(07-11-2022 02:40 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 01:00 PM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  We need to add some football brands. Okie State, Baylor, WVU would be where I would go.

ACCN in Oklahoma and Texas would justify a bump. WVU's fan base would invade every ACC venue each week.

Oregon, Washington, Utah and Stanford are a way better collection of brands.

This is the count of million-viewer games 2015-21 for teams not already in the SEC or B1G (or ND). And that's considering the viewer penalty Washington and Oregon take for late games.

34 Clemson
31 Florida State
28 Washington
26 Oregon
22 Miami
21 Washington State
19 Oklahoma State, Utah
18 Louisville, Stanford
16 North Carolina
15 Baylor, Colorado, Virginia Tech
14 TCU, West Virginia
13 Arizona State, Boise State
12 BYU, Cal, Pittsburgh
11 Cincinnati, NC State
10 Syracuse
9 Texas Tech, UCF, Virginia
8 Houston, USF, Wake Forest
7 Army, Boston College, Iowa State, Navy
6 Arizona, Georgia Tech, Memphis
5 Duke
4 Kansas State, SMU, Temple
3 Oregon State

Also, three of my suggested four are the top brand in their state and would get easy ACCN pickup. Even if they only get full price carriage in the Bay Area in California, that's twice the population of Oklahoma.

Oklahoma State is the distant second in their state. Baylor is fourth or fifth brand in their state. Why take on distant secondary teams in states where the SEC already sucks up all the oxygen?

I like WVU just fine, but a four pack from the west is much better. All four would slot top half, maybe top third, football brands in the league. It would be arguably the most a conference has ever improved their football profile in a single expansion move ever.

I think the ESPN already gave us a hint.

“Would the ACC just be better off selectively poaching a few schools in major markets new to the ACC? That list could include Cincinnati, TCU, Houston, Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, Arizona State, Colorado and Oklahoma State? (Only Oklahoma State has a limited market, but it has a strong program.)”

No doubt Oregon, Washington and Stanford are top three value. But Utah, Baylor and WVU were not listed while Cal was included.

Personally I want to see the ACC add six teams and form 4 pods, one of which would be the West coast/texas pod.

Today’s ESPN reporting seems to indicate that the ACC is in a position to expand if ESPN approves:

In addition to those calls, informal conversations have been going on between schools and other leagues as a way to gauge both their value and where future expansion might be headed. Nothing appears to be imminent. What makes officials in the league office believe they are in a position of strength is its grant of rights, which ties member schools to the ACC through 2036.


https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...s-followed

(07-11-2022 11:40 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 11:10 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 10:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  Even if you think the ACC is doomed (as I do) and would like to see your team be able to get out and into the SEC (as I do), it's still in everyone's best interest for the ACC to be as strong as possible for the time being. I think its very likely that the GOR keeps the ACC intact for 10-14 more years, and there's no upside to the conference staying weak or getting weaker. Anyone who has designs on leaving is not going to be helped if their program atrophies over the next decade.

And who knows what the incentives will be ten years from now. Ten years ago it was all about conference network footprints, meaning FSU and Clemson weren't of interest to the SEC. That's changed now, but who knows in ten or 14 years.

I think the ACC should do the following:

1) Invite Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Utah if you can get ESPN to pay for it. That would be a huge upgrade to ACC football. Assuming that ND wants to retain its annual game with Stanford, its a sixth ND game. That is a lot of population in great markets for the network. As far as on the field product, that lineup would compare very well with the B1G.

2) Institute some kind of unequal revenue sharing based on what tiers members are televised. To be clear, the point of unequal revenue sharing is not to bribe members like FSU or Clemson or Oregon into not coveting SEC or B1G offers. It's to best position the ACC to compete as a power football conference. More money to the top half football brands, to cut the financial disparity to their peers in the B1G and SEC, creates a much better opportunity for the ACC to remain "Big 3" in terms of football branding.

You do that, and see where you stand in 14 years. I think that's a conference that compares very favorably on the field with the Big 10. Maybe at that point you lose members. Or maybe that conference has been good enough that taking it to the open market (finally) projects major financials.

In any event, the conference and all members are in at LEAST as good a shape as if they just throw up their hands and try to play out the string.

Going to unequal revenue sharing isn't improving the conference, it's throwing in the towel. Might as well just let the schools that can find a better home leave now.

That's an emotional take.

The narrative that "unequal payments doom conferences" came out with the disintegration of the Big East and the Big 12 1.0.

However, we've now seen Maryland, Texas, OU, USC and UCLA bolt from "equal distribution" conferences. That talking point doesn't hold anymore.

The ACC's best thin hope is that the GOR holds teams there for over a decade, and that decade is also transformative for for ACC football elevating it to a state where taking it to the open market will produce a massive SEC/B1G type windfall. And that windfall and a decade of success
changes how interested many schools are in leaving.

