is so important. This is investment in the athletic department. We are talking about a product, and when a school is investing more into the product this means a great deal. 30 million dollars is a huge gap, especially considering the football success Virginia Tech has had. I listed athletic revenue when talking about A&M as well, it demonstrated they were willing to financially support their football team. It doesn't matter if it is rich alumni, the state, money coming in is money coming in.

We can not ignore other sports either. Basketball programming can be worth in the range of 1-10 million per year, tier three (which would be the bulk of network programming) can range from 1-10 million per year. One school could be worth 2 or 3 million per year in that regard, and another like North Carolina could be worth around 20 million. The additional investment is huge when talking about SEC Network programming, because it means better products all around. Football will not make up a bulk of the programming, so all those things North Carolina and Virginia are spending (and making) money on, will add value. It is entirely realistic to phrase it as saying Virginia and North Carolina could be worth 30 million more per year. That's a ton of money, but in terms of value for SEC programming, that is not a completely unrealistic number.

The other is analysis of Virginia Tech football, which as I said before is their only trick. Their revenue is behind Virginia, even with huge earnings in football. This means the rest of their athletic department is starved and poorly supported, both by fans and the school itself. The value of everything else is almost non-existent. Even if they continue their football success, they are likely worth less than Virginia. Without it? They are more Vanderbilt and Mississippi State than anything else. Showing their football revenue is not a pro, it's a con because it shows how reliant they are on football success.

Virginia Tech would be competing with Florida, Georgia, Tennessee,and South Carolina. They are demonstrably better supported. South Carolina doesn't have much of a history of football either, but let's be clear here. With Texas A&M, they unseated Arkansas and Auburn. They have a stadium of nearly 90K seating, in a state of over 25 million. This was good for the SEC. If Virginia Tech does it, they are unseating a traditional power. We're talking about a school with over ten thousand less attendance than South Carolina, unseating a Florida (89K), Georgia (92K), or Tennessee (94K). This could cost millions alone, because it would be a borderline football power brand hurting an established football power brand. And, furthermore Virginia Tech's athletic department simply doesn't have the money to expand seating at a fast rate. Once again, they're not a rich program.

The notion that Virginia Tech is another Florida State is a bit misleading (by the way, they've had financial troubles after Bowden left). Florida St. has far more attendance and is far more accomplished. More importantly, Florida cares much more about college sports. Many people have said it in different ways, but the truth is Virginia just isn't a college football state. And, their allegiances are all over the map. Sure, they'll cheer for VT if they are winning, but that simply is unlikely. This is the SEC! I'm not in love with Virginia either, but I know they won't harm football brands and will contribute without relying on football success.

I looked up attendance numbers for 1998, which is the farthest back the NCAA site has them. Virginia was steady at 43K. North Carolina was steady at 55K (close to current numbers). Virginia Tech, in the heart of a run of great seasons, of big bowls, was at 49K. This is Virginia Tech when they are winning! They were behind where North Carolina is when they are losing. Think about that. We're told that VT fans will follow them everywhere. Really? Then how come they didn't follow them then? How come a basketball school had better football attendance?

The truth is that if VT joins the SEC, even with success they will be underfunded. They could represent a net loss by harming a more powerful SEC brand. The likelihood though is that they start losing, attendance drops, and the state of Virginia forgets about Virginia Tech football. There simply is no history of fan support to lean on, no history of financial support. Virginia Tech is fool's gold. I used these same factors to explain why Texas A&M was a good addition, and they say Virginia Tech is a bad addition. It's all in the numbers.

There is a reason that the Big 10 is going after North Carolina and not Virginia Tech. There is a reason the ACC didn't want Virginia Tech. A lot of SEC fans can't see past football, but as I've said before, the SEC can't win two BCS Championship games in one year. They can't pile success on top of success. There has to be losers to, so the idea of adding a school reliant on football success to even be mediocre in the conference is ridiculous in my mind.

I'm going over it in my head and I'm not seeing how the likelyhood of a VT with a mid 50K football attendance, with middle of the road athletic revenue, and a low tier bowl game most years seems like a great addition. I'm just not getting the allure.
 
Last edited:

RJ YellowHammer

Hall of Fame
Sep 1, 2009
7,117
32
67
Memphis, Tn
Why should Joe Fan give one rip about generating extra SEC revenue?
Joe Fan needs to understand that facilities, coaching staffs, travel, etc. cost a great deal of money. The better we're funded the better our stuff is. If our stuff is better we get better players. If we get better players our team is better. Tell Joe Fan to pay attention. ;)
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,481
46,794
187
Do fees like those connected for ticket clubs (like your "Tide Pride") count as subsidies or direct revenue?
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
43
kraizy.art
With this thought process we should be going after Harvard and Yale.
If they chose to invest 100 million per year in their athletic departments we probably should. We're only talking about that, I haven't gotten into endowments or the like (if I did that I would be saying Virginia is worth billions more than Virginia Tech). Athletic department revenue is obviously important, this ultimately means if they can do things like send their band to away games, expand their stadium, or do investments that will contribute to a strong fan base that travels well, etc... It's highly pertinent.

