Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
Author Message
SO#1 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,008
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 18
I Root For: Connecticut
Location:
Post: #1
Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
By Steve Yanda
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 13, 2008; D01



When the Atlantic Coast Conference extended membership invitations to Virginia Tech and Miami in June 2003 and to Boston College four months later, ACC officials offered visions of soaring revenue and heightened national prestige for a conference known traditionally for men's basketball. The plan was to make the ACC more like the Southeastern Conference and the Big 12, with conference championship games, opulent television contracts and national renown for its football teams.

In the five years since realignment was initiated the ACC, with its expanded roster of 12 schools, has signed a seven-year, $258 million contract with ABC and ESPN -- which nearly doubled the annual income of its previous TV deal -- and hosted three football conference title games at the Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, Fla.

ACC Commissioner John Swofford said expansion "has met expectations in every way," and several officials inside and outside the conference say the overall level of play of both football and basketball has improved. Others, however, say the benefits of growth have in many ways fallen short of predictions.

And in one of the most critical and unforeseen byproducts of the realignment, the rival Big East Conference -- forced to expand in response to the flight of three of its schools to the ACC -- has strengthened its standing as a big-time football conference and fortified the depth of its basketball programs to an extent the ACC has yet to realize.

Traditional football powers Florida State and Miami have suffered through disappointing seasons the past two years, leaving Virginia Tech and a slew of middling programs to maintain the ACC's clout among Bowl Championship Series conferences. Three seasons after the ACC introduced its two-division, superconference format, it has yet to earn an at-large bid to a BCS bowl in addition to the automatic bid one of its schools gets for winning the conference championship. In BCS bowls since expansion, the ACC is 0-3.

Revenue generated by the ACC conference championship game decreased from 2005 to 2006, a development that left outgoing University of North Carolina chancellor James Moeser unimpressed with the financial payoff from expansion.

"There was a financial concern, and [the expansion] has not been an enormous benefit," said Moeser, who stepped down June 30 after eight years. "Certainly, it has done no damage. It has been positive, but not overwhelmingly."

Meantime, the Big East has experienced a broader range of success, especially considering the condition it was left in after losing three of its most competitive football schools to the ACC.

The Big East was regarded as a fragile entity ready to crumble following the departure of Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College; "close to extinction," as Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese described the conventional wisdom of the time. Instead, the Big East fought back with an aggressive expansion of its own that in some ways has trumped the ACC's growth.

"We ignored" comments about the Big East's demise, Tranghese said. "We couldn't sit there and whine about it. We had to focus on rebuilding. And then we had to win."

A Boost for the Hokies

Confined to a recliner in his Blacksburg home, Virginia Tech Athletic Director Jim Weaver had plenty of time to reflect on the past five years. Nearly two weeks removed from hip surgery, Weaver's mobility was limited, but that didn't keep the inflection in his voice from altering pitches as he described his school's still relatively new environment.

"We had longed for the ACC to be our home way back when the league began in 1953," Weaver said in a recent phone interview. "We're just delighted that it finally is."

And for good reason. Virginia Tech -- which with Miami began competing in the ACC in 2004, a year before Boston College -- has earned the ACC's BCS bowl bid two out of the past four seasons. The Hokies have appeared in two of the three ACC conference title games.

In fact, Virginia Tech has been a stanchion for a conference whose football powerhouses have struggled in recent seasons. Florida State won the inaugural conference title game and earned a BCS bowl in 2005-06, but has gone 14-12 in the two seasons since. After going 9-3 and winning six conference games in its first ACC season, Miami -- the prized jewel of the ACC expansion because of its football team's tradition of success -- has won just five conference games and finished with a 12-13 record the past two years. The Hurricanes have yet to play in an ACC title game.

When it came time to divide the conference into two, six-team divisions, Florida State and Miami were split up, the hope being that each program would anchor its respective side. "Florida State and Miami were put in separate divisions because people thought we would wind up playing in the championship game against each other," said Florida State President T.K. Wetherell. "But that hasn't happened yet."