To me, the two best things they might be able to do in that case are to add significant brands and strong football programs, and do what they can to empower the highest potential brands.

It still might not work. Probably won't work. But it definitely COULD work.

You're going to tell me a conference with Clemson, Oregon, FSU, Miami, Washington, Utah absolutely can't run with the B1G on the field?

If ACC football wins, starts making big important games, there's going to be a lot of value in going to market in the 2036.

Doing nothing but the same and hoping for a better outcome seems foolish.

The problem with a strategy of adding significant brands and strong football programs is that there need to be such brands in the first place for it to work. There's little or no evidence that there are programs outside the B1G, SEC and ACC that are more valuable than the ones already in the ACC. If you are trying to increase per team media revenue you have to find schools that are worth more to the media than you already have.

If schools from what is left of the PAC are willing to accept an ACC invitation knowing that move will leave them far behind the P2 in revenue for 12 years and beyond it won't be because they are worth more than ACC schools, it's because they are desperately afraid that on their own they are worth a lot less. And there's a good chance they are worth less.

(07-11-2022 02:40 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 01:00 PM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  We need to add some football brands. Okie State, Baylor, WVU would be where I would go.

ACCN in Oklahoma and Texas would justify a bump. WVU's fan base would invade every ACC venue each week.

Oregon, Washington, Utah and Stanford are a way better collection of brands.

This is the count of million-viewer games 2015-21 for teams not already in the SEC or B1G (or ND). And that's considering the viewer penalty Washington and Oregon take for late games.

34 Clemson
31 Florida State
28 Washington
26 Oregon
22 Miami
21 Washington State
19 Oklahoma State, Utah
18 Louisville, Stanford
16 North Carolina
15 Baylor, Colorado, Virginia Tech
14 TCU, West Virginia
13 Arizona State, Boise State
12 BYU, Cal, Pittsburgh
11 Cincinnati, NC State
10 Syracuse
9 Texas Tech, UCF, Virginia
8 Houston, USF, Wake Forest
7 Army, Boston College, Iowa State, Navy
6 Arizona, Georgia Tech, Memphis
5 Duke
4 Kansas State, SMU, Temple
3 Oregon State

Also, three of my suggested four are the top brand in their state and would get easy ACCN pickup. Even if they only get full price carriage in the Bay Area in California, that's twice the population of Oklahoma.

Oklahoma State is the distant second in their state. Baylor is fourth or fifth brand in their state. Why take on distant secondary teams in states where the SEC already sucks up all the oxygen?

I like WVU just fine, but a four pack from the west is much better. All four would slot top half, maybe top third, football brands in the league. It would be arguably the most a conference has ever improved their football profile in a single expansion move ever.

Thought provoking post.

I certainly would be on board for Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Utah to join the league for football. Unlike USC and UCLA joining the Big Ten for all sports and being rewarded substantially money wise to help deal with that issue for them it is hard to imagine how those four schools above join the ACC with their other sports.

I suppose it is possible the PAC can convince other institutions in their footprint to join their depleted conference for sports outside of football or perhaps even include football at a level of the current G5. This could give homes to Cal, Washington State, and Oregon State football.

This option if it came to fruition would likely mean Colorado, Arizona, and ASU either join the Big 12 or downgrade their football programs. I suspect they would prefer to join the Big 12 at that point.

To further regionalize the Big 12 the ACC might consider inviting WVU and Cincy as full members as well to get to 20 for football and 17 for basketball. UCF could be explored at a later date IF the Power 2 come after the brand football programs of FSU, Clemson, and/or Miami.

I am also of the opinion that a joint venture of combining the two networks into one has some merit and should be explored. Again this is likely only possible if the PAC can create/convince other institutions to join their depleted conference for the sports outside of football or possibly include football for all schools in this new version of the PAC except for those 4 schools.

Think this is all unlikely and even if slightly viable it would be tough to accomplish. Still it is at least worth exploring. Better than the conference sitting on its ass.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-11-2022 06:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 11:40 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 11:10 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 10:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  Even if you think the ACC is doomed (as I do) and would like to see your team be able to get out and into the SEC (as I do), it's still in everyone's best interest for the ACC to be as strong as possible for the time being. I think its very likely that the GOR keeps the ACC intact for 10-14 more years, and there's no upside to the conference staying weak or getting weaker. Anyone who has designs on leaving is not going to be helped if their program atrophies over the next decade.

And who knows what the incentives will be ten years from now. Ten years ago it was all about conference network footprints, meaning FSU and Clemson weren't of interest to the SEC. That's changed now, but who knows in ten or 14 years.

