ACC expansion | Page 9 | The Boneyard

ACC expansion

I don't think I'd waste money going to a movie theater to watch Wake Forest @ Syracuse.
 
billybud said:
Football on an IMax screen ?

Maybe....But I don't see the theatre appeal...now, sometimes we watch at our local sports bar to schmooz with other fans.
Expand ...
yeah why would i pay to watch a game in a theater when i'm already paying for it through comcast or whatever streaming service i have...

we all knew espn was stuck in the 90s with their linear tv model thinking but this sets them back to the freaking 1920s. lets go see the talking pictures everyone lmao.
 
Might go over here in the mountains...internet notoriously spotty...no cable in many areas....long waiting times for starlink and the terrain often occludes the north azimuth of the starlink satellite.
 
I can't sit in a theater for 90 minutes nevermind 3 plus hours. To watch a 60 minute game! What a stupid concept. espn is in the take all the joy out of sports business.

Reply
 
billybud said:
Football on an IMax screen ?

Maybe....But I don't see the theatre appeal...now, sometimes we watch at our local sports bar to schmooz with other fans.
Expand ...
Many movie theatres have alcohol, food, and great seats. The picture quality would be awesome. That said, I would prefer to go to a bar over a movie theatre.
 
.-.
LOL at spending $ to watch a football game in a theatre.

I've got a 60" UHD Samsung with either Dolby Atmos Surround Sound or 7.1 Surround. Speakers are Polk Audio - Denon AVR. I even have a ZVox sound bar manning the center speaker for added voice buffs. Maaaybe the theatre can sound louder, but there's no freakin way it'll sound better.

I get the thrill of attending an event in person, and call what I just described of my home theater a 'humble brag' if you like (no seriously, it kicks ass), but LOL at the thought of spending $ to watch a football game (really, any sporting event) in a movie theater.
 
Do people not know that if you want to watch a game with other people, you are allowed to invite them to your house or apartment? Or, post-Covid, is there a generation where they just don't know any people any more?
 
Last edited:
Rufus said:
Because SMU is paying for the additions of Cal and Stanford by forgoing any media rights payouts for 7 years. The SMU boosters are paying to run the athletic department at SMU for the next 7 years.

If UConn would forgo any media rights payouts for 7 years and rely on the UConn boosters to fund the athletic department during that time, I'm sure the ACC would be interested.

These additions will cost the ACC money once all three are full members after the 7 year buy-in period. That's why adding these teams shows the ACC knows it will inevitably lose teams down the road.
Expand ...
SMU is going to be making more for the next 7 years than they do in the AAC, even when they take zero media dollars. They will still get NCAA and CFP payouts, and other payouts which equal more than the AAC total with media. They will actually make even more because the games will have higher attendance and being in a better conference increases revenue in itself. They need less donors in the ACC even when they get zero media money than they do in the AAC.
 
CL82 said:
Got it. That same argument would support cutting every men's sport except for basketball and football and only maintaining sufficient women's sports to meet our Title XI obligation. We may get to the point where that is what we are facing, but we aren't there yet.

For what it's worth, UConn hockey draws pretty well, probably with attendance in excess of many men's basketball programs. Both it, and if I recall correctly, women's hockey were both ranked last year. Having a diverse and successful athletic department which sponsors a number of sports makes us more attractive as a Px addition. If we aspire to that, still, then maintaining a diversity of sports sponsored is probably in our best interest.
Expand ...
We already tried to go the NCAA minimum of men's sponsored sports (6). Golf boosters ended up propping up the team for a while longer. Not much left to cut
 
.-.
WrenchFan69 said:
We already tried to go the NCAA minimum of men's sponsored sports (6). Golf boosters ended up propping up the team for a while longer. Not much left to cut
Expand ...
I'm not in favor of it. Having a diverse number of successful sports is a primary indication of a healthy athletic department
 
temery said:
Worked so well in Houston, let's try it again.
Expand ...
Well played. Did we ever find out what the was about?

I didn't mean strangers from the Boneyard. I meant actual, friends, which requires you to know the people. LOL
 
businesslawyer said:
Well played. Did we ever find out what the was about?

I didn't mean strangers from the Boneyard. I meant actual, friends, which requires you to know the people. LOL
Expand ...
Strangers? You really don't know us at all anymore.
 
Years ago they had a place called Mugs and Movies...beer, food,movie....did watch a game there that you had to PPV to see from house....went with another couple and it was all good.

But it was in a different ere....when some games were PPV or not seen,,,,also hosted PPV wrestling/boxing matches.
 
.-.
Adding SMU with no media money is going to draw attention from congress and allegations of antitrust. The only way to get into power 4 is to be taken advantage of. I could see a reduced share for a few years but no money is ridiculous.
 