Further hampering the ACC's bid for increased football prominence, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina State -- all of which appeared on the rise at the time of the expansion -- have wavered since the realignment.

Mike Farrell, a college football recruiting analyst for Rivals.com, pointed to recruiting as one area in which the ACC has not taken full advantage of the reconfigured boundaries expansion made possible.

The ACC "wanted to take away the label of just being a basketball conference," Farrell said. "They wanted to make themselves a football conference like the SEC and the Big 12. Those conferences really raised the level of their recruiting on a national level. I don't think that's happened to the ACC yet. But that doesn't mean they haven't gotten good recruits."

In trying to make itself into more of a football conference, the ACC may also have unintentionally weakened its reputation in men's basketball.

Pete Gillen, men's basketball coach at Virginia from 1998 to 2005, said many of the league's veteran coaches were apprehensive about the realignment. According to Gillen, the league placed less emphasis on promoting ACC basketball -- for decades the heart and soul of men's ACC athletics -- while it focused on football.

Several league coaches perceived, Gillen said, that the ACC assumed the conference's traditional basketball strength would maintain itself. North Carolina won the national championship in 2005, but overall the league's basketball performance has fallen short of expectations.

In the past three years, the ACC has sent a combined 15 teams to the NCAA tournament -- the same number as in the three years immediately before expansion. The Big East, by contrast, has sent 22 teams to the tournament the past three years, including two seasons in which it sent a record eight teams; it had sent 16 schools in the three previous years.

"Football drove the expansion, and I understand that; they make all the money," said Gillen, who is a college basketball commentator for the CBS College Sports Network. "They're not hurting basketball, but they seem to think it's a self-perpetuating entity, and it's not."

Swofford dismissed suggestions that ACC basketball has declined since expansion, noting that the ACC remains one of the most competitive basketball conferences in the country. "What really builds a conference is competitiveness from within as well as a few key outside wins," he said. However, Swofford conceded that the ACC has not had as many wins against nonconference schools as he would have liked in recent years.

Not a Slam Dunk

In the immediate aftermath of expansion, the ACC was thought to be in pristine condition to develop quickly into a football superconference that would match the league's clout in basketball. The Big East, on the other hand, was projected to see its basketball competitiveness decline.

Tranghese, who did little in 2003 to hide his anger at the ACC for raiding his conference, said he did his best to ignore predictions of the conference's demise and that he advised his members to do the same. Many Big East leaders used the uncertainty surrounding the league's viability as motivation.

"Everybody took it personally, the way we were being treated," Louisville Athletic Director Tom Jurich said. "The expansion propelled us forward, no question. That's probably the greatest story of this whole league right now."

The Big East responded to the ACC's growth with an aggressive expansion of its own, adding five Conference USA teams -- Louisville, Cincinnati, South Florida, Marquette and DePaul.

Over the past three seasons, three of those schools -- Louisville, Cincinnati and South Florida -- have been ranked among the top-25 football teams in the country, as have once-overlooked Rutgers and Connecticut. West Virginia has established itself as the conference's power, having represented the Big East in two of its past three BCS bowl games. The Big East is 3-0 in BCS bowl games since the realignment took effect before the 2005 season, the only conference to go undefeated during that span.

The Big East's success in football can be attributed to many factors. Nick Carparelli Jr., the Big East's associate commissioner for football, said the commitment of school administrators on spending for facility improvements and retaining high quality coaches are key reasons.

Farrell, the Rivals.com analyst, said the turn in football fortune has as much to with the three schools that are no longer present among the conference's ranks.

"The fact that Miami, Boston College and Virginia Tech are no longer in the Big East makes it a whole lot easier for those secondary schools to step up," Farrell said. "Look at Rutgers. They've won for two years. It's not like there's a huge winning tradition there. Is it a coincidence that those two years happened to follow the departure of Miami, Boston College and Virginia Tech?"