I think the ACC should do the following:

1) Invite Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Utah if you can get ESPN to pay for it. That would be a huge upgrade to ACC football. Assuming that ND wants to retain its annual game with Stanford, its a sixth ND game. That is a lot of population in great markets for the network. As far as on the field product, that lineup would compare very well with the B1G.

2) Institute some kind of unequal revenue sharing based on what tiers members are televised. To be clear, the point of unequal revenue sharing is not to bribe members like FSU or Clemson or Oregon into not coveting SEC or B1G offers. It's to best position the ACC to compete as a power football conference. More money to the top half football brands, to cut the financial disparity to their peers in the B1G and SEC, creates a much better opportunity for the ACC to remain "Big 3" in terms of football branding.

You do that, and see where you stand in 14 years. I think that's a conference that compares very favorably on the field with the Big 10. Maybe at that point you lose members. Or maybe that conference has been good enough that taking it to the open market (finally) projects major financials.

In any event, the conference and all members are in at LEAST as good a shape as if they just throw up their hands and try to play out the string.

Going to unequal revenue sharing isn't improving the conference, it's throwing in the towel. Might as well just let the schools that can find a better home leave now.

That's an emotional take.

The narrative that "unequal payments doom conferences" came out with the disintegration of the Big East and the Big 12 1.0.

However, we've now seen Maryland, Texas, OU, USC and UCLA bolt from "equal distribution" conferences. That talking point doesn't hold anymore.

The ACC's best thin hope is that the GOR holds teams there for over a decade, and that decade is also transformative for for ACC football elevating it to a state where taking it to the open market will produce a massive SEC/B1G type windfall. And that windfall and a decade of success
changes how interested many schools are in leaving.

To me, the two best things they might be able to do in that case are to add significant brands and strong football programs, and do what they can to empower the highest potential brands.

It still might not work. Probably won't work. But it definitely COULD work.

You're going to tell me a conference with Clemson, Oregon, FSU, Miami, Washington, Utah absolutely can't run with the B1G on the field?

If ACC football wins, starts making big important games, there's going to be a lot of value in going to market in the 2036.

Doing nothing but the same and hoping for a better outcome seems foolish.

The problem with a strategy of adding significant brands and strong football programs is that there need to be such brands in the first place for it to work. There's little or no evidence that there are programs outside the B1G, SEC and ACC that are more valuable than the ones already in the ACC. If you are trying to increase per team media revenue you have to find schools that are worth more to the media than you already have.

If schools from what is left of the PAC are willing to accept an ACC invitation knowing that move will leave them far behind the P2 in revenue for 12 years and beyond it won't be because they are worth more than ACC schools, it's because they are desperately afraid that on their own they are worth a lot less. And there's a good chance they are worth less.

I understand your argument and believe that is one of many roadblocks to pulling this off. But I think that needs to be balanced with the fact MORE brand name football programs added to next-level down programs likely means a potential sizeable increase in TV revenue. The retired FOX Sports executive said that with USC and UCLA the PAC was looking for a $500M annual tv contract. He added that the PAC would be lucky to get $300M without USC and UCLA. So basically USC and UCLA and the Southern Cal market was worth 40% of the market value of the PAC. Are these four worth another 40% of that contract? Anything between $160M and $200M would mean each of the four are bringing in $40M each. Now factor in these four playing brand names like FSU, Clemson, Miami and next level down programs like VT, Pitt, Louisville, UNC, NC State I see a possible path of even more.

Not to mention does ND keep its annual football game with Stanford for California recruiting in addition to USC? That could be extra value to the conference as well.

I realize I am throwing a lot of crap against the wall for something that is likely NOT to happen, but I would love to see the ACC be truly innovative in this situation. Rather go down fighting than simply be rolled over.

Cheers,
Neil

RE: adding brands - conference TV ratings don't grow linearly with more brands, they grow exponentially.
- If you have 2 big brands, you have ONE big game per year (A/B).
- If you have 3 big brands, you have, not two, but THREE big games (A/B, A/C, B/C)
- With 4 big brands you have SIX big games (A/B, A/C, A/D, B/C, B/D, C/D)
- 5 brands gives you 10 big games
- 6 brands gives you 15 big games
It's just combinations of N brands taken 2 at a time = n!/(2*(n-2)!).

RE: value added
Teams don't have to be more valuable than your most valuable teams; does anyone think USC + UCLA are more valuable than Ohio State + Michigan? No, they just have to be more valuable than the average - or, what the new average value will be once they're added. Oregon and Washington definitely fit the bill, and Oklahoma State and Arizona State probably do as well.

