ACC | Page 24 | The Boneyard

ACC

Status
Not open for further replies.
In retrospect, the ACC should have just added Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, Rutgers, West Virginia and Louisville.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Miami football gets way more press than it deserves, in my opinion because so many of today's sportscasters grew up during an era when Miami was dominant. Old timers don't think twice about Miami and neither do most younger fans. Miami may draw 25k or so of actual fans in the seats for any but the most marquee matchups, and the basketball program draws about 4k. Duke basketball is an outlier among the bottom 4.
Expand ...

Don't they have some of the higher rated broadcasts of all time? I am pretty sure that is the case, at least when it comes to ESPN broadcasts. I think you are mistaken because they are very polarizing and when they are good, people want to watch. And having history is always a good thing, or so I have heard from Alabama, USC, ND people over the years.
 
I am not a college insider. I have no reference for some of the numbers being tossed around for TV deals. And I don't really care where schools go. But...when I read these posts on the "failing" ACC and massive conference raids, I just have to shake my head and ask are these supposed to be serious? Because operating from a position of logic, none of these claims seem right.

First, I have no idea why any of the conferences feel a need to go to 16. People act like it's a magic number, but why? And outside of tearing apart the ACC, there's a complete lack of viable candidates. They are zero candidates for the Pac-12 unless they get into Big 12 territory.

Second, some people act like the ACC and the Big East are on equal footing. They aren't and won't. Even if the ACC did get raided, the remaining choice schools (really just Rutgers and UConn) would move on and leave the rest behind. The idea of some East Coast superconference is laughable, mainly because the ACC is already it. Save UConn and Rutgers, no one else matters from the Big East. The conference does not want part timers like Georgetown and no one cares about Cincinnati.

Third, when did the Big 12 become stable? This is the same conference that saw 4 choice members leave in a one year span. Two of which left just a few months back. And suddenly everyone wants to go there?

Fourth, ACC ratings (basketball and football) support the fact they're on par, if not better, than the Big 12. The ACC may not have a great contract now, but that will change eventually. Even a long term deal expires. And is everything about a few more $$$ right now? No move to date has been purely about the money. It's generally been either about escaping the Frankenstein conglomeration that is the Big East (with non-football schools) or running away from Texas. No school has left simply to add a few bucks. Why start now?

I get the feeling that in a few years one could look back on this thread and laugh at the prognostications of massive conference raids and the ACC's impending doom.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
If you were to start this league from scratch, as a TV exec, you would take the top 5, add GT, NCSU and Maryland, and include Duke as a basketball only.
Expand ...
Because a hybrid conference has proved itself to be so viable in the past.

This thread has so many internet/tin foil hat ideas in it that it has become a running parody of itself.
 
.-.
Jericho said:
I am not a college insider. I have no reference for some of the numbers being tossed around for TV deals. And I don't really care where schools go. But...when I read these posts on the "failing" ACC and massive conference raids, I just have to shake my head and ask are these supposed to be serious? Because operating from a position of logic, none of these claims seem right.

First, I have no idea why any of the conferences feel a need to go to 16. People act like it's a magic number, but why? And outside of tearing apart the ACC, there's a complete lack of viable candidates. They are zero candidates for the Pac-12 unless they get into Big 12 territory.

Second, some people act like the ACC and the Big East are on equal footing. They aren't and won't. Even if the ACC did get raided, the remaining choice schools (really just Rutgers and UConn) would move on and leave the rest behind. The idea of some East Coast superconference is laughable, mainly because the ACC is already it. Save UConn and Rutgers, no one else matters from the Big East. The conference does not want part timers like Georgetown and no one cares about Cincinnati.

Third, when did the Big 12 become stable? This is the same conference that saw 4 choice members leave in a one year span. Two of which left just a few months back. And suddenly everyone wants to go there?

Fourth, ACC ratings (basketball and football) support the fact they're on par, if not better, than the Big 12. The ACC may not have a great contract now, but that will change eventually. Even a long term deal expires. And is everything about a few more $$$ right now? No move to date has been purely about the money. It's generally been either about escaping the Frankenstein conglomeration that is the Big East (with non-football schools) or running away from Texas. No school has left simply to add a few bucks. Why start now?