These days, those three schools compete in the ACC, where parity reigns and results are often surprising. The ACC conference title game, a critical prize sought through the expansion, has not lived up to its billing -- in part because of the surprising decline of some of the league's big-name football programs.

At the time of the ACC realignment, a league title game was expected to bring in around $6 million in revenue. In 2005, its first year, the championship game drew $5.7 million, according to tax forms. The following year, tax forms showed the revenue total from the game dropped to $4.9 million. Revenue numbers from the 2007 championship game were not expected to be made public until this fall.

Repeated messages seeking comment from Gator Bowl Association President Rick Catlett were not returned.

Not only have Miami and Florida State yet to meet in the ACC title game -- which will move to Tampa the next two years after spending its first three in Jacksonville -- the matchups that have taken place may help to explain the revenue decline. A Florida State-Virginia Tech clash in 2005 was followed by a less glamorous Wake Forest-Georgia Tech game in 2006.

Last season's championship game featured Virginia Tech and Boston College, a more enticing contest, but still not the marquee game ACC officials envisioned five years ago.

"I don't think there's any question that ACC football has been enhanced," Swofford said. "But I still think there is more we can do."

The reaction of some of those who participated in the expansion's inception is more sobering. For Moeser, the recently retired UNC chancellor, there remain too many shortcomings of the realignment to afford it a ringing endorsement.

"The expansion was all built around a football payoff, but it was not as great as people imagined," he said. "The potential is still there, and ultimately I think it will be a great beneficiary. So far, it has been a net positive."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...01560.html
07-12-2008 09:27 PM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


DFW HOYA Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,474
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 271
I Root For: Georgetown
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #2
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
SO#1 Wrote:At the time of the ACC realignment, a league title game was expected to bring in around $6 million in revenue. In 2005, its first year, the championship game drew $5.7 million, according to tax forms. The following year, tax forms showed the revenue total from the game dropped to $4.9 million. Revenue numbers from the 2007 championship game were not expected to be made public until this fall.

Any guess on that number?

[Image: 5a3wma]
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2008 09:49 PM by DFW HOYA.)
07-12-2008 09:45 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
SF Husky Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,338
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 295
I Root For: UCONN
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
DFW HOYA Wrote:Any guess on that number?

[Image: 5a3wma]

If you look hard enough, you might spot the 3 fans BCU brought to the game in that shot.
07-12-2008 11:55 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
ClairtonPanther Offline
people need to wake up
*

Posts: 25,056
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 777
I Root For: Pitt/Navy
Location: Portland, Oregon

Donators
Post: #4
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
Thats even worse attendance than the first ACC title game. I was at that game. It was a horrible game between Va Tech and FSU. I actually seen alot of Georgia fans at that game.

I think the ACC should've went to a North-South alignment and had the game in Charlette(can't spell tonight sorry) NC.

my 2 cents
07-13-2008 12:12 AM
Find all posts by this user
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #5
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
SF Husky Wrote:
DFW HOYA Wrote:Any guess on that number?

[Image: 5a3wma]
If you look hard enough, you might spot the 3 fans BCU brought to the game in that shot.
They were in the john when the camera focused on their seats... 03-lmfao
07-13-2008 08:03 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Jackson1011 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 7,865
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 170
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
I'm not sure I agree with the anaylsis on BC. Miami's financial numbers are interesting

Jackson



HIGH RENT DISTRICT: Expanded ACCs revenues on par with other big winnersBy Rob Daniels
Staff Writer

GREENSBORO -- Five years ago this month, just as the ACC was celebrating its 50th anniversary with commemorative books and DVDs, it was rendering the chronicles outdated and incomplete. It would be a new era, one marked by the greatest influx of new membership since that May day in 1953 when seven Southern Conference dissidents gathered at Sedgefield Inn and walked out with a league of their own.

