I don't think it's a failure at all..none of these conferences are losing money with a championship game. I'm not opposed to 12 team conferences, the problem is there aren't 4 quality programs out there to make one viable for the 8 Big East football schools.

MichaelSavage Wrote:I don't think it's a failure at all..none of these conferences are losing money with a championship game. I'm not opposed to 12 team conferences, the problem is there aren't 4 quality programs out there to make one viable for the 8 Big East football schools.

Lets look at 3 of the possible candidates. ECU and UCF drew more people than 5 of the Big East schools last football season. Memphis went to the National Championship game in basketball. You add those 3 schools and the Big East has increased their interest/stock with the Gator Bowl, Meineke Bowl, Liberty Bowl, Tampa Bowl and DC Bowl.

You are dreaming. Adding those three would do NOTHING to be more attractive to the Gator Bowl. None of those teams have the name recognition the Gator wants. The Tampa, Meineke and Gator are all BE bowls so you are not adding any extra bowls in adding THREE teams.
You add Memphis and you get one more bowl.
Im not against ECU nor UCF but the reality is that neither brings a NEW bowl to the mix.

It does not make monetary sense for BE to go to 12.

MongoSlade Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:What the ACC does or doesn't do is irrelevant to our future. They made several bad decisions in their expansion plans. The BEast scrambled successfully. Now, the roles are reversed.

That being said, Charlotte is the logical choice. It's centrally located, and an audience would be guaranteed. Jacksonville could give a sh!t about the ACC. I figure DC would be about the same as Jacksonville.

Now, bit.. you know good and well if what the ACC didn't do was irrelevant, we wouldn't have 50% ACC coverage on a Big East board...

Seriously though, I think DC would support an ACCCG based on the number of Virginia, Virginia Tech, Maryland and (ok, I know this is a stretch) BC fans in the area, plus if you ever get Carolina or NC State in an ACCCG, them folks would drive to DC to check it out...

That's why I say DC/Baltimore.

Ok, back to your Big East programming already in progress.

What the ACC does now is irrelevant to our future. Their past decisions are history, and can't be changed in any way. So those don't effect us. Their future decisions are now critical to their survival, but not ours. Our future rests solely our decisions made in The BEast offices. The ACC has no sway over us now.

How many times does it need to be explained that it doesn’t make sense for our football league to go to 12 teams?

SO#1 Wrote:How many times does it need to be explained that it doesn’t make sense for our football league to go to 12 teams?

Apparently there is no limit. It keeps everyone talking though...

MongoSlade Wrote: .. like the ACC is going to actually do that. All they have to do is put it in Charlotte and all will be well.

Charlotte is probably the best of the options but still risky. What if no North Carolina schools end up the championship game? What kind of attendance would you see Miami vs Boston College. I would say 40,000 tops!

templefootballfan Wrote:Hoya what are you talking about, MAC championship games makes million a yr, C-USA does better with over 40,000 fans.

Conference USA shouldn't be an example to any Big East discussion. The title game is not even a neutral site game and teams have never sold out the game (Houston came close with 31,000), and none of the teams over the three years of the C-USA championship game have been ranked in the final poll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_...nship_Game

Wilkie01 Wrote:I just read CatsClaw post and I got to thinking about conference size. So here Goes:

1. The only reason to have 12 teams is to have a conference championship game to make extra money. But what happens when your number ranked team looses in that game? Your conference looses it chance for a National Championship! Just ask the ACC, B12 and SEC about that!

2. So please tell me why their is need to have a football conference championship game?

3. This bring back the question of how many teams do you need, if you do not want a conference championship game in football?

4. The answer has to be 9 or 10 teams. What do you think? I know one thing, this hybrid monster of 16 teams is stupid, inefficient, and doom to split, its just when. I would consider three options that I would consider acceptable:

a) Add Memphis or UCF and be a 9 team conference.
b) Add Memphis and UCF and be a 10 team conference.
c) Add Memphis or UCF and Notre Dame for all-sports but football and be a 10 team conference.

I prefer option B.

Wilke you know all the BCS will be 12 team conferences eventually....

the reason it may make sense for the BE to go to twelve is money. Right now the BEFC is dead last among BCS conferences in revenues earned per team. A national title contender like WVU is earning less winning BCS bowls than a Northwestern, Duke or Vanderbilt. And second place or third place BE teams fare even worse.

The other leagues are starting up new tv networks bringing in millions more or using the threat to get gigantic network deals.

The BE has to do something proactive and soon or will be left behind big time. You can't just stand still, you have to be proactive or again, be left behind.

There aren't any great football schools out there not in BCS conferences. That said, there are some nice markets out there that if added could make a difference money wise to the BEFC. I don't know that one team will do it. Or even two. Because the schools will take time to develop you've got to add schools that will bring major markets and major corporate sponsors to the game to try and build the BE finances up near those of the other conferences. Markets like Memphis, Orlando, Northeast Ohio with over 5 million people (Akron?), Philadelphia (Temple or Villanova or possibly Delaware?), maybe a UNC Charlotte, or as some recently mentioned Georgia State in Atlanta.

It is not likely that any BCS schools would move over to the Big East because they make more money where they are. Programs would have to be developed.

Personally I'd like to see Marshall and ECU included in the mix because both have shown to have better football from time to time than all the others-they also have more tv following nationally-however they unfortunately do not have new markets or mainly corporate sponsorship to bring which is what the league really needs.

DFW HOYA Wrote:

templefootballfan Wrote:Hoya what are you talking about, MAC championship games makes million a yr, C-USA does better with over 40,000 fans.