I get the feeling that in a few years one could look back on this thread and laugh at the prognostications of massive conference raids and the ACC's impending doom.
Expand ...

bcs is going to a 4 team playoff. 1 of the b12 or acc has to die. teams won't sit in one of those confs win the league at 11-1 and not get a bid to the playoff. they won't be happy, they will move for the bid and for $$. the b12 has the potential to double the $$ the acc would get tv contract wise. the acc can only add a couple more schools possible #'s wise. therefore the b12 has the advantage.
 
Jericho said:
I am not a college insider. I have no reference for some of the numbers being tossed around for TV deals. And I don't really care where schools go. But...when I read these posts on the "failing" ACC and massive conference raids, I just have to shake my head and ask are these supposed to be serious? Because operating from a position of logic, none of these claims seem right.

First, I have no idea why any of the conferences feel a need to go to 16. People act like it's a magic number, but why? And outside of tearing apart the ACC, there's a complete lack of viable candidates. They are zero candidates for the Pac-12 unless they get into Big 12 territory.

I didn't say a conference needs to go to 16.

Second, some people act like the ACC and the Big East are on equal footing. They aren't and won't. Even if the ACC did get raided, the remaining choice schools (really just Rutgers and UConn) would move on and leave the rest behind. The idea of some East Coast superconference is laughable, mainly because the ACC is already it. Save UConn and Rutgers, no one else matters from the Big East. The conference does not want part timers like Georgetown and no one cares about Cincinnati.

Some people think that if the Big East sucks the ACC won't get raided. THE TWO THINGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

Third, when did the Big 12 become stable? This is the same conference that saw 4 choice members leave in a one year span. Two of which left just a few months back. And suddenly everyone wants to go there?

The Big 12 became stable when it signed a TV contract that punks the ACC's, and then the individuals signed off their TV rights for the next 12 years. NO ONE is leaving the Big 12 for the next 12 years.

Fourth, ACC ratings (basketball and football) support the fact they're on par, if not better, than the Big 12. Source? The ACC may not have a great contract now, but that will change eventually. Even a long term deal expires. And is everything about a few more $$$ right now? The number is $8+ million a year for the next 10 years. That is a ton of money. No move to date has been purely about the money. Maybe only 95% about money. It's generally been either about escaping the Frankenstein conglomeration that is the Big East (with non-football schools) or running away from Texas. No school has left simply to add a few bucks. Wrong. Why start now?

I get the feeling that in a few years one could look back on this thread and laugh at the prognostications of massive conference raids and the ACC's impending doom.
Expand ...

I should have stopped with the second sentence of the post.

It will take one of two things for FSU to stay in the ACC:

1) ESPN comes up with another $110+ million/year for the ACC for no reason whatsoever.

2) The Big 12 decides not to invite FSU because FSU isn't worth it.
 
huskypantz said:
That's been rehashed several times. The Nielsen 2011 presentation shows ACC as #2 BB/3 FB in ratings.
Expand ...

I have yet to see someone that can interpret that data to have it make sense. Our visiting "insider" tripped all over himself trying to explain it. I have posited that the data represents viewership for broadcast network (CBS, ABC, NBC) games only. Otherwise, the SEC would get more viewers on the various Saturday night games than there are total viewers watching television. It is possible that the national ESPN games are included in that number, although the numbers get a little shaky if they are. There is no way the Game Plan games are included.

Let's say it is CBS, ABC, NBC and ESPN. The chart further confirms my point. There are clearly some ACC properties that are very attractive, but overall, on a Tier 1 AND Tier 2 basis, ESPN was underwhelmed. Furthermore, it doesn't really matter anymore anyway, because the ACC is locked into a long-term deal anyway with ESPN. But those high value properties (VTech, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVa) could be very valuable to the Big 12 or SEC.

More interesting than the conference data, which we still don't understand, is the total ad spend by sport, which is pretty clear cut. If you really want to see why basketball DOES matter, look at the total ad spend numbers, especially for the tournament. Also, look at the viewership by game.

Bowls:

MNC: LSU/Alabama - 24.2MM
Rose: Wisconsin/Oregon - 17.6MM
Sugar: Michigan/VTech - 9.6MM
Fiesta: Stanford/Okie State - 13.7MM

UConn/Butler - 20MM
Final Four - 15.4MM
Final 8 - 11.3MM
Sweet 16 - 5.7MM

Total ad spend:

Basketball:

Regular season: $296MM
Tournament: $1,040MM

Football:

Regular season: $604.5MM
Bowls: $182.5MM

If you want to see why the bowls are dead and we are going to a playoff, just look at those last 4 numbers. Football is worth twice basketball during the regular season, but the postseason is worth about 1/6 college basketballs. Ratings crater for all but the 2-3 best bowl matchups.
 
