SPORTS COMMENTARY: "ACC is losing its dominance as basketball conference and gaining ground in football."

http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/me...1323.shtml

How exactly do you have your cake and eat it too? Multitasking? Speed eating?

Maybe you just get a bigger fork.

That was the Atlantic Coast Conference's solution to the pastry riddle a few years back when the conference added Miami and Virginia Tech to their football lineup in 2004 and Boston College in 2005.

The expansion was predominantly a football move. The ACC was attempting to improve the quality of their football programs, mainly by adding more football-oriented schools. Considering how much money college football traditionally rakes in for athletic conferences, you can't blame them for trying to cut out a bigger slice of the football pie.

But before the expansion was announced back in the summer of 2003, the ACC had always been known as a basketball conference. From the images of Michael Jordan in North Carolina blue to Ralph Sampson's dominance at Virginia to Grant Hill's full-court inbound pass to Christian Laettner, the ACC had always been the major conference of men's basketball.

Shifting toward a conference that is more football-oriented than in the past isn't a bad thing, but the ACC seemed to think basketball wouldn't suffer, and the expansion would be a piece of cake.

Live and learn.

Over the past three seasons, ACC basketball has seen a dip in performance. After North Carolina won the championship in 2005, the conference has earned a total of 15 bids to March Madness, including only four last season and in 2006, while the Big East, the conference where all three expansion teams came from, has earned 22 during the same period. The last three seasons have seen only one ACC squad reach the Final Four (last season's North Carolina team) despite the conference winning three national championships since 2000.

"Football drove the expansion, and I understand that; they make all the money," Pete Gillen, former men's basketball coach at Virginia and current CSTV commentator, told the Washington Post. "They're not hurting basketball, but they seem to think it's a self-perpetuating entity, and it's not."

What takes the cake for the ACC is that whether or not football has improved is debatable. (I promise that's the last cake idiom.) The ACC title game was estimated to bring in $6 million in revenue at the time of expansion. The first year of the game brought in $5.7 million, and revenues slipped to $4.9 million the next year, according to the Post. Even the desired matchup between Miami and Florida State in the title game has yet to develop as organizers hoped.

"The expansion was built around a football payoff, but it was not as great as people imagined," ACC commissioner John Swofford said. "The potential is still there, and ultimately I think it will be a great beneficiary."

Three years after the expansion, the ACC has a slight increase in football and a slight decline in basketball to show for it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sure it's the 'Daily Texan' but thought I would post it anyway.

A slight increase in football? I wouldn't call 0-3 in BCS bowl games a slight improvement. What's this guy smoking?

I want to puke everytime I see BC mentioned in the same breath with Miami and VT. I find it curious that the writer uses on the court performance, or lack thereof, when reviewing the state of ACC basketball but ignores the pathetic BCS record of ACC football since the expansion.

In fiscal terms the ACC expansion has been a success, not only for the ACC, but for UofL, Cincinnati and South Florida, who moved into a BCS conference because of it. On the field, (and court), the expansion has been more of a success for the Big East than ACC.
CJ

Financially, in the long run, The BEast will make out better. As we continue to enjoy success, our TV deals will sweeten. If the ACC continues apace, their deals will decline. Things will balance out eventually. They can't ignore facts forever.

The ACC was completely delusional in ever thinking they'd be on par with the SEC. Schools like Maryland, BC, UVA, UNC, NC State, Ga Tech, Wake Forest and Duke - 75% of the league - are never going to be on par with your average SEC team as far as $$$, fan support, facilities, and most years competitiveness. They are fortunate that VPI was brough in as a last minute replacement. Nothing against the Orange, and I hope SU turns it around, but... can you imagine the state of the ACC right now had VPI remained in the BE and SU had gone to the ACC? They'd be looking even worse. The ACC needs to send some fervent thanks to the statehouse in Richmond for meddling in the process.

The ACC, IMO, is no better in football, but no worse. Remember, it wasn’t that great to begin with. However, the performance of VT, and to a lesser extent BC, have offset the pullback of FSU. Miami, it turns out, is now about an average ACC program, whereas BC has done better than I would have expected.

Not really. BC is going to do about as expected. They were consistently better than the ACC (pre-raid), except for FSU, and occasionally Clemson.

What takes the cake for the ACC is that whether or not football has improved is debatable. (I promise that's the last cake idiom.) The ACC title game was estimated to bring in $6 million in revenue at the time of expansion. The first year of the game brought in $5.7 million, and revenues slipped to $4.9 million the next year, according to the Post. Even the desired matchup between Miami and Florida State in the title game has yet to develop as organizers hoped.

Actually, back in 2003 the ACC projected the game would generate $7 million in net revenues (gross - expenses). The figures given above are gross revenues. The net revenue for the first game (VT vs FSU) was $4.5 million and the following year earned only $3.7 million (GT vs Wake Forest). Have no idea what last year's attendance nightmare between VT and BC earned.