The migration of Virginia Tech, Miami and ultimately Boston College from the Big East took the ACC to an even dozen in membership, and it exposed the ACC's leaders to charges they had forsaken Gene Corrigan and embraced Gordon Gekko. Surely, skeptics alleged, this was a frenzied money-grab, one that would make the ACC filthy rich and leave the rest of the Bowl Championship Series structure begging for mercy and advice.

Commissioner John Swofford, on the other hand, always said expansion was about keeping pace rather than world domination, and there is evidence to suggest he was right. A study of the figures released by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education reveals:

l The ACC hasn't gotten appreciably richer than any other conference lately.

l ACC membership is the best thing to happen to Virginia Tech since Frank Beamer.

l Boston College is another big winner.

l Miami will have to get used to smaller payoffs for success in return for revenue certainty.

It's all relative

The nine ACC schools in place in the summer of 2003 weren't going to tear up a half-century of tradition just to break new ground. They wanted some return on an investment that ended a guaranteed round-robin format in basketball and certain annual meetings with everybody in football. They've gotten it in the form of 31 percent revenue growth from 2003-04 through 2006-07. Who wouldn't take those margins?

Here's the surprising thing: Most everybody else in the power structure of college sports has done that well or better. Between them, the Big 12, Big Ten, SEC, Pac 10 and the University of Notre Dame witnessed gains of 33.33 percent in that frame.

In other words, they slightly outpaced the ACC.

Big-time college sports have remained blissfully free from the turmoil of other sectors in the economy because rooting passions blot out the chaos of the world at large.

"The television marketplace for the bigger conferences -- by and large -- has been very friendly throughout that period of time," said Kevin Weiberg, CEO of the Big Ten Network and former commissioner of the Big 12.

"Almost every conference was able to renegotiate the deals that were in place. Some of that was the result of expansion; some of it was part of the normal course of doing business. That resulted in growth."

In this decade, networks have accepted the reality of a fractured marketplace. Ratings for everything are down because options abound. But sports still have a hold on certain demographic groups -- males between ages 18 and 34 chief among them -- and that has been a sufficiently compelling selling point to win over advertisers and keep the cash flowing.

"It wasn't too many years ago that there was a lot of doom and gloom relative to upcoming TV negotiations," said Kevin White, who left his post as Notre Dame's athletics director last month to take over at Duke.

"People didn't think there was too much more room for growth. But then I read where this conference's package went up by 30 percent and this one went up 28 percent. There's enough competition in the marketplace that major networks are continuing to find major resources."

Further proof of the nationwide growth is seen in the expansion and enhancement of facilities from Wake Forest to Washington. When one power builds luxury suites onto its stadium, rivals feel compelled to match or surpass the construction to save face if not up-front money. Unlike daily support facilities, used by student-athletes and off limits to boosters, VIP seating is a perk with direct benefit to the donor.

Virginia Tech's most recent upgrade of Lane Stadium would have happened without the move to the ACC; it explains much of why the school's football revenue has grown from $21 million in 2002 to an ACC-high $40 million in 2006. Virginia, Clemson and Wake Forest have also undertaken similar ventures lately, linking the carrot of improved seat location or the stick of demotion to donation level.

"It was an incredible period of growth across a lot of fronts," Weiberg said.

No conference has an exclusive or excessive hold on heartstrings. So even though the ACC's football TV contract nearly doubled from the year before expansion through 2006, it didn't necessarily create an advantage for the league.


"To some extent, the ACC's expansion allowed it to get extra revenue streams into play like the championship football game, but more than allowing it to grow past other conferences, it got the ACC in the position where it was maximizing its revenue opportunities," Weiberg said.

Hokie high

The ACC's biggest individual winner has been Virginia Tech, which enjoyed a 68 percent growth in revenue from 2003-04 through 2006-07. Among BCS members, only Stanford (82.8 percent) and Auburn (74.5 percent) experienced greater increases than the Hokies.