RE: unequal sharing - there's already unequal earning on a massive scale! Clemson, FSU, Miami, and VT carry the load in ACC football, which is 80% of all tv revenue. Duke, Wake Forest, and BC are three of the least valuable teams in all of the P5. At least BC brings in lots of ACCN subscriptions in New England - you can argue that ACCN would get exactly the same carriage in North Carolina with just UNC and NC State. That said, the ACC doesn't have to cut loose Duke and Wake - they can exist as non-football members, with the same full-ACCN/20%-T1 sharing arrangement that Notre Dame gets. In fact, give them the same 5-game scheduling arrangement and partial (non NY6) bowl tie-in deal, too! That is a much fairer unequal sharing, in my book - and it allows Duke and Wake to focus on basketball, which is where their focus should be.

I know this is unpleasant and offensive to some, but it's the truth.

(07-11-2022 09:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  RE: adding brands - conference TV ratings don't grow linearly with more brands, they grow exponentially.
- If you have 2 big brands, you have ONE big game per year (A/B).
- If you have 3 big brands, you have, not two, but THREE big games (A/B, A/C, B/C)
- With 4 big brands you have SIX big games (A/B, A/C, A/D, B/C, B/D, C/D)
- 5 brands gives you 10 big games
- 6 brands gives you 15 big games
It's just combinations of N brands taken 2 at a time = n!/(2*(n-2)!).

RE: value added
Teams don't have to be more valuable than your most valuable teams; does anyone think USC + UCLA are more valuable than Ohio State + Michigan? No, they just have to be more valuable than the average - or, what the new average value will be once they're added. Oregon and Washington definitely fit the bill, and Oklahoma State and Arizona State probably do as well.

RE: unequal sharing - there's already unequal earning on a massive scale! Clemson, FSU, Miami, and VT carry the load in ACC football, which is 80% of all tv revenue. Duke, Wake Forest, and BC are three of the least valuable teams in all of the P5. At least BC brings in lots of ACCN subscriptions in New England - you can argue that ACCN would get exactly the same carriage in North Carolina with just UNC and NC State. That said, the ACC doesn't have to cut loose Duke and Wake - they can exist as non-football members, with the same full-ACCN/20%-T1 sharing arrangement that Notre Dame gets. In fact, give them the same 5-game scheduling arrangement and partial (non NY6) bowl tie-in deal, too! That is a much fairer unequal sharing, in my book - and it allows Duke and Wake to focus on basketball, which is where their focus should be.*

I know this is unpleasant and offensive to some, but it's the truth.

With the way things are developing in college athletics some institutions may just volunteer to give up on football.

(07-11-2022 09:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  RE: unequal sharing - there's already unequal earning on a massive scale! Clemson, FSU, Miami, and VT carry the load in ACC football, which is 80% of all tv revenue. Duke, Wake Forest, and BC are three of the least valuable teams in all of the P5. At least BC brings in lots of ACCN subscriptions in New England - you can argue that ACCN would get exactly the same carriage in North Carolina with just UNC and NC State. That said, the ACC doesn't have to cut loose Duke and Wake - they can exist as non-football members, with the same full-ACCN/20%-T1 sharing arrangement that Notre Dame gets. In fact, give them the same 5-game scheduling arrangement and partial (non NY6) bowl tie-in deal, too! That is a much fairer unequal sharing, in my book - and it allows Duke and Wake to focus on basketball, which is where their focus should be.

I know this is unpleasant and offensive to some, but it's the truth.

This is an interesting idea.

The ACC already has a member (ND) which doesn’t play a ACC football. Why not instituionalize the non football membership? I have to say this reminds me of the old Big East structure, though. Hey why not add UConn and Georgetown as non football members?

(07-11-2022 10:56 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 09:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  RE: unequal sharing - there's already unequal earning on a massive scale! Clemson, FSU, Miami, and VT carry the load in ACC football, which is 80% of all tv revenue. Duke, Wake Forest, and BC are three of the least valuable teams in all of the P5. At least BC brings in lots of ACCN subscriptions in New England - you can argue that ACCN would get exactly the same carriage in North Carolina with just UNC and NC State. That said, the ACC doesn't have to cut loose Duke and Wake - they can exist as non-football members, with the same full-ACCN/20%-T1 sharing arrangement that Notre Dame gets. In fact, give them the same 5-game scheduling arrangement and partial (non NY6) bowl tie-in deal, too! That is a much fairer unequal sharing, in my book - and it allows Duke and Wake to focus on basketball, which is where their focus should be.

I know this is unpleasant and offensive to some, but it's the truth.

This is an interesting idea.

The ACC already has a member (ND) which doesn’t play a ACC football. Why not institutionalize the non football membership? I have to say this reminds me of the old Big East structure, though. Hey why not add UConn and Georgetown as non football members?

Well for one thing, ND could argue "Why are we playing you 5 games a year in football when you already have non-football members? Let us be a non-football member without the scheduling agreement too."

