Interview with Delany | Page 7 | The Boneyard

Interview with Delany

Status
Not open for further replies.
NotreDameJoe said:
Depends on the school. Not mine. Any accountant worth his salt can shuffle the money around to get whatever headline the school wants.
Expand ...

Your theory is the schools want to show they are making less on sports? Why?
 
upstater said:
Your theory is the schools want to show they are making less on sports? Why?
Expand ...

Because they don't want to admit many times the tail wags the dog.
 
upstater said:
Your theory is the schools want to show they are making less on sports? Why?
Expand ...
I Would Also Think It Is Beneficial In The Current Lawsuits By Obannon AndOthers As Well As The Other Attacks The SchoolsAre Under.
 
It would seem to me that no high school athletic department in the country turns a profit. They are not in business to turn a profit. So why care if a college program is profitable?
 
whaler11 said:
Because they don't want to admit many times the tail wags the dog.
Expand ...

The guy's school, I presume, is ND, which doesn't report to the DOE because they are private. He has internal knowledge, presumably. If the schools wanted to show how they lose money on sports, all they needed to do was remove student fees, institutional support from the revenue side, and add loans for stadiums and arenas to the expenses side. Done. Simple. Easy. No messing with branding and royalties at all.
 
UCONN13KC said:
It would seem to me that no high school athletic department in the country turns a profit. They are not in business to turn a profit. So why care if a college program is profitable?
Expand ...

Just correcting some statements about revenues made earlier by NotreDameJoe.
 
.-.
Fishy said:
Lol...Penn State.

Sure, that will happen.

Ah, the wisdom of a Syracuse fan - you wonder how central New York got to be such a raging s--- hole with that sort of brain power in their midst.
Expand ...


That's the only move out there that clearly helps ACC football. Sure, it's a crazy long shot, and it would have been more likely to happen when Penn State was also penalized by the Big 10 for the Sandusky affair. But they are the only team other than ND that really registers in the NYC TV market.
 
Last edited:
djct1999 said:
I think you are on to something here. I can definitely see Penn State taking in 20 million less a year to play in an inferior conference. Right on!
Expand ...


The Big 10's cable network is not going to generate the kind of long-term money they think it is. If the cable TV companies don't keep this gutting of Net Neutrality the current FCC chairman is pushing, customer churn is going to really take off with cable TV cord-cutters in the next 5-10 years. Those $1/subscriber fees are going to be pie in the sky. These networks are going to turn into free-standing apps, they're not going to get the money they think they are from basic cable carriage fees.
 
upstater said:
The guy's school, I presume, is ND, which doesn't report to the DOE because they are private. He has internal knowledge, presumably. If the schools wanted to show how they lose money on sports, all they needed to do was remove student fees, institutional support from the revenue side, and add loans for stadiums and arenas to the expenses side. Done. Simple. Easy. No messing with branding and royalties at all.
Expand ...

Or they could stop spending money like drunken sailors and show the opposite.
 
Dooley said:
ND is never joining the ACC full time. Deregulation looks like it will pass and ND has the ACC bent over just like they had the Big East bent over. ND wants a national recruiting base and will never join a regional conference.

Penn State is not going to walk away from $20M yr. The ACC needs its own network to generate more revenue OR it needs to add schools to open its ESPN TV deal for negotiation.
Expand ...


I agree to an extent. ND is not going to willingly join the ACC unless a football playoff format requires them to belong to a league. They won't do it on their own. No argument there, but the playoff concept moving to 8 teams from the P5 conferences seems to be in the cards. Deny that if you like, but that's where we're going.

The difference in revenue between the Big 10 and the ACC is not $20M per year; it's more like $3-4M per school. How much does Penn State spend sending its students across 2 time zones for conference games? We'll see what happens, but the Big 10's cable projections are not reality-based. Delany should work for Fox News.
 
upstater said:
The guy's school, I presume, is ND, which doesn't report to the DOE because they are private. He has internal knowledge, presumably. If the schools wanted to show how they lose money on sports, all they needed to do was remove student fees, institutional support from the revenue side, and add loans for stadiums and arenas to the expenses side. Done. Simple. Easy. No messing with branding and royalties at all.
Expand ...