Virginia Tech gained an athletics identity in the 1990s with football, and that success allowed the university to graduate from an independent to the Big East in football and from the Metro to the Atlantic 10 to the Big East in everything else. But the changes happened so quickly the school was never in one place long enough to reap the full financial rewards of membership.

It was on track to become fully vested in Big East basketball, but it had to abort those plans. In the summer of 2003, it had a good excuse. It was moving to the ACC, which promised all-sports availability and a more geographically friendly footprint.

In Big East sports other than football, the Hokies had two opponents -- West Virginia and Georgetown, within reasonable driving distance. Now it has at least six.

It all worked out for Tech. The switch of conferences was so natural the remaining Big East football schools excluded Virginia Tech from antitrust and breach-of-contract litigation they filed against the ACC after it all went down (The matter was ultimately settled out of court.).

Finally, after several years of accepting less than a full financial stake in any league because of its various transitions, Virginia Tech became a fully vested member of the ACC in 2006-07.

The harmonic convergence of the stadium upgrades and the move to the ACC meant the Hokies nearly doubled their annual football revenue in four years, going from $21 million in 2002 to an ACC-high $40 million in 2006. Not even Florida State or Clemson, both of which boast home stadiums with 80,000 seats, equaled the Hokies' income.

Basketball has been a big hit as well. The school, which had struggled to form rivalries and an identity, had no such problems when it joined the ACC. It immediately sold out of season tickets in 2004-05, an unprecedented feat in its history. Guaranteed to host Virginia and likely to see at least one of the triumvirate of Duke, North Carolina and Maryland annually, it had something to sell.

The bottom line has been impressive. Virginia Tech athletics reported $65,487,381 in revenue for the tax year ending June 30, 2007.

"We're always trying to grow the business," athletics director Jim Weaver told The Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk.

Elsewhere

Boston College feared it would have to cut sports if it had stayed in the Big East, but its robust athletics department, which includes a sailing team, remained in place when it was ultimately accepted to the ACC in October of 2003, effective July 1, 2005. The Eagles' 60.9 percent growth in revenue from 2003-04 through last year ranks fifth in the BCS.

Miami, on the other hand, has been stagnant. That's because the Big East's financial structure more closely resembles capitalism than socialism by paying out more money to the most successful football programs. The Hurricanes were powerful in their final Big East days and ranked 21st in total revenue in the BCS in 2003-04. Their standing of 41st last year was inevitable regardless of their success rate because the ACC apportions general TV revenues nearly equally among members.

It's not a surprise to the university's administration, which willingly traded the upsides of the Big East for the financial stability of the ACC.

Fans can and will debate the merits of the ACC's revolution for years, but any angst over expansion will inevitably decrease with that time. What's not changing -- relatively speaking -- is the cash flow.


Contact Rob Daniels at 373-7028 or rob.daniels @news-record.com
07-13-2008 08:16 AM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #7
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
I agree, Jackson. VT is the only winner in the ACC's expansion. BC marked time, and Miami fell down. Any other view point is ignoring facts, and that's ludicrous.
07-13-2008 08:40 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
HiddenDragon Offline
Banned

Posts: 15,979
Joined: May 2004
I Root For:
Location:

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #8
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
BC, Miami and VT will all be fine in the ACC. As far as the Championship Game goes, they are dying to move it to Atlanta but the SEC stands in the way of that happening.

I think they should either hold the game in Charlotte or let the team with the best overall record host the game. I would go with the latter.
07-13-2008 11:42 AM
Find all posts by this user
CatsClaw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,170
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 185
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: The land of Winning
Post: #9
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
Yep, the same way that Cincinnati, Louisville and South Florida will/are fine in the Big East.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2008 12:14 PM by CatsClaw.)
07-13-2008 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user
CatsClaw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,170
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 185
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: The land of Winning
Post: #10
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
I notice Rivals' "analyst" is looking for another reason to rip the Big East. Secondary schools able to step up with VT and BC gone!? Virginia Tech finished FOURTH in the Big East the last 2 or 3 years in it and BC was a regular team in the middle of the conference. Boston College doesn't exactly have a winning tradition and neither did Virginia Tech until recently. Rivals just can't admit that they were wrong about the Big East.
07-13-2008 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,431
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 794
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #11
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
The ACC championship game has been moved to Tampa for the next two years. After that time it will be moved to Charlotte. It will probably stay in Charlotte(or Atlanta-if the date ever opens up) many years into the future where it will be successful.
07-13-2008 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #12
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
XLance Wrote:The ACC championship game has been moved to Tampa for the next two years. After that time it will be moved to Charlotte. It will probably stay in Charlotte(or Atlanta-if the date ever opens up) many years into the future where it will be successful.

