Good Swofford Interview

[RS9999X]

Includes Big East insults of ommision:

“The real challenge with the BCS is that it’s not just a simple vote. It has to be a consensus of the group and the major conferences. The five of us are the ones that need to come to some consensus, because that’s -relative to the other conferences- what drives the value. Here’s why….If you go back the last 20 years and you look at the top four teams that would have played in a four team playoff, which is what is being discussed,79 of those 80 teams came from the five conferences. That’s what drives the value in the post-season and the ACC a very sound part of that with those teams going forward.”

And PAC-12 contract clarification

the problem is sometimes trying to compare apples-to-apples in terms of the media deals because they are all a little different, all conferences operate a little differently. You have to make sure that you are comparing the same years, number one. Number two, an example of the differences are what some conferences pull in- the Pac 12 took the institutional multi-media rights from the institutions. We don’t do that. That’s left in the hands of the individual institutions. That’s about on average in our league probably four-and-a-half or five million a year. Another difference that makes it hard to compare is that our league pass all championship expenses. In other words, schools that here for the baseball tournament- Clemson doesn’t pay for that. The Atlantic Coast Conference does. That goes for all of the other schools. On average, that’s another $600,000 that they don’t pay, but we do. That’s the same thing as a revenue share.


On the IMG/Raycom Tier contracts and Creating a Network


Another example is the Pac 12, they are taking money back from the schools that is given from initial rights fees to try and invest some money into trying to create some channels. In our situation, we studied that very diligently with the help of our television consultants at IMG Wasserman. We collectively concluded that at this point and time, going that route was not an investment that we wanted to make and that we were more comfortable going with ESPN and having all of our revenues totally guaranteed for the full amount of our contract and it’s term and have the opportunity during that term to consider a potential channel with ESPN as we move forward. That’s why we have a five-year look-in, a 10-year look-in. So, this contract has incredible exposure for our conference. No conference in the country will have better exposure on the platforms that we are on which are 15 of ESPN’s platforms- whether it’s by phone or traditional television, ESPN in three to five years will be just like a television channel with the smart televisions that are coming out. All of that is kind of future oriented and it also positions us extraordinarily well if and when- and it’s probably when- we go to more of a subscription based television because of our markets up and down the east coast. In terms of exposure, the dollars are outstanding. You can say, ‘ok somebody has a few more’, but then you have to start looking at things like championship expenses and whether our schools are having to put money back in to invest, whether our schools have access to the institutional multimedia and so forth. So, all of that has to come into play. It’s not nearly as simple as people would lead you to believe.

 

[whaler11]

There is no way that 79 of 80 is true.

 

[RS9999X]

There is no way that 79 of 80 is true.

He qualifies it a bit to say " are now in the top 5 conferences." Meaning Miami, WVU, V Tech, TCU.

 

[whaler11]

I was just thinking Boise and Cinci but I guess the rest are gone.

 

[Adios]

On the bright side, we'll be in the ACC, at worst.

 

[SAMCRO]

He qualifies it a bit to say " are now in the top 5 conferences." Meaning Miami, WVU, V Tech, TCU.

I went back 10 years and 37 of the 40 top four teams are in 4 conferences. ACC has 2 (one of which was in the BE at the time), and the BE has 1 (Cinci). So for Swofford to lump the ACC in w/ the likes of the SEC, B12, B10, and the P10, but omit the BE is a bit of a joke.

 

[Jericho]

I was just thinking Boise and Cinci but I guess the rest are gone.

How many years would Boise have qualified? He may be going off the AP/Coach's poll rankings, which usually dinged Boise State for being in a "lower tier" conference. I can't recall how many times, if any, they ended up in the top 4 prior to the bowls. The one exception to the 80, might be Cincy.

On a related note, Slive, Swafford, and Neinas have all come out in favor of a four team playoff. This shortly after Larry Scott tried to renew interest in the "Plus 1" scenario. It makes it seem like a four team playoff is coming, the only question is how the teams are selected and how the games are administered.

