For the ACC in reality , They all need to commit to raising the bar in Football like the SEC and B1G have. Louisville is on the verge of it's best recruiting class ever for 2023 and are spending on upgrading. Miami is also having a great recruiting year for 2023. Their new coaching staff seems committed. UNC and Va should pull out all stops working in the Ohio, Pa ,Maryland recruiting areas. Syracuse, BC, Pitt all have had a strong Football history and could and should renew that ability.
NIL is a gift horse in today's market place. Use your local markets to invest in these schools to be the best. You know the SEC and B1G do that these days. We need to make Our products more desirable like Clemson has done . NC State, VT all have the capability to be top notch. Even WF gets it right sometime. this is about survival moving forward .

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.

(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.

(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.

Thanks , I didn't mention FSU because You guys already know and are doing what it takes to get back on top I agree on the PAC to ACC expansion. Might need a name change, lol, but ESPN needs to retain control of those properties and We all can use a pay increase in the mean time

(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.

(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.

If FSU is in the status quo ACC for another 10-14 years...I'll be almost entirely done with college athletics. I've already cut back substantially over the past couple of years (all spectator sports in general).

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.

(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.

(07-11-2022 12:29 PM)GarnetAndBlue 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.

If FSU is in the status quo ACC for another 10-14 years...I'll be almost entirely done with college athletics. I've already cut back substantially over the past couple of years (all spectator sports in general).

Yeah, if status quo, there's a good chance that both the ACC becomes a distant JV conference along with the PAC and Big 12, but also that the ACC teams diminish in value to the point there is nowhere near the same interest in them being picked up elsewhere. I mean, look at the way the profile of WVU has fallen over the last 20 years.

I don't care how bad you want out, that's not a reason to not try to maximize the ACC until the day you can leave.

(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 hear you....but travel would be a nightmare.

(07-11-2022 11:10 AM)ken d Wrote:  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.

(07-11-2022 11:40 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  That's an emotional take.

Unequal revenue sharing fuels resentment among conference members. It actually sows instability in the medium-to-long term.

Exhibit A: the Big 12. Unequal revenues kept Texas around, but only until it left. Meanwhile, Texas's playmates never found much in the arrangement to smile about. It was just an irksome fact of life that kept them looking elsewhere, too.

For this reason, unequal revenue sharing works mainly as a short-term remedy. It might suit an ACC that's making do until 2036—placating schools that are making plans to take the first train out.

Over any long haul the ACC's best play is to dance with what brought it so far. The ACC has been an all-sports, share-alike league. This has been a big factor in its stability over the years, its appeal to schools playing elsewhere (hello, FSU, VT, Miami, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, ND!), its revenue generation (the richest in college sport for many years and still making the most outside P2).

The ACC will likely stay around in some form. There's a network infrastructure in place and some good schools will need a conference.

(07-11-2022 11:40 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  we've now seen Maryland, Texas, OU, USC and UCLA bolt from "equal distribution" conferences. That talking point doesn't hold anymore.

Oh, it very much does. All of the recent movement just illustrates the same principle on a grander scale. Why are we seeing Texas and UCLA cause earthquakes? Because unequal revenue exists between conferences.

If the PAC, ACC, B1G, and SEC were all making the same money, the college sport world might have settled already into that neat quartet of postseason-friendly 16-team conferences everyone was watching for in 2012.

The quartet didn't happen. Why not?

unequal revenue = instability

We'll see another upheaval if one P2 league gets way out in front of the other.
_____

On the whole we seem to be headed toward a two-tier landscape. Tier 1 is emerging from the present B1G and SEC. A Tier 2 of some sort should emerge from a mashup of ACC+PAC+B12.

I'd expect Tier 2 to have some share in the Tier 1 postseason, as well as its own championship game. I'd want to see a permeable boundary between the tiers that allows for a relegation/promotion structure. It would be great for the sport.

(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'd don't think you get Stanford to move without Cal.

If you are going 19 (not including ND), might as well go to 24 and make there is a giant gulf between the ACC and the next conference.

And I don't think you can use viewership numbers like that at all. Broadcast windows, channels, what else in on during the slot, they all factor in. Ranked teams get the better slots and thus better rankings. There aren't any teams that really pull ratings on their name along, maybe ND..not many more.

(07-11-2022 12:29 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  If FSU is in the status quo ACC for another 10-14 years...I'll be almost entirely done with college athletics. I've already cut back substantially over the past couple of years (all spectator sports in general).

I do sometimes wonder if the goose that lays the golden football-shaped eggs won't start slowing down anyway around 2050.

American football is becoming increasingly regional rather than national in appeal. International viewers don't care about it. College students today are less interested in it than their parents and grandparents.

About the only thing I can see countering these trends is the addictive nature of sports gambling.