While I will agree that having it in Charlotte increases the likelihood of it being more successful, there is no guarantee that a BC/VT match-up in Charlotte would do that much better than a BC/VT match-up in Jacksonville.

Basically, it will still come down to the match-ups.

Cheers,
Neil
07-13-2008 12:06 PM
Find all posts by this user
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #13
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
CatsClaw Wrote:I notice Rivals' "analyst" is looking for another reason to rip the Big East. Secondary schools able to step up with VT and BC gone!? Virginia Tech finished FOURTH in the Big East the last 2 or 3 years in it and BC was a regular team in the middle of the conference. Boston College doesn't exactly have a winning tradition and neither did Virginia Tech until recently. Rivals just can't admit that they were wrong about the Big East.

Here is an excellent response to Farrell's take from the Boneyard - UConn's Scout board:

WaylonSmithers wrote: According to Farrell, the rise of the Big East was predicated on the fact that VTech, Miami and BCU were no longer in the conference. The problem with that logic is that the 3 remaining most tradition laden teams in the Big East, Syracuse, WVU and Pitt, were a combined 7-2 against each of VTech and BCU the last 3 years those two schools were in the conference. It doesn't appear that VTech and BCU were exactly holding the Big East teams back as Farrell claims.

On the other hand, Cincinnati is 3-6, Louisville is 6-3, USF is 7-2, and UConn is 4-5 against the same 3 OBE teams since the NBE was formed. Essentially, in expansion, Syracuse, WVU and Pitt traded 3 teams they were consistently beating (BCU, VTech and Temple) for 4 teams that they were not nearly as successful against.

Logic 1, Farrell 0.

BCU and VTech, on the other hand, are 13-6 and and 19-1 respectively against the Old ACC teams the last 3 years.


Cheers,
Neil
07-13-2008 12:10 PM
Find all posts by this user
CatsClaw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,170
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 185
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: The land of Winning
Post: #14
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
omnicarrier Wrote:
XLance Wrote:The ACC championship game has been moved to Tampa for the next two years. After that time it will be moved to Charlotte. It will probably stay in Charlotte(or Atlanta-if the date ever opens up) many years into the future where it will be successful.

While I will agree that having it in Charlotte increases the likelihood of it being more successful, there is no guarantee that a BC/VT match-up in Charlotte would do that much better than a BC/VT match-up in Jacksonville.

Basically, it will still come down to the match-ups.

Cheers,
Neil

Exactly, which is why the Big East and Pac-10 don't want any part of a championship game. ACC is find out how tough a championshp game is. They're not the SEC. The ACC is a strong, successful conference but their fanbase will never equal the SEC like they want it to, and that is showing with the lack of attendance success for the championship gamee.
07-13-2008 12:12 PM
Find all posts by this user
CatsClaw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,170
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 185
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: The land of Winning
Post: #15
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
omnicarrier Wrote:
CatsClaw Wrote:I notice Rivals' "analyst" is looking for another reason to rip the Big East. Secondary schools able to step up with VT and BC gone!? Virginia Tech finished FOURTH in the Big East the last 2 or 3 years in it and BC was a regular team in the middle of the conference. Boston College doesn't exactly have a winning tradition and neither did Virginia Tech until recently. Rivals just can't admit that they were wrong about the Big East.