I'm not sure how that argument would come up but it wouldn't be in the ACC's best interest.

Truthfully, it's up to the individual schools to commit to football. They need to invest more in football, find better liaison's between corporations and players for NIL payouts and whatnot. Schools need to make themselves attractable for the talent to compete in this new paradigm. Schools either need to step their games up or be left behind. If all the schools step their games up, then the conference doesn't need to do a single thing, other than getting more gwap from ESPN.

I'm not opposed to grabbing 5 PAC schools and a B12 school. That 4 X 5 set up looks very doable.

(07-11-2022 04:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  The ACC added dead football weight to a conference that was already the worst in football decade after decade. Its part of why we're here today.

I mean, I get the rationale behind it, but it was wrong. Many of us thought so at the time. They added schools, who they have been committed to paying a full share in perpetuity, who made the football profile less appealing and would not have been picked up by any other conference since, and are virtually never mentioned as candidates to be picked up by the SEC or B1G.

I mean, what's done is done, but there is no reason to repeat the same strategies that have failed miserably.

I sometimes hear our fans make backhanded remarks about ACC 'dead weight', but I never hear any suggest that we give back our share-alike cuts of the bowl revenues that were earned in the aughts by Virginia Tech. I don't hear anyone suggesting we decline a cut of Pittsburgh's now.

Funny that. If unequal revenue sharing is such a fine idea, you'd think someone would walk the talk.



Hey, look, I get it. We have some fans who've been standing on the SEC porch since 'Dukes of Hazzard' aired, with their boots shined and their hair slicked back, holding a ring and a dozen roses. The ACC will always owe these fans for spoiling the romantic mood back in 1990. It's an emo thing.

You can't reason with emo. If it were possible, though, I'd point out that conference membership has benefited all ACC universities. The ACC's all-sports strength was a big reason why Florida State joined it, and the results show today in our trophy case. The ACC has been the highest-revenue league for half the time Florida State's been in it and Top 3 even when it hasn't. ND linked up with the ACC, too, and it wasn't because ND thought the ACC was a 'miserable failure.'

We are, like everyone else today, reaching a moment of decision. This is due to what JR calls 'the hostile takeover' of college revenue sports by corporate networks. These networks chose their winners years ago with every intention of funding and hyping their chosen horses across the finish line. It's not a matter of scholastic deserving so much as corporate investment. But that's the landscape. It falls to all of us to adjust.

(07-11-2022 08:42 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 06:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 11:40 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 11:10 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 10:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  Even if you think the ACC is doomed (as I do) and would like to see your team be able to get out and into the SEC (as I do), it's still in everyone's best interest for the ACC to be as strong as possible for the time being. I think its very likely that the GOR keeps the ACC intact for 10-14 more years, and there's no upside to the conference staying weak or getting weaker. Anyone who has designs on leaving is not going to be helped if their program atrophies over the next decade.

And who knows what the incentives will be ten years from now. Ten years ago it was all about conference network footprints, meaning FSU and Clemson weren't of interest to the SEC. That's changed now, but who knows in ten or 14 years.

I think the ACC should do the following:

1) Invite Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Utah if you can get ESPN to pay for it. That would be a huge upgrade to ACC football. Assuming that ND wants to retain its annual game with Stanford, its a sixth ND game. That is a lot of population in great markets for the network. As far as on the field product, that lineup would compare very well with the B1G.

2) Institute some kind of unequal revenue sharing based on what tiers members are televised. To be clear, the point of unequal revenue sharing is not to bribe members like FSU or Clemson or Oregon into not coveting SEC or B1G offers. It's to best position the ACC to compete as a power football conference. More money to the top half football brands, to cut the financial disparity to their peers in the B1G and SEC, creates a much better opportunity for the ACC to remain "Big 3" in terms of football branding.

You do that, and see where you stand in 14 years. I think that's a conference that compares very favorably on the field with the Big 10. Maybe at that point you lose members. Or maybe that conference has been good enough that taking it to the open market (finally) projects major financials.

In any event, the conference and all members are in at LEAST as good a shape as if they just throw up their hands and try to play out the string.

Going to unequal revenue sharing isn't improving the conference, it's throwing in the towel. Might as well just let the schools that can find a better home leave now.

That's an emotional take.

The narrative that "unequal payments doom conferences" came out with the disintegration of the Big East and the Big 12 1.0.

However, we've now seen Maryland, Texas, OU, USC and UCLA bolt from "equal distribution" conferences. That talking point doesn't hold anymore.

The ACC's best thin hope is that the GOR holds teams there for over a decade, and that decade is also transformative for for ACC football elevating it to a state where taking it to the open market will produce a massive SEC/B1G type windfall. And that windfall and a decade of success
changes how interested many schools are in leaving.