I often suspect that the healthiest development would be for university presidents to meet and decide their athletic departments will henceforth focus on Olympic and specialty sports. The NFL takes over the task of running its own farm system. College students who are still interested in the sport play it on Madden VR.

(07-11-2022 03:08 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(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'd don't think you get Stanford to move without Cal.

If you are going 19 (not including ND), might as well go to 24 and make there is a giant gulf between the ACC and the next conference.

And I don't think you can use viewership numbers like that at all. Broadcast windows, channels, what else in on during the slot, they all factor in. Ranked teams get the better slots and thus better rankings. There aren't any teams that really pull ratings on their name along, maybe ND..not many more.

I see where you're coming from, but taking that many PAC teams defeats the purpose, you're just taking the same non-needle movers that cause the PAC and ACC to be low value already. Combining (and having to give shares to) schools that don't move the needle at all does ZERO.

In my scenario, the ACC has a unique chance, for certainly the very last time, and arguably for the first time, to chop off just the value members of a conference, and add four schools all at or above the median of the conference. When they killed the Big East, they took too many. BC, Syracuse, and arguably Pitt are totally superfluous (and I say that with much affection for some of those programs). They would have been much better off taking just Miami and VT or WVU and stopping. The other additions did not bring enough to be worth splitting the pot more ways.

Cal is an absolute dumpster fire...they suck irredeemably in football, they have zero support, no enthusiasm, and an athletic department in absolute shambles. Like, their athletic department is mortgaged for generations with unpayable debt. There is zero chance that they are ever, ever good, nobody but nobody cares about them, and they don't deserve to draw a dime from a conference. There's a better chance they cancel football than ever contribute meaningfully to a conference. If Stanford doesn't want to come with them, then invite Arizona or Arizona State or Baylor or nobody.

No more free rides, unless they come hand in hand with Notre Dame. If the ACC has a chance to actually add four teams that raise the median of the conference, to me its a no brainer.

IF ESPN will pay for it. If ESPN won't pay for it and are happy for the ACC to wither on the vine, then we all just ride this slide all the way down the hill.

(07-11-2022 04:08 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 03:08 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(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'd don't think you get Stanford to move without Cal.

If you are going 19 (not including ND), might as well go to 24 and make there is a giant gulf between the ACC and the next conference.

And I don't think you can use viewership numbers like that at all. Broadcast windows, channels, what else in on during the slot, they all factor in. Ranked teams get the better slots and thus better rankings. There aren't any teams that really pull ratings on their name along, maybe ND..not many more.

I see where you're coming from, but taking that many PAC teams defeats the purpose, you're just taking the same non-needle movers that cause the PAC and ACC to be low value already. Combining (and having to give shares to) schools that don't move the needle at all does ZERO.

In my scenario, the ACC has a unique chance, for certainly the very last time, and arguably for the first time, to chop off just the value members of a conference, and add four schools all at or above the median of the conference. When they killed the Big East, they took too many. BC, Syracuse, and arguably Pitt are totally superfluous (and I say that with much affection for some of those programs). They would have been much better off taking just Miami and VT or WVU and stopping. The other additions did not bring enough to be worth splitting the pot more ways.

Cal is an absolute dumpster fire...they suck irredeemably in football, they have zero support, no enthusiasm, and an athletic department in absolute shambles. Like, their athletic department is mortgaged for generations with unpayable debt. There is zero chance that they are ever, ever good, nobody but nobody cares about them, and they don't deserve to draw a dime from a conference. There's a better chance they cancel football than ever contribute meaningfully to a conference. If Stanford doesn't want to come with them, then invite Arizona or Arizona State or Baylor or nobody.

No more free rides, unless they come hand in hand with Notre Dame. If the ACC has a chance to actually add four teams that raise the median of the conference, to me its a no brainer.

IF ESPN will pay for it. If ESPN won't pay for it and are happy for the ACC to wither on the vine, then we all just ride this slide all the way down the hill.

Stanford is financially more sound than Cal, but it isn't like they are a draw in the Bay area. They both average in the low 40s. Cal is actually the bigger athletic name in the San Francisco-Oakland area, as it is located right in that immediate urban area. I say that as someone that is complete neutral that lived in San Francisco for a couple years when Jim Harbaugh was in Palo Alto.

There are other considerations to selecting members other than who has just been a better program recently. So likely you are looking at inviting nobody, which might be the case.

Pitt, Syracuse, and BC were taken for their markets, something WVU, which was coming off of a historically high in competitiveness, does not have. It is one reason why there is an ACC Network.

(07-11-2022 04:19 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 04:08 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 03:08 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(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'd don't think you get Stanford to move without Cal.

If you are going 19 (not including ND), might as well go to 24 and make there is a giant gulf between the ACC and the next conference.