The ratings for ABC regional games were always shaky because it's a combined national rating among the 2-3 games. At the very least, the comparison is apples to apples, even if oranges and bananas are left out. ESPN has a lot more data at their fingertips via ESPN3.com views for each team and/or conference by sport.

The ad spend was discussed previously as well (maybe even in this thread). There is no doubt that there's a huge wad of cash waiting to be served to the schools if they choose the playoff route.
 
HuskyfanDan said:
bcs is going to a 4 team playoff. 1 of the b12 or acc has to die. teams won't sit in one of those confs win the league at 11-1 and not get a bid to the playoff. they won't be happy, they will move for the bid and for $$. the b12 has the potential to double the $$ the acc would get tv contract wise. the acc can only add a couple more schools possible #'s wise. therefore the b12 has the advantage.
Expand ...

This logic does not make sense. First, there's been no finalization of how the BCS will move forward. It may be a straight 4 team playoff, but many proposals are keeping the possibility of 4 games (the Rose plus two others and the championship) alive. Not to mention, the BCS can't just align four conferences and lock them into a playoff. That's going to be an Antitrust mess. They have to at least give the appearance that other schools have a chance. Finally, if one of the Big 12 or ACC has to die, wouldn't it be the Big 12? Outside of Texas and Oklahoma, does anyone care about the other Big 12 schools? The Big 12 may have a nice TV contract, but isn't that essentially because of Texas and Oklahoma? If they moved to another conference, those TV deals get renegotiated and all of a sudden whatever conference Texas is in gets a lot more money. It's way easier to move Texas and Oklahoma then to move Florida St, Miami, NC, Clemson, GT, Virginia, VT, and Maryland among others.
 
.-.
Jericho said:
This logic does not make sense. First, there's been no finalization of how the BCS will move forward. It may be a straight 4 team playoff, but many proposals are keeping the possibility of 4 games (the Rose plus two others and the championship) alive. Not to mention, the BCS can't just align four conferences and lock them into a playoff. That's going to be an Antitrust mess. They have to at least give the appearance that other schools have a chance. Finally, if one of the Big 12 or ACC has to die, wouldn't it be the Big 12? Outside of Texas and Oklahoma, does anyone care about the other Big 12 schools? The Big 12 may have a nice TV contract, but isn't that essentially because of Texas and Oklahoma? If they moved to another conference, those TV deals get renegotiated and all of a sudden whatever conference Texas is in gets a lot more money. It's way easier to move Texas and Oklahoma then to move Florida St, Miami, NC, Clemson, GT, Virginia, VT, and Maryland among others.
Expand ...

You are arguing who should have won the game after we already know the score. I wouldn't have expected the Big 12 to emerge as a winner in conference realignment, but they did. There is not much point about arguing a parallel universe in which they didn't. The ACC, on the other hand, is in deep trouble unless ESPN unilaterally hands over $100 million per year for no reason whatsoever. Are you betting on that happening?
 
nelsonmuntz said:
You are arguing who should have won the game after we already know the score. I wouldn't have expected the Big 12 to emerge as a winner in conference realignment, but they did. There is not much point about arguing a parallel universe in which they didn't. The ACC, on the other hand, is in deep trouble unless ESPN unilaterally hands over $100 million per year for no reason whatsoever. Are you betting on that happening?
Expand ...


I swear I'm in some bizarro world. How has the Big 12 "won"? Nothing's happened. You keep talking in absolutes about something that has not happened. About a BCS that has not decided anything. We don't know the score, because, and you can repeat it with me, nothing's happened.

You seem to be under the impression everyone will flock to the Big 12 magnent. But the Big 12 is basically two teams, Oklahoma and Texas. That's my point. If this massive realignment HAS to happen (I don't believe it does), it makes massively more sense to move the two teams that matter from the Big 12 than the ten or so from the ACC that matter. And I still don't see how the Big12 has become so attractive when it lost 4 choice programs in the last year. The same reasons those schools left (it was not money) are the same reasons any school should be wary of joining that conference.