Again, the revenue projections for expansion did not come through as expected (didn't increase Bowl finances as much as expected, haven't had an additional BCS team yet, championship game hasn't done as well as hoped for) EXCEPT for the football TV contracts, which came in MORE than expected based upon hype and potential.

Give the ACC and Swofford credit, they marketed it well. But just as in 2003 when they were being faced with a cut in their football TV contract, they might be faced with the same thing at the end of this upcoming season when TV contract negotiations will begin for 2011-2012 and beyond.

One thing that will likely help them out this time around is that there could be a bidding war from different networks which wasn't the case last time around.

Cheers,
Neil

wvucrazed Wrote:The ACC was completely delusional in ever thinking they'd be on par with the SEC. Schools like Maryland, BC, UVA, UNC, NC State, Ga Tech, Wake Forest and Duke - 75% of the league - are never going to be on par with your average SEC team as far as $$$, fan support, facilities, and most years competitiveness. They are fortunate that VPI was brough in as a last minute replacement. Nothing against the Orange, and I hope SU turns it around, but... can you imagine the state of the ACC right now had VPI remained in the BE and SU had gone to the ACC? They'd be looking even worse. The ACC needs to send some fervent thanks to the statehouse in Richmond for meddling in the process.

Of course, the above assumes everything would have taken place exactly as it did regardless of teams taken. But had Syracuse been taken back in June of 2003 as the original plan went, Coach P doesn't get fired, Ray Rice remains committed to the Orange, and several of the recruits that went to BC, Rutgers, and a few Big Ten schools in the classes of 2003, 2004 and 2005 are Orange instead.

So whose to say how that talent and those circumstances change how Syracuse plays in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007?

Keep in mind, Syracuse even in a decline without the above, beat BC handily their last two outings and except for the blowout loss of 2003 against VT played them 2-2 in their four prior meetings in very close contests.

Cheers,
Neil

As an outside observer, I think that over the long haul, it will be seen that the ACC has bettered itself by expanding to 12 all-sports schools. They are now more stable, and are already making more money. As for winning games and post-season performances, it is only a matter of time before they level out and do fine. I see no logical reason to conclude that expansion has done anything to harm football or football. People are jumping to conclusions. I admit that I will never understand the addition of Boston College, unless they were simply trying to damage the Big East.

Gray Avenger Wrote:As an outside observer, I think that over the long haul, it will seen that the ACC has bettered itself by expanding to 12 all-sports schools. They are now more stable, and are already making more money. As for winning games and post-season performances, it is only a matter of time before they level out and do fine. I see no logical reason to conclude that expansion has done anything to harm football or football. People are jumping to conclusions. I admit that I will never understand the addition of Boston College, unless they were simply trying to damage the Big East.

The ACC didn’t want to add a “perceived” mid-major, like ECU, USF or UCF, and BC was the only available option. They actually tried to add ND before settling on BC, I believe.

From a purely geographical standpoint, a USF-BC trade would make perfect sense. But, USF will blow by BC as a football program real soon (if it’s not already happened), so we’re happy to have them.

omnicarrier Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:The ACC was completely delusional in ever thinking they'd be on par with the SEC. Schools like Maryland, BC, UVA, UNC, NC State, Ga Tech, Wake Forest and Duke - 75% of the league - are never going to be on par with your average SEC team as far as $$$, fan support, facilities, and most years competitiveness. They are fortunate that VPI was brough in as a last minute replacement. Nothing against the Orange, and I hope SU turns it around, but... can you imagine the state of the ACC right now had VPI remained in the BE and SU had gone to the ACC? They'd be looking even worse. The ACC needs to send some fervent thanks to the statehouse in Richmond for meddling in the process.

Of course, the above assumes everything would have taken place exactly as it did regardless of teams taken. But had Syracuse been taken back in June of 2003 as the original plan went, Coach P doesn't get fired, Ray Rice remains committed to the Orange, and several of the recruits that went to BC, Rutgers, and a few Big Ten schools in the classes of 2003, 2004 and 2005 are Orange instead.

So whose to say how that talent and those circumstances change how Syracuse plays in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007?

Keep in mind, Syracuse even in a decline without the above, beat BC handily their last two outings and except for the blowout loss of 2003 against VT played them 2-2 in their four prior meetings in very close contests.

Cheers,
Neil

Very true, it's impossible to assume what SU might have done had the circumstances been different.

That said, I think we can state with a reasonable amount of certainty that the Orange would most likely not have dominated the ACC and provided the league with really its lone bright spot since expansion, as VPI has. That being the case, in the short term, the results of expansion for the ACC would have looked even worse.

But FWIW I think the BE is much better off overall with SU remaining a member instead of VPI. We're in this for the long haul and I don't think anybody doubts that SU will be back to national prominence before long.

An opinion from an outsider who has no ties to ACC and Big East schools and who lives far (Dallas, TX) where those two conferences are located.