 

[Jericho]

I went back 10 years and 37 of the 40 top four teams are in 4 conferences. ACC has 2 (one of which was in the BE at the time), and the BE has 1 (Cinci). So for Swofford to lump the ACC in w/ the likes of the SEC, B12, B10, and the P10, but omit the BE is a bit of a joke.

Yes and no. I think it's pretty clear the Big East is no longer at the "big boys" table and its commissioner doesn't really have that much power in these discussions. The ACC is not at the level of the other power conferences, but Swafford's obviously trying to spin it to make the ACC appear on par. The ultimate question is how much sway Swafford has in these discussions. He's at least included in the discussions, but may be fairly powerless. The ACC is really somewhere in between the Top 4 and everyone else. But excluding the Big East is somewhat accurate in that it's really the 5 conference commissioners and Notre Dame making the real decisions.

 

[sportsart]

On the bright side, we'll be in the ACC, at worst.

The ACC is about to become, or already is, as irrelevant as the Big East is. Swofford is like that cartoon where that little dog follows the big dog around jumping up and down saying "Gee George, you're my best friend right George, we do everything together, right George...?"

The ACC is just as vulnerable as the Big East now. I say duck them and stay, get a decent contract and just play the hand we've been dealt.

The season can't start soon enough.

 

[UConnJim]

Swofford is just playing the role of besieged conference commissioner. The above quotes leave out two important facts. First, the ACC has a TV contract with Raycom that some believe is undervalued and Swofford is the man behind the deal. Second, in this interview, he was asked directly if Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St had asked to join the ACC last year when the Big 12 was blowing up. His reply was that there were general discussions at the time. So, Swofford had a chance (yes, maybe a small chance) to solidify the ACC's football presence and did not deliver. In hindsight, he should have done everything he could to make a deal happen.

 

[UConnJim]

One last point on Swofford. The original ACC raid on the Big East targeted BC, Miami, and Syracuse and not VT. VT was forced on the ACC by UVA. Imagine if the ACC had gotten Syracuse instead of VT? The football in the ACC would have been even worse than it has been!

 

[Marty Jackson]

Yes and no. I think it's pretty clear the Big East is no longer at the "big boys" table and its commissioner doesn't really have that much power in these discussions. The ACC is not at the level of the other power conferences, but Swafford's obviously trying to spin it to make the ACC appear on par. The ultimate question is how much sway Swafford has in these discussions. He's at least included in the discussions, but may be fairly powerless. The ACC is really somewhere in between the Top 4 and everyone else. But excluding the Big East is somewhat accurate in that it's really the 5 conference commissioners and Notre Dame making the real decisions.

Agree for the most part, except the Big East is a lot closer to the ACC than the ACC is to the #4 conference (Pac12). I would even argue that #4, 5 and 6 are probably closer in BCS rankings than #1, 2 and 3. If you look at the BCS ranking for the past several years, the Big East has finished ahead of both the Pac12 and the ACC.

Of course as we all know, this has nothing to do with on-field success but rather who can secure the most $'s regardless of wins and losses.

If MLB used the NCAA methodology, the NY Yankees and Boston Red Sox would be inked every year for the World Series (every couple years the Phillies or Cardinals would replace the Red Sox). We'd still have Divisional and League playoffs, but the winners get a trophy and front row seats to the World Series to see the Big Boys play.
We'd debate about how a Tampa or Texas beat the Yankees head to head and deserved a shot, but because the Yankees have 26 Championships, a $200M+ payroll, and the most fan attendance, they would be determined to be the best team. Polls taken in NYC would even support that fact. And because we have the best teams playing in the WS, the regular season would be protected. Every game would matter.
Teams would be allowed to schedule their out-of-division games with whoever so the Yankees play 135 home games every year with another 27 played at neutral sites in NJ. A maximum of 10 games would be allowed against minor league affiliates.
The draft would be eliminated in place for a fair and open market meaning players are free to sign with whoever. And, teams would be allowed to carry as many players as they could afford. Eventually a few teams would have 10 or more farm teams while other teams would have the minumum 10 man roster (players might have to pitch one day, play 1st the next).
After a few years under this scenario, a TV package is negotiated. And because NY somehow gained an upper hand and is the winningest team, they negotiate 50% of the TV revenue for them, and the rest split amongst the others. But, the AL east shares revenue, so the Yankees end up getting 75% of the TV revenue.
Eventually people would come to believe the Yankees are the best team and the lack of a level playing field would be ignored. People would just look to the facts about NY winning the most WS and the gap between them, the Red Sox, and the rest of the league to justify the setup.