Here is an excellent response to Farrell's take from the Boneyard - UConn's Scout board:

WaylonSmithers wrote: According to Farrell, the rise of the Big East was predicated on the fact that VTech, Miami and BCU were no longer in the conference. The problem with that logic is that the 3 remaining most tradition laden teams in the Big East, Syracuse, WVU and Pitt, were a combined 7-2 against each of VTech and BCU the last 3 years those two schools were in the conference. It doesn't appear that VTech and BCU were exactly holding the Big East teams back as Farrell claims.

On the other hand, Cincinnati is 3-6, Louisville is 6-3, USF is 7-2, and UConn is 4-5 against the same 3 OBE teams since the NBE was formed. Essentially, in expansion, Syracuse, WVU and Pitt traded 3 teams they were consistently beating (BCU, VTech and Temple) for 4 teams that they were not nearly as successful against.

Logic 1, Farrell 0.

BCU and VTech, on the other hand, are 13-6 and and 19-1 respectively against the Old ACC teams the last 3 years.


Cheers,
Neil

I'm glad someone sent that to him. The last few years of the Big East West Virginia and Syracuse finished AHEAD of Virginia Tech and those two and other members finished ahead of Boston College. Meanwhile West Virginia finished one game behind Miami and then shared a piece of the Big East championship with them.
07-13-2008 12:19 PM
Find all posts by this user
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #16
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
CatsClaw Wrote:
omnicarrier Wrote:
CatsClaw Wrote:I notice Rivals' "analyst" is looking for another reason to rip the Big East. Secondary schools able to step up with VT and BC gone!? Virginia Tech finished FOURTH in the Big East the last 2 or 3 years in it and BC was a regular team in the middle of the conference. Boston College doesn't exactly have a winning tradition and neither did Virginia Tech until recently. Rivals just can't admit that they were wrong about the Big East.

Here is an excellent response to Farrell's take from the Boneyard - UConn's Scout board:

WaylonSmithers wrote: According to Farrell, the rise of the Big East was predicated on the fact that VTech, Miami and BCU were no longer in the conference. The problem with that logic is that the 3 remaining most tradition laden teams in the Big East, Syracuse, WVU and Pitt, were a combined 7-2 against each of VTech and BCU the last 3 years those two schools were in the conference. It doesn't appear that VTech and BCU were exactly holding the Big East teams back as Farrell claims.

On the other hand, Cincinnati is 3-6, Louisville is 6-3, USF is 7-2, and UConn is 4-5 against the same 3 OBE teams since the NBE was formed. Essentially, in expansion, Syracuse, WVU and Pitt traded 3 teams they were consistently beating (BCU, VTech and Temple) for 4 teams that they were not nearly as successful against.

Logic 1, Farrell 0.

BCU and VTech, on the other hand, are 13-6 and and 19-1 respectively against the Old ACC teams the last 3 years.


Cheers,
Neil

I'm glad someone sent that to him. The last few years of the Big East West Virginia and Syracuse finished AHEAD of Virginia Tech and those two and other members finished ahead of Boston College. Meanwhile West Virginia finished one game behind Miami and then shared a piece of the Big East championship with them.


Well, I doubt it was sent to Farrell. It was simply a post.

As for Farrell, the UConn/SU Scout boards have no use for him since he was the main reason both groups left Rivals and set-up shop over on Scout.

Cheers,
Neil
07-13-2008 12:25 PM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


CatsClaw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,170
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 185
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: The land of Winning
Post: #17
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
omnicarrier Wrote:
CatsClaw Wrote:
omnicarrier Wrote:
CatsClaw Wrote:I notice Rivals' "analyst" is looking for another reason to rip the Big East. Secondary schools able to step up with VT and BC gone!? Virginia Tech finished FOURTH in the Big East the last 2 or 3 years in it and BC was a regular team in the middle of the conference. Boston College doesn't exactly have a winning tradition and neither did Virginia Tech until recently. Rivals just can't admit that they were wrong about the Big East.