Virginia Tech would also have to pay a massive exit fee, which by all appearances they couldn't afford unless the SEC paid it for them. Their financial well being, and the financial support of their athletic programs does directly correlate to their value as a SEC program, since the SEC is an athletic conference. The lack of financial support, also proves lack of fan support. Boosters, alumni, politicians... they support what they like, and they don't support Virginia Tech very much, so this defies the logic that Virginia Tech has a rabid base.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
I hate to repeat my statements over and over but I really don't care for any of the "market expansion" options left for us. UNC is the crown jewel of what is left on that list. NCST, UVA, and VT just don't seem like long-term profitable additions. UNC has their issues too but I think they have capacity to grow in football and they immediately lift men's basketball into a force.

I truly think the best option for further expansion is to go after Clemson and FSU. They fit the model of an SEC program. They aren't a market expansion though and that seems to be the motivator for adding school to the mix. It really highlights the problem going forward with expansion. We start to not only degrade the geographical cohesiveness of the conference but the financial well-being too. Clemson and FSU add little to the total revenue because they don't provide new markets. Teams like UVA, VT, and NCST will add markets but they may not add enough value long-term to be a positive addition.
 
Last edited:

TiderJack

Hall of Fame
Jul 9, 2010
12,185
6,170
187
Inverness, AL
I hate to repeat my statements over and over but I really don't care for any of the "market expansion" options left for us. UNC is the crown jewel of what is left on that list. NCST, UVA, and VT just don't seem like long-term profitable additions. UNC has their issues too but I think they have capacity to grow in football and they immediately lift men's basketball into a force.

I truly think the best option for further expansion is to go after Clemson and FSU. They fit the model of an SEC program. They aren't a market expansion though and that seems to be the motivator for adding school to the mix. It really highlights the problem going forward with expansion. We start to not only degrade the geographical cohesiveness of the conference but the financial well-being too. Clemson and FSU add little to the total revenue because they don't provide new markets. Teams like UVA, VT, and NCST will add markets but they may not add enough value long-term to be a positive addition.
They fit the football model but not the business model. The business model will win out which includes states we are not currently in. I just don't see UNC being interested in the SEC but could be wrong and hope I'm wrong.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
That's my point really. At what point does the business model stop working in practice? What gains do we really get in modest football markets in Virginia and North Carolina...especially when it seems like we will be getting the Auburn equivalent of each state in the process? At what point do we add a market that seems on paper to be dynamite but years later the broadcasters tell us to adjust our forecasts because they aren't getting good ratings in those markets?

I think we are increasingly getting to that pivot point in our strategy. I just don't think Richmond or Charlotte are going to be bread winners in our market strategy. We may get a short-term bump from the broadcasters but what about the long-term value? I think Clemson and FSU have far more long-term value despite the broadcasters playing every conference into this market footprint power grab.
 

MOAN

All-American
Aug 30, 2010
2,420
226
87
Swearengin, Alabama, United States
I personally don't see any school up North or anywhere for that matter that will out spend Alabama for coaches, facilities and what have you. No matter how many teams or who they bring into their conference. Will they get a bigger tv contract? Probably but they will also have more hands sticking out to divide it among. I'm not seeing the huge benefit for the SEC expanding should the BIG keep expanding.

Besides the top talent here in the South will remain in the South for the most part thus making the SEC just as attractive as it has always been for the best coaches. Most of the schools in the BIG have plenty of money already to upgrade their facilities I would suspect. Getting them to spend it on that may be the problem for their fans. But it don't matter how much tv money they get they can't change the climate up there! ;)
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
I'd add, that the ACC has been in the quandary for a decade now. They expanded into New England with Boston College and to the edge of Florida with Miami while bringing in Virginia Tech - the second best Big East football power - in the process. What did it do for them in football? Nothing much really.


Miami is only a factor when they are a contender. The whole City of Miami is a ring chasing bunch. They were a Dolphins town under Shula, a Canes town from the late-80s through the early-2000s, and now they're a Heat town under the Wade/Shaq and Wade/Lebron runs. Miami hasn't been a contender and therefore they've been a market non-factor to the ACC. Boston College is in the heart of pro sports country. Virginia Tech has been their biggest win and they don't even compete well against the elite of the sport.

They over-expanded their sphere of influence and bought into two brands that really add very little when they aren't a contender. VT was basically just the tagalong to get them a ACCCG and they've been the best inclusion of the bunch. I'd be wary of expanded into markets where college football isn't king. Texas A&M and Mizzou were good fits in that regard. I'm concerned about going into North Carolina expecting SEC football to become a big deal there.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,487
39,555
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
I'd add, that the ACC has been in the quandary for a decade now. They expanded into New England with Boston College and to the edge of Florida with Miami while bringing in Virginia Tech - the second best Big East football power - in the process. What did it do for them in football? Nothing much really.


Miami is only a factor when they are a contender. The whole City of Miami is a ring chasing bunch. They were a Dolphins town under Shula, a Canes town from the late-80s through the early-2000s, and now they're a Heat town under the Wade/Shaq and Wade/Lebron runs. Miami hasn't been a contender and therefore they've been a market non-factor to the ACC. Boston College is in the heart of pro sports country. Virginia Tech has been their biggest win and they don't even compete well against the elite of the sport.

They over-expanded their sphere of influence and bought into two brands that really add very little when they aren't a contender. VT was basically just the tagalong to get them a ACCCG and they've been the best inclusion of the bunch. I'd be wary of expanded into markets where college football isn't king. Texas A&M and Mizzou were good fits in that regard. I'm concerned about going into North Carolina expecting SEC football to become a big deal there.
UM averages under 50K attendance...
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.