To me, the two best things they might be able to do in that case are to add significant brands and strong football programs, and do what they can to empower the highest potential brands.

It still might not work. Probably won't work. But it definitely COULD work.

You're going to tell me a conference with Clemson, Oregon, FSU, Miami, Washington, Utah absolutely can't run with the B1G on the field?

If ACC football wins, starts making big important games, there's going to be a lot of value in going to market in the 2036.

Doing nothing but the same and hoping for a better outcome seems foolish.

The problem with a strategy of adding significant brands and strong football programs is that there need to be such brands in the first place for it to work. There's little or no evidence that there are programs outside the B1G, SEC and ACC that are more valuable than the ones already in the ACC. If you are trying to increase per team media revenue you have to find schools that are worth more to the media than you already have.

If schools from what is left of the PAC are willing to accept an ACC invitation knowing that move will leave them far behind the P2 in revenue for 12 years and beyond it won't be because they are worth more than ACC schools, it's because they are desperately afraid that on their own they are worth a lot less. And there's a good chance they are worth less.

I understand your argument and believe that is one of many roadblocks to pulling this off. But I think that needs to be balanced with the fact MORE brand name football programs added to next-level down programs likely means a potential sizeable increase in TV revenue. The retired FOX Sports executive said that with USC and UCLA the PAC was looking for a $500M annual tv contract. He added that the PAC would be lucky to get $300M without USC and UCLA. So basically USC and UCLA and the Southern Cal market was worth 40% of the market value of the PAC. Are these four worth another 40% of that contract? Anything between $160M and $200M would mean each of the four are bringing in $40M each. Now factor in these four playing brand names like FSU, Clemson, Miami and next level down programs like VT, Pitt, Louisville, UNC, NC State I see a possible path of even more.

Not to mention does ND keep its annual football game with Stanford for California recruiting in addition to USC? That could be extra value to the conference as well.

I realize I am throwing a lot of crap against the wall for something that is likely NOT to happen, but I would love to see the ACC be truly innovative in this situation. Rather go down fighting than simply be rolled over.

Cheers,
Neil

You can be fairly sure that Washington State, Oregon State, and Cal are worth very little - so the others must carry nearly all of the value of the Pac-12.

Oregon and Washington are a waste of time and not coming.

Cal and Stanford look like ACC teams but do they bring enough value to warrant expansion, and are they even interested?

The best option is to bring the Pac 10 under the media umbrella.

Why not have complete control over Texas by adding Texas Tech and TCU to the Pac, and Houston and either Baylor or SMU to the ACC?

(07-11-2022 09:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  RE: adding brands - conference TV ratings don't grow linearly with more brands, they grow exponentially.
- If you have 2 big brands, you have ONE big game per year (A/B).
- If you have 3 big brands, you have, not two, but THREE big games (A/B, A/C, B/C)
- With 4 big brands you have SIX big games (A/B, A/C, A/D, B/C, B/D, C/D)
- 5 brands gives you 10 big games
- 6 brands gives you 15 big games
It's just combinations of N brands taken 2 at a time = n!/(2*(n-2)!).

RE: value added
Teams don't have to be more valuable than your most valuable teams; does anyone think USC + UCLA are more valuable than Ohio State + Michigan? No, they just have to be more valuable than the average - or, what the new average value will be once they're added. Oregon and Washington definitely fit the bill, and Oklahoma State and Arizona State probably do as well.

EXACTLY. This is the point. Again, refer to the Andy Staples list of million-viewer games. The only current ACC teams that draw more than ANY of those four are FSU, Clemson, and Miami. Louisville also ties the least of the four, Stanford.

You have a chance to add four teams that out-interest 75% of the current league. That is a virtually unprecedented opportunity. Truth is, the ACC has an extremely rare chance (maybe) to add four teams that are considerably better where it counts (football performance and viewership) than the league average.

To me, the exponential nature that Hokie lays out shows why it MIGHT, and I emphasize MIGHT, be worth it to ESPN to pour some money into expanding with those four.

Cincinnati, West Virginia, etc...that doesn't move the needle above the ACC average. If you want to increase the per school payments, you have to improve the average value of the conference significantly, not just keep adding schools at the average or lower.

(07-12-2022 09:03 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 09:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  RE: adding brands - conference TV ratings don't grow linearly with more brands, they grow exponentially.
- If you have 2 big brands, you have ONE big game per year (A/B).
- If you have 3 big brands, you have, not two, but THREE big games (A/B, A/C, B/C)
- With 4 big brands you have SIX big games (A/B, A/C, A/D, B/C, B/D, C/D)
- 5 brands gives you 10 big games
- 6 brands gives you 15 big games
It's just combinations of N brands taken 2 at a time = n!/(2*(n-2)!).