Money will ultimately follow the schools that matter.
 
To add to the above, as I understand it, the B12 schools committed all their tv rights for like 10 years. If anyone leaves the conference, they won't be allowed on tv. Basically, the B12 is rock solid. Chuck Neinas is a genius.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I have yet to see someone that can interpret that data to have it make sense. Our visiting "insider" tripped all over himself trying to explain it. I have posited that the data represents viewership for broadcast network (CBS, ABC, NBC) games only. Otherwise, the SEC would get more viewers on the various Saturday night games than there are total viewers watching television. It is possible that the national ESPN games are included in that number, although the numbers get a little shaky if they are. There is no way the Game Plan games are included.
Expand ...

My understanding is that national Nielsen-rated networks would be included in calculations (which makes sense since the report comes directly from Nielsen). That would include CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, ESPN, ESPN2 and NBC Sports Network. It would not include regional sports networks, the Big Ten Network or ESPN Game Plan games. Regardless, it's about as accurate of information as you're going to receive at a national level.

If you want to see why the bowls are dead and we are going to a playoff, just look at those last 4 numbers. Football is worth twice basketball during the regular season, but the postseason is worth about 1/6 college basketballs. Ratings crater for all but the 2-3 best bowl matchups.
Expand ...

I agree with part of this, although the ad spending disparity is partly because ESPN is now broadcasting the BCS games as opposed to over-the-air Fox, so they can't charge as much. The other important difference is that regular season money is kept by the conferences themselves, whereas the postseason revenue is split. That's why there's such an emphasis on protecting the football regular season (and, whether we agree with it or not, it's at least understandable from a university president standpoint considering how devalued the college basketball regular season has become). It doesn't do the Big Ten and SEC any good if a new postseason system is worth 5 times as much as the current one if (1) they're just splitting that money up among the non-AQ conferences and (2) the value of the regular season, which is revenue that they keep 100% to themselves, goes down on a relative basis. I can tell you for a fact that the EASIEST way to get a college playoff proposal tanked is to suggest a revenue sharing system that looks like the NCAA Tournament credit system. The power conferences absolutely loathe it even though they're getting about 60% of the NCAA Tournament revenue. They legitimately believe that they ought to be receiving 90% of that revenue just like in football.

So, the total value of a new playoff system isn't relevant. Even Jim Delany acknowledges that a playoff system is worth more than the BCS system in terms of a total overall dollar amount. However, what really matters is how the value of the new playoff system is SPLIT. The power conferences want to maintain the exact same 90/10 advantage that they have today. That's where the real fight is in these discussions.
 
Hoophound said:
To add to the above, as I understand it, the B12 schools committed all their tv rights for like 10 years. If anyone leaves the conference, they won't be allowed on tv. Basically, the B12 is rock solid. Chuck Neinas is a genius.
Expand ...

What's on the table is a 6-year grant of rights. That's what Texas is willing to provide. It's better than nothing, but it really isn't long at all when you're talking about conference realignment. By year 3 of that 6-year period, it no longer becomes very cost prohibitive for that grant to be bought out. The Big Ten and Pac-12, in contrast, have grants of rights that run through almost 2030.
 
How solid is the grant of rights? We've already seen WVU break their contract with the BE, why can't the grant of rights be similarly broken (with some kind of penalty)?
 
.-.
huskypantz said:
How solid is the grant of rights? We've already seen WVU break their contract with the BE, why can't the grant of rights be similarly broken (with some kind of penalty)?
Expand ...

It can be much stronger than a simple exit fee since the conference is assigned the TV rights for each member school for the entire grant of rights period even if that school leaves that conference. For instance, if Penn State tried to leave the Big Ten for the ACC (which obviously wouldn't happen, but we're just using it as an example), the Big Ten would still control all of the TV rights to Penn State's home games until circa 2030 even though PSU isn't a member of the conference any longer. So, the ACC would either have to pay a buyout amount to the Big Ten equal to the value of two decades of PSU TV rights (which in the case of a power school like PSU, could legitimately be in the hundreds of millions of dollars) or the Big Ten would continue selling those PSU games as part of its TV package until circa 2030 (which basically defeats the purpose of the ACC adding PSU in the first place since they can't realize any TV dollars from them).