This is how the Big 4 want college football to work. Replace the Yankees for any of the Big 4 conferences. If I were Swofford, I'd be saying anything to be included at that table.

 

[huskypantz]

Marty, MLB is elitist. The fact that there is no salary cap allows the teams with the greatest revenue to bring in the best players. The Red Sox and Yankees consistently win more because they spend more. The luxury tax is just a way for the league to "penalize" teams that overspend (who they know will do it regardless) and even pocket a few bucks off it.

The SEC and B1G have that same revenue advantage. To be fair, their revenue advantage is primarily built off strong fan support that separates them from the mid and low tier schools. Schools like Vandy and Indiana are exceptions. Let's be honest, if we were selling out a 55k stadium right now we'd either already be in the ACC or one of the primary targets of the B1G and B12. We would have already passed Cuse and Pitt.

 

[RS9999X]

Swofford recognized one obvious factor in the article: the ACC has to get better.

Seeding the top 4 means the ACC will get screwed every year unless it has an undefeated team. A FSU with 1 loss won't squeeze in over a 10-1 Ohio State or 10-1 USC or a 10-1 Alabama or 10-1 Oklahoma.

 

[Jericho]

Swofford recognized one obvious factor in the article: the ACC has to get better.

Seeding the top 4 means the ACC will get screwed every year unless it has an undefeated team. A FSU with 1 loss won't squeeze in over a 10-1 Ohio State or 10-1 USC or a 10-1 Alabama or 10-1 Oklahoma.

I don't think its that cut and dry. FSU is a perfect example. They are national recognized, and they do a good job scheduling out of conference (Florida every year and most recently Oklahoma). A one loss FSU team could get in over other one loss teams from the "Big 4". Also, using last year as a perfect example, losing only 1 game usually means you in the top 4 (or close to it). As long as schools win, the rankings usually take care of themselves.

While I'd agree a one-loss ACC team will normally be ranked behind a one-loss Pac 12, Big 10, SEC, or Big 12 team, it won't always be that way. And normally each conference does not have that one super team. The Big 10 did not last year. What that means is that a 0 or 1 loss ACC team would get into the playoffs in most years.

 

[lv99]

The problem that Florida State is having is the same problem, on a conference level, that basketball schools have producing a good football program. If you're good at basketball, you won't be good at football, and vice versa; players want to play where their sport is the main attraction. It's not that the ACC has really done anything wrong. It's hard to be good at football in a basketball conference.

 

[uconndogs]

Ummmmm......University. Of FLA.....?

 

[Dann]

but besides 2 schools(unc and duke) acc basketball has gone far town the pipe also. name all the different acc schools the past 5 years to make the elite 8? they put out crapy products in both sports and live to put out 2 great bball schools that hold the same tv market down the street from each other.

 

[lv99]

Ummmmm......University. Of FLA.....?

Florida falls into the same category as Texas and Ohio State. They're so big they can dump so much money into everything, they can be good in both sports.

 

[lv99]

Yeah, I agree that the ACC has been really bad lately in basketball too. Casual observers will think the ACC is still good because you still always hear a lot about Duke and UNC. The ACC has been pretty bad at basketball and football lately. It seems like every team that joins the ACC just gets worse. The ACC is a black hole. But the perception is still that they are a great in basketball, which is what recruits pay attention to.