Plus it is common practice for schools to levy use fees (rent) on the sports teams for using facilities. That's another way to pad your losses.
 
whaler11 said:
Or they could stop spending money like drunken sailors and show the opposite.
Expand ...

UConn can start the ball rolling nationally on this by not spending on its basketball coach.
 
.-.
IthacaMatt said:
I agree to an extent. ND is not going to willingly join the ACC unless a football playoff format requires them to belong to a league. They won't do it on their own. No argument there, but the playoff concept moving to 8 teams from the P5 conferences seems to be in the cards. Deny that if you like, but that's where we're going.

The difference in revenue between the Big 10 and the ACC is not $20M per year; it's more like $3-4M per school. How much does Penn State spend sending its students across 2 time zones for conference games? We'll see what happens, but the Big 10's cable projections are not reality-based. Delany should work for Fox News.
Expand ...

They are already $9m ahead of the ACC as of last year's pay out. That's real money ($26m per school) that the B1G schools reported last year. The projections are for $35m+ after their new deal gets done.
 
If UCONN Does What You Propose There, It's Time To Get Yankee Conference Back Together.
 
upstater said:
They are already $9m ahead of the ACC as of last year's pay out. That's real money ($26m per school) that the B1G schools reported last year. The projections are for $35m+ after their new deal gets done.
Expand ...


Actually that difference was for 2011-12, two years ago. The ACC got a $2M per school bump from the ND addition, plus they have their own network in the works.
 
We need to stop arguing that the ACC is in some kind of difficulty, because it isn't. Not even close. It will continue to get bigger checks from ESPN in some form for a long time, and will be able to compete with the other majors for the next 10 years at least.

Edit: the only thing dumber than arguing that the ACC is in trouble is IthacaMatt arguing that the Big 10 is in trouble.
 
IthacaMatt said:
The Big 10's cable network is not going to generate the kind of long-term money they think it is. If the cable TV companies don't keep this gutting of Net Neutrality the current FCC chairman is pushing, customer churn is going to really take off with cable TV cord-cutters in the next 5-10 years. Those $1/subscriber fees are going to be pie in the sky. These networks are going to turn into free-standing apps, they're not going to get the money they think they are from basic cable carriage fees.
Expand ...

Under the scenario you describe the Big Ten and/or BTN could actually thrive. Content owners/licensees stand to profit the most. In many respects this is why Netflix and other are investing in developing or acquiring content. The Big Ten stands to benefit the most because of its alumni base. National following aside, Michigan and Ohio State have a million living alumni between them. The conference as a whole probably has close to 10 million alumni. Throw in local populations and national fans and that number grows substantially. It's the small privates without a national following that will suffer most.
 
I do believe that the ACC and Big 10 are preparing to battle over New York City. There will be lots of marketing by both leagues in the Big Apple to drive market share. UConn needs one side to win and one to lose, because then the loser will have to do something. If both leagues make inroads and are successful, UConn's hopes for getting out of this conference hellhole get much dimmer.
 
.-.
upstater said:
UConn can start the ball rolling nationally on this by not spending on its basketball coach.
Expand ...

I'm not saying they should and I know nobody will, but they have an expense problem not a revenue problem at most major schools.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
We need to stop arguing that the ACC is in some kind of difficulty, because it isn't. Not even close. It will continue to get bigger checks from ESPN in some form for a long time, and will be able to compete with the other majors for the next 10 years at least.

Edit: the only thing dumber than arguing that the ACC is in trouble is IthacaMatt arguing that the Big 10 is in trouble.
Expand ...


The ACC WAS in trouble when Maryland was poached. At that moment in time, people wondered if UVA and UNC would fall like dominoes. That was only a couple years ago.

But I've never said the Big 10 was in trouble. The Big 10 and the SEC make the most money. The Big 10 moved first with their network ahead of the other conferences. I don't think it's a huge success so far. Yes, the Big 10 continues to outpace the ACC, Big 12 and the Pac-Whatever, but it's only by a few million a year. All the P5 teams will be fine.

Where I differ is when Delany thinks they are going to double their per school revenue on the back of the Big Ten Network being carried on cable and being able to exact a $1 per subscriber (or whatever) carriage fee. I don't think the demand is there in New Jersey, Maryland or New York to carry it except on a premium tier. Delany thinks he is doubling his conference's revenues in 3 years, when they've only been going up by $2-3M per year for the last several years.

