You won't find anyone in the industry that actually agrees with this statement.
The ACC's claim is that it has overtaken the Big Ten in number of households in the footprint. I have not seen this independently verified. However, while I don't dispute its truthfulness, it doesn't mean the ACC's markets/demographics/footprint "reigns supreme."
The northeast's television viewership for college football lags most of the country (per capita), while the markets themselves are the largest in the country. Hence, B1G added Maryland and Rutgers while ACC has added BC, Cuse, and Pitt. Yes, it is cash that feeds the Bulldog (and not ratings points), and thus B1G-lovers can tout their lucrative additions. But I'd still wager that B1G ratings change very little in the Northeast. The B1G alumni that have long-lived in the northeast still live there; they have always watched their B1G, while comparatively-fewer northeasterners watch any college football at all (B1G,ACC,SEC,XII,Pac). What I'm saying is, if Delany and B1G alums had pressed their cable companies a little harder, they could have gotten BTN on their cable system without Delany having to add the "local" teams to "justify" it. I'll be very curious to see actual B1G viewership *additions* in light of adding RU and UMd.
Half of the ACC is comprised of small, private schools as you have already noted in your point about alumni base. The fact is, Boston College or Georgia Tech (even being a public institution) being located in Boston and Atlanta does not make those two a very strong market. Fact of the matter is, as an Atlanta resident, I can promise you Georgia Tech is nothing more than a blip on the radar with most of the city. It's a transient city comprised of folks around the country with a school made up of a large out-of-state population and graduates that move on to other states. The ACC will claim the entire state of Georgia in its footprint, but it does not remotely compare to Iowa having the whole state in its footprint despite fewer people.
1) And yet the B1G places high value on both BC and GT (and UVa and UNC).
2) Absolutely, Atlanta is a UGa town, and to a large extent, it is a "SEC" town; while not specifically a Tech town, Atlanta is also well represented by several ACC schools (though not as well as the rest of the SEC). If Delany thinks he can swoop into Atlanta and feed them "GT-Rutgers" or "GT-Northwestern" football and command high carriage fees for BTN, he is either a genuine, supremely confident magician or he is clinically insane.
3) Similar arguments for Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Greenville-Spartanburg, Richmond. These cities have some B1G alums who watch their B1G events, These cities have loads of ACC alums who watch ACC events, and loads of SEC alums who watch SEC events. There are also numerous folks in these cities who just love the SEC.... and no, the B1G does not equal the SEC in their eyes. (and nor does the ACC equal the SEC in their eyes).
The Big Ten has a huge footprint, but unlike the ACC, it's a footprint that is due to having large, flagship universities that carry not only a large following in individual markets, but statewide.
Yes, the B1G has the states of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio which have a demographic crisis on their hands, as Mandel describes.
Yes, the B1G also has Nebraska and Pennsylvania in the footprint, but any local fandom there is just gravy to the B1G, as it is the national drawing power of Penn State, Nebraska, Michigan, and Ohio State where the B1G's fortune has lain (and will continue to lie).
Miami, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, etc. are only local phenomenons that simply don't have a large following and sometimes barely even move the needle in local markets.
Miami is a national brand who draw television viewers nationwide... just not locals into the stadium.
The ACC might have a bigger footprint, but it definitely does not have better markets/demographics. If it did, it would be equal or ahead of the Big Ten in media revenue.
That is a very complicated situation to assess. The Big XII gets more television revenue than the ACC while the ACC has higher television ratings -- due to those darn demographics! And yet the ratings do not correlate with the revenue... hence my "complicated" statement. As I have said here repeatedly, the ACC and ESPN are one another's swords, and thus far they are living by one another; if that changes, it will become evident in dramatic fashion. Delany deserves credit for his monetizing of the Big Ten Network. Delany felt that to further monetize the network (and address other concerns for B1G), he had to expand the footprint to have "local" teams in areas with better demographics than the traditional base (which is maxed out and lagging the rest of the country in growth), hence RU and UMd.
