Frogenstein
Full Member
How much money does SMU recieve from the ACC television contract compared to the other ACC schools?
University of North Texas to Amon Carter in 2027
- Thread starter Big Frog II
- Start date
An-Cap Frog
Member
An-Cap Frog
Member
Less than everyone else?
ShreveFrog
Full Member
ECM
Active Member
We gave up our Tier 1 revenue share. We still receive the rest of our share of the TV contract (ACC Network and CW), which is approx $12M/year
Frogenstein
Full Member
Tier 1 revenue is the bulk of conference television deals. So how much money did SMU give up to join the ACC?
Did Stanford and Cal, who joined at the same time, have to give up their share of Tier 1 revenue to join the ACC?
Did Stanford and Cal, who joined at the same time, have to give up their share of Tier 1 revenue to join the ACC?
ECM
Active Member
Cal and Stanford gave up 70% of their T1 share.
SMU paid nothing to join the ACC. We receive approximately 3X in conference distributions compared to what we received in the American.
Frogenstein
Full Member
With a quick search you can find numerous reports stating SMU gave up around $30 million dollars a year for 9 years to join the ACC.
Stanford is taking a reduced share starting at 30% and ramping up to 100% after year 7. Why didn’t SMU receive a deal at least similar to Stanford’s?
Stanford is taking a reduced share starting at 30% and ramping up to 100% after year 7. Why didn’t SMU receive a deal at least similar to Stanford’s?
ECM
Active Member
You can't give up what you never had. We paid $0.00 to join the ACC. Instead we took a reduced share, just like many other schools have done when moving conferences - Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska, and all the new Big 12 additions. Since joining the ACC, ticket sales, ticket prices, and donations are through the roof. We would have been fools to not have made the gambit we did to join the ACC. It has paid off in spades, and then some.
To your question - Stanford went to five NY6 bowls in the past 15 years and has one of the best athletic departments in the country. I'm OK with them being valued slightly higher than us when the move was made in 2023.
TopFrog
Lifelong Frog
Stanford was 4-8 last year. They are ridiculously bad too. Who knows what they or University of North Texas or TCU will look like next year. Yard to predict when your roster graduates or portals every year.
TopFrog
Lifelong Frog
Stanford was 4-8 last year. They are ridiculously bad too. Who knows what they or University of North Texas or TCU will look like next year. Hard to predict when your roster graduates or portals every year.
Frogenstein
Full Member
I don’t dispute it has been a good move for SMU. That said to say SMU didn’t buy their way in is at least a little disingenuous.
No, the school didn’t have to write a check to get in but according to numerous reports SMU did give up around 270 million dollars from the ACC media deal to join. In essence SMU said “take us we don’t cost nothin’.”
And yes, programs in the realignment game have taken gradual increases to full revenue share but nothing remotely like the SMU/ACC deal.
Cal got the same deal as Stanford so now tell me about Cal’s great athletic department.
ECM
Active Member
What reports? You can't give up what you never had.
I think you're mad because we got back to where we belong, and that is now a threat to TCU. To compound the problem, TCU has completely shot itself in the foot institutionally in recent years with the hires of Pullin and Buddie. Buddie is out over his skis. Pullin is a complete joke who shouldn't be running a food truck
Frogenstein
Full Member
If it makes you feel better to think I am mad about SMU joining the ACC then go right ahead.
Sure, SMU didn’t cut a check to join the ACC. Feel better? What SMU did do is essentially say we will give you our product for next to free for 9 years. No other program has ever done anything close to that to join a conference.
Also, still waiting for you to tell me about Cal’s great athletics that let them get a much better deal from the ACC than SMU.
At the end of the day none of this matters. SMU is in the ACC, good for the Ponies. But to act like it was just like all the other teams moving from one conference to another isn’t true.
Sure, SMU didn’t cut a check to join the ACC. Feel better? What SMU did do is essentially say we will give you our product for next to free for 9 years. No other program has ever done anything close to that to join a conference.
Also, still waiting for you to tell me about Cal’s great athletics that let them get a much better deal from the ACC than SMU.
At the end of the day none of this matters. SMU is in the ACC, good for the Ponies. But to act like it was just like all the other teams moving from one conference to another isn’t true.
Fosterpark Squatter
Active Member
Ya but can any of our donors pull off the "Triple Lindy"?
ECM
Active Member
They're the flagship university of the most populous state in the country. This shouldn't be difficult.
ShreveFrog
Full Member
@ECM - LOL. After USC, there's a steep dropoff in success and support. Californians do not generally support college athletics and the state and its universities face severe financial deficits. The state is falling apart fiscally and culturally. Catering to California is a fool's errand. Big mistake by the ACC to add Bears and Tree. But what else was there?
froginmn
Fan Club
Slight correction: Stanford went to five NY6 bowls in the last 16 years.
Oh, and zero in the last ten.
And they drove a highly decorated athlete to commit suicide (the ESPN story is a good watch). https://www.espn.com/college-sports...ily-katie-meyer-settle-wrongful-death-lawsuit
ECM
Active Member
I don't disagree with your overall premise regarding the Golden State, but Cal still managed to draw more fans than Houston did last year, and Houston spent several weeks in the top 25 and is getting a full share of Big 12 revenue.
Cal and Stanford also bring in the Bay Area media market at a (much) higher in-network carriage rate for ACC Network revenue.
ECM
Active Member
When USC and UCLA left the Pac-12, Bob Thompson (former Fox Sports exec who knows more about this stuff than any of us) pegged Stanford's media rights value as being higher than Oregon. And he's an Oregon alum. The Big Ten's subsequent expansion decisions contradict Bob's analysis, but the idea that Stanford is some worthless media property seems far-fetched.
Stunning detail about Pac-12 dollar values emerges in realignment discussions
Pac-12 fans, Big Ten fans and national college football fans are all discussing one thing: media rights value for various schools across the country. Everyone wants to know how much a school's football brand and its overall sports portfolio would add to a given…
trojanswire.usatoday.com