 

[observer]

The key thing that Swofford said is how the ACC contract and the Pac12 contracts are essentially the same moneywise. Most people who did not know the details have been going off half cocked claiming that the ACC's contract is vastly inferior to all of the other four major conferences. Upon closer review that seems to either not be the case or the gap is not as large as people have thought. If the purported gap is either nonexistent or smaller than first imagined then there goes the primary reason why people thing that every school in the ACC is halfway out the door.

 

[CL82]

The key thing that Swofford said is how the ACC contract and the Pac12 contracts are essentially the same moneywise. Most people who did not know the details have been going off half cocked claiming that the ACC's contract is vastly inferior to all of the other four major conferences. Upon closer review that seems to either not be the case or the gap is not as large as people have thought. If the purported gap is either nonexistent or smaller than first imagined then there goes the primary reason why people thing that every school in the ACC is halfway out the door.

Because Swofford is a truthful guy who does have agenda, like, say ...promoting his conference?

 

[RS9999X]

The key thing that Swofford said is how the ACC contract and the Pac12 contracts are essentially the same moneywise. Most people who did not know the details have been going off half cocked claiming that the ACC's contract is vastly inferior to all of the other four major conferences. Upon closer review that seems to either not be the case or the gap is not as large as people have thought. If the purported gap is either nonexistent or smaller than first imagined then there goes the primary reason why people thing that every school in the ACC is halfway out the door.

A couple points: Florida State and Clemson aren't looking at the PAC-12 contract when they perform due diligence.

The PAC-12 has upside built into their Network: They saturate their foortprint with 4 California Teams, 2 Washington, 2 Oregon, 2 Arizona, etc.

Bowl revenues aren't comparable or Conference Championship.

The bottom line is conference distributions and Tier 3 combined. The BiG is at $22.6. ($16.6 of that is TV dollars) Ohio State gets $11 million a year from IMG which contains no broadcast except Coaches shows and Radio.

As a comparison FSU will get $12.3 for television (almost $5 million less than Ohio State when the conference share is deducted) $4.5 million less on Tier 3 with IMG, and there is a differential on other conferene revenues from the Rose Bowl, Conference Championship Game, Conference Corporate Deals, and new BCS fornat--all of which benefit the BiG over the ACC. I'll estimate that at a $3.5 mil difference

I'll throw out a $13 mil difference in that comparison between OSU and FSU under new contracts. Swofford's a good salesman.

 

[observer]

Because Swofford is a truthful guy who does have agenda, like, say ...promoting his conference?

So let me understand; the Commissioner of a major conference is just going to get up and lie in an interview. Right?

Then when one or all of the current ACC schools call him and say WTH he is going to say exactly what?

 

[RS9999X]

So let me understand; the Commissioner of a major conference is just going to get up and lie in an interview. Right?

Then when one or all of the current ACC schools call him and say WTH he is going to say exactly what?

Lying and the most favorable spin are two different things.

Last year's SEC

>> The Southeastern Conference will distribute approximately $220.0 million to the 12 league institutions in the revenue sharing plan for the 2010-11 fiscal year, which ends Aug. 31, 2011, according to league commissioner Mike Slive.

The $220.0 million is the highest total ever distributed in SEC history

The average amount distributed to each school was $18.3 million.


Broken down by categories and rounded off, the $220.0 million was derived from $113.0 million from football television, $31.3 million from bowls, $15.3 million from the SEC Football Championship, $31.1 million from basketball television, $5.0 million from the SEC Men’s Basketball Tournament and $24.3 million from NCAA Championships<<


The BiG distributions for 2010: $22.6 mil per team: By comparison, the Big 12 divvied $145 million among its members for an average of a little more than $12 million.

The breakdown of the Big Ten's payment to Illinois includes $16.6 million from television, of which $8.2 million comes from ESPN and ABC. Thus, the BTN, which has been on the air four years, has nearly matched the more established networks in its ability to fill university coffers.

Estimates by SNL Kagan suggest the network will continue to be a boon for the Big Ten. By 2015, the BTN is projected to generate $333 million

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/illini/article_d924c1e4-ffb5-5889-83e9-3dd0c31ed301.html#ixzz1wCwXIw1z