And I don't think you can use viewership numbers like that at all. Broadcast windows, channels, what else in on during the slot, they all factor in. Ranked teams get the better slots and thus better rankings. There aren't any teams that really pull ratings on their name along, maybe ND..not many more.

I see where you're coming from, but taking that many PAC teams defeats the purpose, you're just taking the same non-needle movers that cause the PAC and ACC to be low value already. Combining (and having to give shares to) schools that don't move the needle at all does ZERO.

In my scenario, the ACC has a unique chance, for certainly the very last time, and arguably for the first time, to chop off just the value members of a conference, and add four schools all at or above the median of the conference. When they killed the Big East, they took too many. BC, Syracuse, and arguably Pitt are totally superfluous (and I say that with much affection for some of those programs). They would have been much better off taking just Miami and VT or WVU and stopping. The other additions did not bring enough to be worth splitting the pot more ways.

Cal is an absolute dumpster fire...they suck irredeemably in football, they have zero support, no enthusiasm, and an athletic department in absolute shambles. Like, their athletic department is mortgaged for generations with unpayable debt. There is zero chance that they are ever, ever good, nobody but nobody cares about them, and they don't deserve to draw a dime from a conference. There's a better chance they cancel football than ever contribute meaningfully to a conference. If Stanford doesn't want to come with them, then invite Arizona or Arizona State or Baylor or nobody.

No more free rides, unless they come hand in hand with Notre Dame. If the ACC has a chance to actually add four teams that raise the median of the conference, to me its a no brainer.

IF ESPN will pay for it. If ESPN won't pay for it and are happy for the ACC to wither on the vine, then we all just ride this slide all the way down the hill.

Stanford is financially more sound than Cal, but it isn't like they are a draw in the Bay area. They both average in the low 40s. Cal is actually the bigger athletic name in the San Francisco-Oakland area, as it is located right in that immediate urban area.

There are other considerations to selecting members. So likely you are looking at inviting nobody, which might be the case.

I am not married to Stanford. But they definitely have a much stronger national profile than CAL, the national media seem to love them, its at least something in California, and I think it would be most healthy if you can add four in the West. I think it would be a lot more attractive to UW and Oregon, and probably to ESPN as well. And if ND continues to want to play that game, it's an additional ND game for ESPN/ACC.

(07-11-2022 04:19 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Pitt, Syracuse, and BC were taken for their markets, something WVU, which was coming off of a historically high in competitiveness, does not have. It is one reason there is an ACC Network.

Yep, and it's so wildly successful that it took a decade to get the network, and it's so lucrative that the ACC is being buried and half the schools want out.

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.

All the Big East programs have either treaded water or gotten worse since joining the ACC.

Miami, BC and VT were a lot better just before joining the conference. I think the argument could be made that they were good picks, at the time, but have just not done anything since.

(07-11-2022 04:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-11-2022 04:19 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Pitt, Syracuse, and BC were taken for their markets, something WVU, which was coming off of a historically high in competitiveness, does not have. It is one reason there is an ACC Network.

Yep, and it's so wildly successful that it took a decade to get the network, and it's so lucrative that the ACC is being buried and half the schools want out.

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.

The ACC Network is actually wildly successful. One of the most successful launches of a cable network in history by carriage. We don't have the financial figures to even judge it yet.

You may not realize Pitt was invited to the B12, which it was hesitant to go to without partners, before it accepted an invite to the ACC.

But the ACC isn't where it is today because it added Pitt or Syracuse or BC. It is where it is because it tried to add Texas and Texas said no. It is also where it is because when it made a play at PSU, Maryland bolted and ended any chance of it happening. And it is where it is because the major brands it picked up, primarily Miami, fell off the face of the earth and VT followed that downward trajectory. Every conference, Big Ten and SEC included, have teams as bad as or worse than Pitt, Syracuse, and BC.

BTW, since joining their respective new power conferences in the last round of invites, here are wining % of the former Big East schools:

Pitt .569
WVU .548
Louisville .534
Syracuse .394
Rutgers .305

(07-11-2022 04:36 PM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  All the Big East programs have either treaded water or gotten worse since joining the ACC.

Miami, BC and VT were a lot better just before joining the conference. I think the argument could be made that they were good picks, at the time, but have just not done anything since.

Well the same could be said for a lot of original ACC programs over the same period.

BC was brought in at Miami's request. BC was never going to sustain something at a high level. They really were then what they are today. The original target with Miami was Syracuse, which was much better then. Their fall has been precipitous. Regardless, the picks foremost was Miami to be a second powerhouse program with FSU, and that just didn't work out like expected, and Syracuse and BC were to bring the eastern markets and cause the Big East to disappear. VT was only added instead of Syracuse due to a political play in the Virginia legislature. The addition of Miami just didn't work out as planned. You just can't predict the future.