RE: value added
Teams don't have to be more valuable than your most valuable teams; does anyone think USC + UCLA are more valuable than Ohio State + Michigan? No, they just have to be more valuable than the average - or, what the new average value will be once they're added. Oregon and Washington definitely fit the bill, and Oklahoma State and Arizona State probably do as well.

EXACTLY. This is the point. Again, refer to the Andy Staples list of million-viewer games. The only current ACC teams that draw more than ANY of those four are FSU, Clemson, and Miami. Louisville also ties the least of the four, Stanford.

You have a chance to add four teams that out-interest 75% of the current league. That is a virtually unprecedented opportunity. Truth is, the ACC has an extremely rare chance (maybe) to add four teams that are considerably better where it counts (football performance and viewership) than the league average.

To me, the exponential nature that Hokie lays out shows why it MIGHT, and I emphasize MIGHT, be worth it to ESPN to pour some money into expanding with those four.

Cincinnati, West Virginia, etc...that doesn't move the needle above the ACC average. If you want to increase the per school payments, you have to improve the average value of the conference significantly, not just keep adding schools at the average or lower.

Might not ever have a gift horse event ever again if ESPN and ACC don't act soon. It would place the ACC a not to distant 3rd but way ahead of the next P4. Just need a good boost in annual revenue to go along with it.

(07-12-2022 09:35 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 09:03 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 09:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  RE: adding brands - conference TV ratings don't grow linearly with more brands, they grow exponentially.
- If you have 2 big brands, you have ONE big game per year (A/B).
- If you have 3 big brands, you have, not two, but THREE big games (A/B, A/C, B/C)
- With 4 big brands you have SIX big games (A/B, A/C, A/D, B/C, B/D, C/D)
- 5 brands gives you 10 big games
- 6 brands gives you 15 big games
It's just combinations of N brands taken 2 at a time = n!/(2*(n-2)!).

RE: value added
Teams don't have to be more valuable than your most valuable teams; does anyone think USC + UCLA are more valuable than Ohio State + Michigan? No, they just have to be more valuable than the average - or, what the new average value will be once they're added. Oregon and Washington definitely fit the bill, and Oklahoma State and Arizona State probably do as well.

EXACTLY. This is the point. Again, refer to the Andy Staples list of million-viewer games. The only current ACC teams that draw more than ANY of those four are FSU, Clemson, and Miami. Louisville also ties the least of the four, Stanford.

You have a chance to add four teams that out-interest 75% of the current league. That is a virtually unprecedented opportunity. Truth is, the ACC has an extremely rare chance (maybe) to add four teams that are considerably better where it counts (football performance and viewership) than the league average.

To me, the exponential nature that Hokie lays out shows why it MIGHT, and I emphasize MIGHT, be worth it to ESPN to pour some money into expanding with those four.

Cincinnati, West Virginia, etc...that doesn't move the needle above the ACC average. If you want to increase the per school payments, you have to improve the average value of the conference significantly, not just keep adding schools at the average or lower.

Might not ever have a gift horse event ever again if ESPN and ACC don't act soon. It would place the ACC a not to distant 3rd but way ahead of the next P4. Just need a good boost in annual revenue to go along with it.

If the GOR is going to hold the ACC together for fourteen more years, this is the best option. The fact that Texas and OU aren't even trying to get out of the GOR is pretty instructive.

14 years from now, you see what happens. Maybe some schools are still desired by other conferences and leave. Maybe the new ACC, finally with a chance to go to the open market, commands so much money that they don't NEED to leave. Maybe ND has to join a conference and looks at the ability to play in the South, Northeast, West Coast every year in conference and STILL have 4 (3 plus SC) OOC games is better than locking into a 9-game B1G schedule.

I feel the 18 team ACC I propose could be every bit as relevant on the field in terms of challenging for the playoffs as the B1G. It won't be rendered totally superfluous over the next decade.

(07-12-2022 09:44 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 09:35 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 09:03 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 09:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  RE: adding brands - conference TV ratings don't grow linearly with more brands, they grow exponentially.
- If you have 2 big brands, you have ONE big game per year (A/B).
- If you have 3 big brands, you have, not two, but THREE big games (A/B, A/C, B/C)
- With 4 big brands you have SIX big games (A/B, A/C, A/D, B/C, B/D, C/D)
- 5 brands gives you 10 big games
- 6 brands gives you 15 big games
It's just combinations of N brands taken 2 at a time = n!/(2*(n-2)!).

RE: value added
Teams don't have to be more valuable than your most valuable teams; does anyone think USC + UCLA are more valuable than Ohio State + Michigan? No, they just have to be more valuable than the average - or, what the new average value will be once they're added. Oregon and Washington definitely fit the bill, and Oklahoma State and Arizona State probably do as well.