Conference USA shouldn't be an example to any Big East discussion. The title game is not even a neutral site game and teams have never sold out the game (Houston came close with 31,000), and none of the teams over the three years of the C-USA championship game have been ranked in the final poll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_...nship_Game

UCF was 1,500 tickets away from a sell out of the champ game. That is only having less than 2 weeks to sell the tickets. Houston did sellout the year before. UCF had 52K the year before that.

Not bad for $50 per ticket, tv revenue, and added exposure.

Roy Kramer's 12 team conference blueprint works for one conference: The SEC. Sure you can point to the bottomline of the ACC and Big 12 and say "see we made money playing the conference championship game". My answer is "sure you did but for how long and at what price?" We already know what it cost the Big 12 last season, a shot at the national championship. With the ACC, a few more empty stadiums and ratings that rival Friends re-runs, it won't be long before sponsers start jumping off the ACC Championship Game bandwagon. A tight ecomony will force advertisers to cut the fat and pictures like the above are proof that no one cares about ACC football.
The ACC is presently living off the pie in the sky promises that Swafford made when he put their cluster-f*ck together. I would look for the next contract to take a huge hit. Big East and ACC football just isn't worth what the SEC is. The difference is the Big East knows it and the ACC hasn't figured it out yet.
CJ

The ACC Championship game drew a 4.1 rating. Sponsors would have no problem with that. The Big XII Championship game actually had a higher rating than the SEC title game this past season.

MichaelSavage Wrote:The ACC Championship game drew a 4.1 rating. Sponsors would have no problem with that. The Big XII Championship game actually had a higher rating than the SEC title game this past season.

The 4.1 compares favorably with the Music City, Holiday and Liberty Bowls and costs the networks how much more than these Non-BCS bowls?

For comparative purposes: Thursday night broadcasts of Big East regular season match-ups have garnered 5.3 and 5.0 ratings in the past. Those numbers dwarf any that the most important game of the ACC season has produced.
Sponsors won't continue to pay those kind of dollars for those type numbers.
CJ

CardinalJim Wrote:

MichaelSavage Wrote:The ACC Championship game drew a 4.1 rating. Sponsors would have no problem with that. The Big XII Championship game actually had a higher rating than the SEC title game this past season.

The 4.1 compares favorably with the Music City, Holiday and Liberty Bowls and costs the networks how much more than these Non-BCS bowls?

For comparative purposes: Thursday night broadcasts of Big East regular season match-ups have garnered 5.3 and 5.0 ratings in the past. Those numbers dwarf any that the most important game of the ACC season has produced.
Sponsors won't continue to pay those kind of dollars for those type numbers.
CJ

Yep, I even read somewhere that the West Virginia/Pitt game on ESPN, opposite the Big 12 championship game that night did almost as well as the ACC championship game earlier in the day. To be fair though, the ACC championship game was opposite Army/Navy and the C-USA championship game.

Cheers,
Neil

omnicarrier Wrote:Yep, I even read somewhere that the West Virginia/Pitt game on ESPN, opposite the Big 12 championship game that night did almost as well as the ACC championship game earlier in the day. To be fair though, the ACC championship game was opposite Army/Navy and the C-USA championship game.

Cheers,
Neil

I was very skeptical of CUSA's championship game when it was first announced. At the time I felt like I did about the ACC doing it, a huge mistake. I must admit I was wrong about the CUSA game. Their entire conference has got behind it and the attendance at the games has been fantastic. CUSA leadership recognized, unlike ACC leadership, that their new conference game wouldn't garner neutral site interest like the SEC game. Instead of setting themselves up for failure, CUSA has built successful seasons by scheduling it at a participant's home stadium.
The ACC could learn something from this. It might not have the shared attendance of a neutral site contest but at least the stadium wouldn't be as empty as the neutral site ACC championship games.
CJ

Put the game in primetime and the rating would have been better. The first BC-VT matchup last season was the highest rated game on Thursday night last season, so there's no reason to think the rematch wouldn't have good numbers.

MichaelSavage Wrote:Put the game in primetime and the rating would have been better. The first BC-VT matchup last season was the highest rated game on Thursday night last season, so there's no reason to think the rematch wouldn't have good numbers.

And a primetime Thursday night in December rematch hours away from Blacksburg or Boston would draw how many fans? The ACC is in a no win situation with it's championship game. It wants to be counted among the championship game big boys like the SEC but offers a contest worse than CUSA's and more comparable to the MAC than the Big 12. Swafford needs to admit his ACC Championship Game albatross is killing the national perception of his conference. The ACC needs to follow the lead of CUSA and have it's game at a participant's home. Of course it's means admitting Swafford was wrong about ACC expansion but most unbiased fans and media know that to be the case. Look no further than the conferences 1-9 BCS record for proof; That's ofer for expansion for those scoring at home.
ACC apologists will point to revenue increases as proof that the expansion has been successful. In reality present revenues are based on contracts signed as expansion was just finishing. Now that the expanded ACC has a few years track record I would look for revenues to slip to a level more appropriate for the product the ACC puts on the field.
The next few years are going to be tough for the ACC. Increased expectations coupled with lackluster performances on the field and at the ticket window have the bloated ACC in a difficult situation. It's going to be interesting watching how Swafford deals with it.
CJ

MichaelSavage Wrote:Put the game in primetime and the rating would have been better. The first BC-VT matchup last season was the highest rated game on Thursday night last season, so there's no reason to think the rematch wouldn't have good numbers.

Actually, the first ACC Championship Game was on in the evening. According to Wikipedia, it garnered a 5.1 rating, featuring a great TV match-up between VT and FSU. Only Miami-FSU would be a more attractive TV drawer, imho.

Not sure why, but ABC demoted the game to a day time slot the next year. Maybe they had a vision of it pairing Wake Forest and GT?

Cheers,
Neil

Last time I checked the ACC made a ton of $ and is not really that worried like the fans of other conferences seem to be.

Thanks for the interest.