Here is an excellent response to Farrell's take from the Boneyard - UConn's Scout board:

WaylonSmithers wrote: According to Farrell, the rise of the Big East was predicated on the fact that VTech, Miami and BCU were no longer in the conference. The problem with that logic is that the 3 remaining most tradition laden teams in the Big East, Syracuse, WVU and Pitt, were a combined 7-2 against each of VTech and BCU the last 3 years those two schools were in the conference. It doesn't appear that VTech and BCU were exactly holding the Big East teams back as Farrell claims.

On the other hand, Cincinnati is 3-6, Louisville is 6-3, USF is 7-2, and UConn is 4-5 against the same 3 OBE teams since the NBE was formed. Essentially, in expansion, Syracuse, WVU and Pitt traded 3 teams they were consistently beating (BCU, VTech and Temple) for 4 teams that they were not nearly as successful against.

Logic 1, Farrell 0.

BCU and VTech, on the other hand, are 13-6 and and 19-1 respectively against the Old ACC teams the last 3 years.


Cheers,
Neil

I'm glad someone sent that to him. The last few years of the Big East West Virginia and Syracuse finished AHEAD of Virginia Tech and those two and other members finished ahead of Boston College. Meanwhile West Virginia finished one game behind Miami and then shared a piece of the Big East championship with them.


Well, I doubt it was sent to Farrell. It was simply a post.

As for Farrell, the UConn/SU Scout boards have no use for him since he was the main reason both groups left Rivals and set-up shop over on Scout.

Cheers,
Neil

Ah, that's the guy that caused all of that.
07-13-2008 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user
MemTGRS Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,893
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 295
I Root For: Memphis Tigers!
Location: VA Beach, "the 757"
Post: #18
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
CatsClaw Wrote:The ACC is a strong, successful conference but their fanbase will never equal the SEC like they want it to, and that is showing with the lack of attendance success for the championship gamee.
+1

After living all of my life in SEC country, I've been behind the ACC curtain for most of this decade. The ACC does not have ΒΌ of the fans' intensity like that of the SEC. The lack of buzz in comparison is very very evident.

But I would not have predicted that the ACC championship game would have become that flop that it is so far. Maybe if they moved it to Charlotte it would more on the radar being centrally located. I see the Tampa move not improving over Jax at all -- maybe even worse.

And to piggy back on what you noted, both areas are SEC country. I think only the Florida Panhandle with FSU looming large carries much ACC chatter in the whole state.
07-13-2008 05:38 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
HiddenDragon Offline
Banned

Posts: 15,979
Joined: May 2004
I Root For:
Location:

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #19
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
CatsClaw Wrote:Yep, the same way that Cincinnati, Louisville and South Florida will/are fine in the Big East.

My bad. I thought the thread was about the ACC and in particular the BE former members and not about Cincy, UL and USF.
07-14-2008 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user
KnightLight Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,664
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 700
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Five Years After the ACC's Expansion, Is Bigger Really Better?
MemTGRS Wrote:But I would not have predicted that the ACC championship game would have become that flop that it is so far. Maybe if they moved it to Charlotte it would more on the radar being centrally located. I see the Tampa move not improving over Jax at all -- maybe even worse.

Population percentage wise...Jacksonville is the #1 "SEC" major city in FLA...with zillion of Gator and Bulldog fans...plus tons of Gamecock, both Tiger schools, Vols, etc...

ACC was idiotic to place their Championship Game in that "SEC" city. (Plus, in the beginning, the ACC Champ Game loser was sent BACK to Jacksonville for their bowl game!).

The move to Tampa...in a smaller stadium and lower tix prices will help boost ACC Champ Game attendance...and while it will never reach the stature of the SEC Champ Game...it could end up being a good $$$$ maker for the conference once tied in with its TV contract in future years.

Having the games in Tampa and Charlotte was a smart move by the ACC.
07-14-2008 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.