Maybe this is dumb (probably is), but why doesn't the Big East add Stanford, Cal, SDSU, OSU, WSU, SMU, Memphis and USF? 18 team league for basketball with 3 6 team pods (Stanford, Cal, OSU, WSU, SDSU, SMU) / (Xavier, Butler, Marquette, DePaul, Memphis, Creighton) / (UConn, Providence, Georgetown, USF, Seton Hall, St. John's) to still allow for generally regional travel. 9-team football league with Stanford, Cal, WSU, OSU, SDSU, USF, SMU, Memphis and UConn. Retain the PAC name for the football league and keep Olympic sports under the Big East. Could maybe get Navy for 10.
 
Brochacho said:
Maybe this is dumb (probably is), but why doesn't the Big East add Stanford, Cal, SDSU, OSU, WSU, SMU, Memphis and USF? 18 team league for basketball with 3 6 team pods (Stanford, Cal, OSU, WSU, SDSU, SMU) / (Xavier, Butler, Marquette, DePaul, Memphis, Creighton) / (UConn, Providence, Georgetown, USF, Seton Hall, St. John's) to still allow for generally regional travel. 9-team football league with Stanford, Cal, WSU, OSU, SDSU, USF, SMU, Memphis and UConn. Retain the PAC name for the football league and keep Olympic sports under the Big East. Could maybe get Navy for 10.
Expand ...
Look at how complicated that was to type out. Now imagine how complicated that would be to implement.

Also nobody wants to be in a conference with anyone from the big east besides maybe Villanova at this point. Why would Stanford want to play tiny catholic schools in Midwest cities?
 
Rufus said:
I don't think I'd waste money going to a movie theater to watch Wake Forest @ Syracuse.
Expand ...

Nobody would leave the comforts of their own living room and pay money to watch a random regular season football game in a Cinema with a bunch of strangers, especially in an era when channel/internet surfing during games is part of the fun. The people who want to get out of the house and make an event of the game are likely going to the actual game.
 
.-.
I hope the ACC adds everyone: Cal, Stanford, SMU, whoever. It makes them all look pathetic and weak. Imagine you're a Stanford volleyball player and you have to travel to BC for a Tuesday night game - and you have your physics midterm on Wednesday.

As long as the ACC agrees to be the side piece for Notre Dame, they will never have any respect. I enjoy watching ACC teams play and lose.
 
BlueandOG said:
I hope the ACC adds everyone: Cal, Stanford, SMU, whoever. It makes them all look pathetic and weak. Imagine you're a Stanford volleyball player and you have to travel to BC for a Tuesday night game - and you have your physics midterm on Wednesday.

As long as the ACC agrees to be the side piece for Notre Dame, they will never have any respect. I enjoy watching ACC teams play and lose.
Expand ...
I get your point and I am all for hyperbole but there is no way they schedule a stanford bc volleyball game on a Tuesday night. Besides, how many classes to do you think top d1 athletes take in season? It’s rare for it to be a full, conventional class load. Other than that, I too enjoy watching acc teams lose. This entire round of realignment is a farce and will be the nail in the coffin. Certainly, for the acc and probably for sports media rights in general. Atleast how they are negotiated. Few may actually earn more in the future, most will earn significantly less.
 
BlueandOG said:
I hope the ACC adds everyone: Cal, Stanford, SMU, whoever. It makes them all look pathetic and weak. Imagine you're a Stanford volleyball player and you have to travel to BC for a Tuesday night game - and you have your physics midterm on Wednesday.

As long as the ACC agrees to be the side piece for Notre Dame, they will never have any respect. I enjoy watching ACC teams play and lose.
Expand ...
The PAC schedules all their conference games on weekends already. I'm sure that would continue if they moved.

Also Stanford's field hockey team has been in the America East for several years, so there is one team that has done it. They have a four-game road trip early (before Stanford's late-starting semester), and then two Friday/Sunday games in October on the east coast.
 
Not sure what’s driving the ESPN theater concept, but the only thing that makes sense to me sounds like ESPN wants to create a multitude of local “sports book like” viewing experiences at local theaters. Given the ability to conveniently bet on line, the group dynamic of gathered attendees who would be cheering on (for example) every completed or dropped pass (I have the “over” on completions—you have the under) might be a compelling tribal experience. Without that component, why would anyone leave their couch or their local bar.
It could result in lots of mutually beneficial marketing arrangement’s with theaters and Espn’s official betting site (free parking? if you buy $X amount of food/drink at theater—and bonus bets if you download and bet with Espn’s partnered betting site). By using their betting site interactively from your seat, there could be on screen projections of betting trends in the theater. All that constant cheering might work in a stand alone theater but not sure about a multiplex.
Bottom line, sounds like a dumb (and desperate?) idea by ESPN right now but who knows. Seems like a long shot, but dumber ideas have ultimately become new paradigms.
 
No cost to ESPN/ACC.

Anything positive out of the arrangement is good....I like the thinking outside of the box even if it sounds goofy.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,510
Messages
4,579,684
Members
10,488
Latest member
Djw06001


Top Bottom