When you have a very long grant of rights period like the Big Ten or Pac-12, it's extremely powerful since it would be cost prohibitive to pay a buyout amount equal to 10 to 20 years of TV rights for even the average school (much less a PSU type). In the Big 12's case, the 6 year grant of rights can be effective for staving off defections for maybe 3 or 4 years, but it won't be effective at the end of the period. It's fairly typical that schools give up a year or two of TV revenue for switching conferences in normal circumstances, so by year 4 of a 6-year grant of rights period, the cost of a buyout isn't much different than what other conferences have in terms of an exit fee.

At the end of the day, the Big 12 will live because I think Texas wants it to live. However, that doesn't mean that it's desirable if you're already in a stable conference. If the choice is between the Big 12 and Big East, then of course, you choose the Big 12 every time. If the choice is between the Big 12 and the ACC, though, then that's a whole lot different. Believe me - any complaints about Tobacco Road pale in comparison to the iron fist in Austin. Nebraska and Texas A&M aren't football wallflowers and they ran as fast as they could out of the Big 12.
 
The BE exit fee was basically a negotiable IOU that WVU skipped out on.
The B1G made it's teams sign over the deed.

Big lesson learned.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
 
Jericho said:
I swear I'm in some bizarro world. How has the Big 12 "won"? Nothing's happened. You keep talking in absolutes about something that has not happened. About a BCS that has not decided anything. We don't know the score, because, and you can repeat it with me, nothing's happened.

You seem to be under the impression everyone will flock to the Big 12 magnent. But the Big 12 is basically two teams, Oklahoma and Texas. That's my point. If this massive realignment HAS to happen (I don't believe it does), it makes massively more sense to move the two teams that matter from the Big 12 than the ten or so from the ACC that matter. And I still don't see how the Big12 has become so attractive when it lost 4 choice programs in the last year. The same reasons those schools left (it was not money) are the same reasons any school should be wary of joining that conference.

Money will ultimately follow the schools that matter.
Expand ...

The Big 12 has a TV contract which makes the ACC's look like a kiddie pool. The Big 12 has WON. It is over. Your opinion or my opinion of two teams or four teams or whatever is irrelevant. There is no point in arguing opinions when the facts are the facts. The Big 12 is not unstable or whatever you think it is. When you throw in Tier 3 rights and the way the Big 12 allocates its games, The Big 12's deal is better than the SEC's, at least for now.
 
The B12 deal is great. Schools like North Carolina aren't giving up throne in the ACC to join though. The NC State Legislature isn't allowing NCSU to go anywhere without UNC. Schools like Virginia are not going to ignore academics and VPI is clearly tied to them after the power play to join the ACC.

Florida State may be in play. Clemson may be interested in dollars. The ACC survives without them. It may be a clear fifth - but its still way ahead if the Big East.
 
whaler11 said:
The B12 deal is great. Schools like North Carolina aren't giving up throne in the ACC to join though. The NC State Legislature isn't allowing NCSU to go anywhere without UNC. Schools like Virginia are not going to ignore academics and VPI is clearly tied to them after the power play to join the ACC.

Florida State may be in play. Clemson may be interested in dollars. The ACC survives without them. It may be a clear fifth - but its still way ahead if the Big East.
Expand ...

As far as it concerns UConn - anybody think that if Clemson and Florida State leave that Rutgers and UConn get the call for #13 and #14? If they choose to expand back to 14 or if it's contractually obligated by ESPN to expand back that number.
 
.-.
BigTime Sports ‏ @ GSwaim
I was told by the same source tonight that the # ACC should be on full alert for a # Big12 raid. # FSU # Clemson # VaTech # GaTech # Terps

also the iceman spoke on orangebloods. hes a well followed poster there becuase he was right about colorado and other things he was good info on...
 
HuskyfanDan said:
BigTime Sports ‏ @ GSwaim
I was told by the same source tonight that the # ACC should be on full alert for a # Big12 raid. # FSU # Clemson # VaTech # GaTech # Terps

also the iceman spoke on orangebloods. hes a well followed poster there becuase he was right about colorado and other things he was good info on...
Expand ...
Isn't Swaim universally acknowledged as a poorly informed asshat on expansion? Even if ACC loses 2, why not just stay at 12?
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,336
Messages
4,565,322
Members
10,465
Latest member
agiglax


Top Bottom