-The ACC will be fine in the long term. Conferences go into cycles. Anybody remember all these articles bashing the Big XII North? And what happened last season? Kansas and Missouri were the best in the Big XII. Remember the Pac-10 a few years ago? The "experts" said that conference was dead because their only worthy program, USC, was dead too. And then, Pete Carroll gets hired and the Trojans are once again part of the elite of the elite. Remember a decade ago Nebraska was complaining about the Big XII South schools? Texas and Oklahoma were down at that time. Brown and Stoops were still coaching somewhere else. You should remember what the same "experts" were predicting about the Big East in 2004 after Pitt lost to Utah in the Fiesta Bowl. The Big Ten gets bashed because Ohio State has lots two straight NCs to the SEC. But does anybody expects Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue and Penn State to be down forever? The same goes with the ACC.

-The ACC has at least four or five programs that have lots of history and tradition: Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech and maybe Georgia Tech. Will it be like the SEC? Never because the SEC is in a league of their own. But I can't see why the ACC can't be the 3rd or 4th best BCS conference. What they have is stability, something the BE can't say (that hybrid conference is a reason why). The ACC is still in transition and still needs time. If in 5 or 7 years they're still in the same state, then you can say ACC expansion has been a huge failure.

Jose_Jalapeno_on_a_Stick Wrote:

Gray Avenger Wrote:As an outside observer, I think that over the long haul, it will seen that the ACC has bettered itself by expanding to 12 all-sports schools. They are now more stable, and are already making more money. As for winning games and post-season performances, it is only a matter of time before they level out and do fine. I see no logical reason to conclude that expansion has done anything to harm football or football. People are jumping to conclusions. I admit that I will never understand the addition of Boston College, unless they were simply trying to damage the Big East.

The ACC didn’t want to add a “perceived” mid-major, like ECU, USF or UCF, and BC was the only available option. They actually tried to add ND before settling on BC, I believe.

From a purely geographical standpoint, a USF-BC trade would make perfect sense. But, USF will blow by BC as a football program real soon (if it’s not already happened), so we’re happy to have them.

It would be interesting to see, if they knew then, what they know now, how the ACC expansion would have went. Would they have still taken BC? If they would have seen the rapid rise of USF, would they have been considered? (Note, I love USF in the BE) Would they have forgotten the whole thing? Would the BE have done anything different, maybe a preemptive expansion before the ACC had a chance to raid? The BE seems to be 3 for 3 on it's expansion teams, should anyone else have been considered? Maybe they should have went with 4 FB and 1 BB instead of 3 and 2. This seems to be the main complaint people have against BE (no ninth FB school).

UTEPDallas Wrote:An opinion from an outsider who has no ties to ACC and Big East schools and who lives far (Dallas, TX) where those two conferences are located.

-The ACC will be fine in the long term. Conferences go into cycles. Anybody remember all these articles bashing the Big XII North? And what happened last season? Kansas and Missouri were the best in the Big XII. Remember the Pac-10 a few years ago? The "experts" said that conference was dead because their only worthy program, USC, was dead too. And then, Pete Carroll gets hired and the Trojans are once again part of the elite of the elite. Remember a decade ago Nebraska was complaining about the Big XII South schools? Texas and Oklahoma were down at that time. Brown and Stoops were still coaching somewhere else. You should remember what the same "experts" were predicting about the Big East in 2004 after Pitt lost to Utah in the Fiesta Bowl. The Big Ten gets bashed because Ohio State has lots two straight NCs to the SEC. But does anybody expects Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue and Penn State to be down forever? The same goes with the ACC.

-The ACC has at least four or five programs that have lots of history and tradition: Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech and maybe Georgia Tech. Will it be like the SEC? Never because the SEC is in a league of their own. But I can't see why the ACC can't be the 3rd or 4th best BCS conference. What they have is stability, something the BE can't say (that hybrid conference is a reason why). The ACC is still in transition and still needs time. If in 5 or 7 years they're still in the same state, then you can say ACC expansion has been a huge failure.

I think you have to say honestly say that if they don't pull a BCS win and get some quality wins this season, that the ACC expansion is a bust.
Here's my reasoning: Swofford didn't add Miami- to be part of a "long term" success plan. His promise was an instant "best league in the nation." He did not sell the ACC as a "give us a few years" conference.
Now the ACC is "rebuilding." The were rebuilding before the raid. BC benefitted from the perception that the BE would lose it's BCS bid- but now that is over. Don't expect top recruits who want to play in the northeast to look at BC only. IMHO BC is about to get real medicore, real quick.

The raid was not along term plan. The TV contracts the ACC got did not suggest a long term plan. The had FSU/Miami on Monday nights televised nationally. They thought they would be that big a deal. ESPN is not paying out the kid of money they are paying out for a conference that is "rebuilding."

I'm beginning to feel that the biggest problem facing the BE is that people keep connecting the BE to the ACC. We need to end that association. We don't need to be mentioned every time somebody talks about the sad state of ACC football.We've grown beyond that. They took Miami just in time and gave us USF- now cut us loose. Disassociate the BE from articles about the ACC. They can only bring us down.