I think the long term dynamic is against people staying with expensive bundled TV services. Technology will force ala carte programming, and all the content owners are seeing they can cut out the middle man by selling their product directly to consumers via app / subscription. Delany is double counting. The more people pay for BTN as an app, the fewer will pay as cable subscribers. He's basing his projections on mass adoption via basic cable, but I don't see him getting the money he thinks he can (over the long term), unless he goes direct or goes premium tier.
 
itgoeslike said:
Under the scenario you describe the Big Ten and/or BTN could actually thrive. Content owners/licensees stand to profit the most. In many respects this is why Netflix and other are investing in developing or acquiring content. The Big Ten stands to benefit the most because of its alumni base. National following aside, Michigan and Ohio State have a million living alumni between them. The conference as a whole probably has close to 10 million alumni. Throw in local populations and national fans and that number grows substantially. It's the small privates without a national following that will suffer most.
Expand ...


I think you're right about this. The Big 10 schools have massive alumni bases. Their school loyalty is very high. I think the direct-to-consumer model is the future, and the Big 10 is probably best positioned for that world.
 
.-.
noeynox said:
I Would Also Think It Is Beneficial In The Current Lawsuits By Obannon AndOthers As Well As The Other Attacks The SchoolsAre Under.
Expand ...

If one side presents its books as evidence,won't the other side send its own auditors to confirm?
 
IthacaMatt said:
It's going to be more than this. There are a couple connected cable TV people on our board who have been talking about it. Part of the issue is phasing out Raycom's participation in syndicating and distributing games.
Expand ...

OK, but where is the money coming from? ESPN already owns all of your content that isn't leased to Raycom. Sure there may be an ACCN. The question is how much will the ACC schools see from it. Why would they pay more for something when they already own the rights. The ACC might get more exposure, and that's a great thing, don't get me wrong. I just don't see that much more added value for something ESPN already owns.
 
upstater said:
Your theory is the schools want to show they are making less on sports? Why?
Expand ...

Related: How Athletic Departments (And The Media) Fudge The Cost Of Scholarships

As Brian Goff and Dennis Wilson very perceptively have written, athletic departments are trying to walk a rhetorical tightrope. They want to hide their profits to make it easier to keep them away from other would-be claimants. They also want to avoid looking so poor that other stakeholders within academia use sports' apparent poverty to strip them of power. Rhetoric that turns a price into a cost, and a transfer of profit into a loss of money, helps play a role in confusing things enough that the moment in the magic trick where the profit is moved from one pocket to the other gets obscured.

This sleight of hand confuses the media, who then (unknowingly) magnify and perpetuate the deception. Articles that use the label "scholarship cost" for what the schools call "athletic student aid" on their financial reporting documents are confusing price and cost, and those that don't net out direct institutional expense are reporting a fake price at that. Schools and athletic departments have no real incentive to correct the record, and so the public is left with the perception that somehow these wildly profitable enterprises are just scraping by—all the easier to claim poverty when the workforce comes around looking for a more competitive cut.
Expand ...
 
dayooper said:
OK, but where is the money coming from? ESPN already owns all of your content that isn't leased to Raycom. Sure there may be an ACCN. The question is how much will the ACC schools see from it. Why would they pay more for something when they already own the rights. The ACC might get more exposure, and that's a great thing, don't get me wrong. I just don't see that much more added value for something ESPN already owns.
Expand ...


I think the expected bump will be a couple million a year at the beginning. But some colleges will do better, especially the Florida based schools, from an ACC perspective. It's the "third tier" rights that we're talking about. If you ever have watched BTN, it should be that, but with a bigger dose of baseball, softball, lacrosse, spring football practice (Fla State, Clemson, Miami). It's not something I would pay for, personally, but there is a market out there.
 
itgoeslike said:
Coach Kevin Ollie is not an expense item, but rather an Appreciable Asset.
Expand ...

I think you're onto something. Schools should treat their stars like the world soccer leagues do. You want'em? Hand over $20 mill!
 
Last edited:
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,333
Messages
4,565,019
Members
10,464
Latest member
Rollskies27


Top Bottom