EXACTLY. This is the point. Again, refer to the Andy Staples list of million-viewer games. The only current ACC teams that draw more than ANY of those four are FSU, Clemson, and Miami. Louisville also ties the least of the four, Stanford.

You have a chance to add four teams that out-interest 75% of the current league. That is a virtually unprecedented opportunity. Truth is, the ACC has an extremely rare chance (maybe) to add four teams that are considerably better where it counts (football performance and viewership) than the league average.

To me, the exponential nature that Hokie lays out shows why it MIGHT, and I emphasize MIGHT, be worth it to ESPN to pour some money into expanding with those four.

Cincinnati, West Virginia, etc...that doesn't move the needle above the ACC average. If you want to increase the per school payments, you have to improve the average value of the conference significantly, not just keep adding schools at the average or lower.

Might not ever have a gift horse event ever again if ESPN and ACC don't act soon. It would place the ACC a not to distant 3rd but way ahead of the next P4. Just need a good boost in annual revenue to go along with it.

If the GOR is going to hold the ACC together for fourteen more years, this is the best option. The fact that Texas and OU aren't even trying to get out of the GOR is pretty instructive.

14 years from now, you see what happens. Maybe some schools are still desired by other conferences and leave. Maybe the new ACC, finally with a chance to go to the open market, commands so much money that they don't NEED to leave. Maybe ND has to join a conference and looks at the ability to play in the South, Northeast, West Coast every year in conference and STILL have 4 (3 plus SC) OOC games is better than locking into a 9-game B1G schedule.

I feel the 18 team ACC I propose could be every bit as relevant on the field in terms of challenging for the playoffs as the B1G. It won't be rendered totally superfluous over the next decade.

Lou,

I respectfully don't see any realistic avenue for the ACC put a dent in the increasing revenue gap with the P2. And ND isn't joining the ACC in football...that's dead. Schools like FSU will either need to push the State of FL for better funding ("UF has enough $ now...share the wealth with other state U's") in other areas and have their supporters focus on the athletic department gap. Otherwise it's a rapidly losing battle. And if the outlook truly is that FSU/Miami are going to be stuck with an undefeatable GOR...just go all in and push for UCF/USF invites to the ACC.

ESPN knows full well that the ACC is undervalued by at least $10M/year per school.
If the ACC expands - and goes big - ESPN should be willing to deliver a sizeable bump.

(07-12-2022 06:38 AM)esayem Wrote:  Oregon and Washington are a waste of time and not coming.

Cal and Stanford look like ACC teams but do they bring enough value to warrant expansion, and are they even interested?

The best option is to bring the Pac 10 under the media umbrella.

Why not have complete control over Texas by adding Texas Tech and TCU to the Pac, and Houston and either Baylor or SMU to the ACC?

I think Oregon and Washington would come to the ACC if the BIG doesn’t move and I think the BIG is done for the expansion for now.

But I agree that the media umbrella is a reasonable option if the pay increase is sizable enough.

Actually, I think the ACC has many good options for the first time: 2, 4, 6, or 10 team expansions toward West or Southwest or both, with or without media partnership.

One thing the ACC cannot and must not do is to stay put. This may be the last chance.

(07-12-2022 12:18 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 06:38 AM)esayem Wrote:  Oregon and Washington are a waste of time and not coming.

Cal and Stanford look like ACC teams but do they bring enough value to warrant expansion, and are they even interested?

The best option is to bring the Pac 10 under the media umbrella.

Why not have complete control over Texas by adding Texas Tech and TCU to the Pac, and Houston and either Baylor or SMU to the ACC?

I think Oregon and Washington would come to the ACC if the BIG doesn’t move and I think the BIG is done for the expansion for now.

But I agree that the media umbrella is a reasonable option if the pay increase is sizable enough.

Actually, I think the ACC has many good options for the first time: 2, 4, 6, or 10 team expansions toward West or Southwest or both, with or without media partnership.

One thing the ACC cannot and must not do is to stay put. This may be the last chance.

I would expect that UW and UO would stay put in the PAC and hope for an eventual B1G invite (or for USC/UCLA to return when all of this cross-country madness is felt) before they'd ever go to the current ACC w/o a monster pay increase. It would be a P2 or bust for those 2.

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...4954905601

This may indicate that ESPN values that late Saturday programming slot a great deal. Or that they just value the USC brand.

Depending on whether they land a piece of the B1G contract might have bearing on whether they are interested, or how interested, they are in financing Ore and Wash to the ACC.

I'm extremely dubious that the B1G would ever cut ties with ESPN completely, but if they did that might benefit the ACC.