Baylor for sure. SMU? Good grief.

(07-14-2022 12:27 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 11:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 07:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 02:38 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  If the ACC has to expand, I'd rather they get 4 new states...

New states for the ACC?
Our best play for new states would be to add 4 schools in three states:
Cincinnati
Tulane
Baylor
TCU

This would give us the biggest bang for our buck more mouths to feed and not have to go clear across the country. Ohio and Texas for network penetration and Louisiana provides a bridge to Texas.

Tulane is a money loser, pure and simple. I don't even think they are among the top tv draws for the American.

Cincinnati tries hard, bless their hearts, but the best they could do is turn a small profit for the ACC - maybe.

Baylor and TCU could add to the bottom line, but mainly because the ACC is already undervalued.

The ACC's best options are:
1) ESPN-sanctioned partnership with the Pac-12, or
2) grow brands in-house by winning BIG

For #2 to work, we're not talking ACC wins, nor even OOC wins over the likes of South Carolina and Illinois. We're talking wins over Georgia, Alabama, Texas A&M, Ohio State, and especially Notre Dame. The ACC has been failing MISERABLY at this since the one great season of 2016.

Regarding the (probably bogus) article linking SMU to talks with the ACC, I cannot fathom why the ACC would take SMU over Baylor. We already have too many private schools, but their football and basketball programs are legit. Any expansion into Texas should start with Baylor.

I hate to break it to you, but "Baylor University is a private research university in Waco, Texas" with a total enrollment of just 20,626 (a little smaller than Louisville).

SMU's only appeal is DFW but TCU, a much better option, checks that box as they are in Ft Worth.

Get Baylor.

(07-14-2022 11:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 07:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 02:38 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  If the ACC has to expand, I'd rather they get 4 new states...

New states for the ACC?
Our best play for new states would be to add 4 schools in three states:
Cincinnati
Tulane
Baylor
TCU

This would give us the biggest bang for our buck more mouths to feed and not have to go clear across the country. Ohio and Texas for network penetration and Louisiana provides a bridge to Texas.

Tulane is a money loser, pure and simple. I don't even think they are among the top tv draws for the American.

Cincinnati tries hard, bless their hearts, but the best they could do is turn a small profit for the ACC - maybe.

Baylor and TCU could add to the bottom line, but mainly because the ACC is already undervalued.

The ACC's best options are:
1) ESPN-sanctioned partnership with the Pac-12, or
2) grow brands in-house by winning BIG

For #2 to work, we're not talking ACC wins, nor even OOC wins over the likes of South Carolina and Illinois. We're talking wins over Georgia, Alabama, Texas A&M, Ohio State, and especially Notre Dame. The ACC has been failing MISERABLY at this since the one great season of 2016.

Great analysis.

Hopefully the possibility of so many ACC institutions realizing they could lose out on their status motivates enough of the mid-tier and lower-tier ACC football programs to improve. It's really up to at least 4 of the following 8 programs - UNC, VT, Pitt, Louisville, NC State, UVA, GT, and SU to do better overall both inside and outside conference and hope at least two of Clemson, FSU, and Miami maintain high tier status year in and year out.

If it doesn't happen, then perhaps the ACC deserves to lose out to the B12?

Cheers,
Neil

(07-14-2022 12:45 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 11:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 07:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 02:38 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  If the ACC has to expand, I'd rather they get 4 new states...

New states for the ACC?
Our best play for new states would be to add 4 schools in three states:
Cincinnati
Tulane
Baylor
TCU

This would give us the biggest bang for our buck more mouths to feed and not have to go clear across the country. Ohio and Texas for network penetration and Louisiana provides a bridge to Texas.

Tulane is a money loser, pure and simple. I don't even think they are among the top tv draws for the American.

Cincinnati tries hard, bless their hearts, but the best they could do is turn a small profit for the ACC - maybe.

Baylor and TCU could add to the bottom line, but mainly because the ACC is already undervalued.

The ACC's best options are:
1) ESPN-sanctioned partnership with the Pac-12, or
2) grow brands in-house by winning BIG

For #2 to work, we're not talking ACC wins, nor even OOC wins over the likes of South Carolina and Illinois. We're talking wins over Georgia, Alabama, Texas A&M, Ohio State, and especially Notre Dame. The ACC has been failing MISERABLY at this since the one great season of 2016.

Great analysis.

Hopefully the possibility of so many ACC institutions realizing they could lose out on their status motivates enough of the mid-tier and lower-tier ACC football programs to improve. It's really up to at least 4 of the following 8 programs - UNC, VT, Pitt, Louisville, NC State, UVA, GT, and SU to do better overall both inside and outside conference and hope at least two of Clemson, FSU, and Miami maintain high tier status year in and year out.

If it doesn't happen, then perhaps the ACC deserves to lose out to the B12?

Cheers,
Neil

Question: does it help or hurt the conference when Duke and Wake - both of whom struggle to draw 1 million viewers - win? I propose those schools do their part by losing, not winning. (I'm in a weird mood today - I own it).

(07-14-2022 02:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Question: does it help or hurt the conference when Duke and Wake - both of whom struggle to draw 1 million viewers - win? I propose those schools do their part by losing, not winning. (I'm in a weird mood today - I own it).

It could help us get here.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-950715-post-18...id18324289


That'd be spiffy.

Louisville AD on this:

“I think that's feasible," he said. "I think they (ESPN) understand that the ACC has to be extremely healthy for college athletics and be successful. I think they do feel an obligation to make sure that transpires in every decision. I know it's hard to believe, but not every decision is based on the bottom line. At some point, we're going to need more than - I'll take the SEC and the Big 10 as an example - 32 teams to make college athletics viable."

"So what does that look like? That's what those conversations are being had. What partnerships can be created? What are the entities involved to make sure that ESPN is getting the value that they feel they deserve and they need? But I think there's an opportunity. I think there's a path there to have some of those conversations."

https://www.si.com/college/louisville/ot...leadership

Oh another point:

When asked if UofL had been approached by other conferences regarding a move, Heird succently answered with "No."

(07-14-2022 02:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 12:45 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 11:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 07:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 02:38 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  If the ACC has to expand, I'd rather they get 4 new states...

New states for the ACC?
Our best play for new states would be to add 4 schools in three states:
Cincinnati
Tulane
Baylor
TCU

This would give us the biggest bang for our buck more mouths to feed and not have to go clear across the country. Ohio and Texas for network penetration and Louisiana provides a bridge to Texas.

Tulane is a money loser, pure and simple. I don't even think they are among the top tv draws for the American.

Cincinnati tries hard, bless their hearts, but the best they could do is turn a small profit for the ACC - maybe.

Baylor and TCU could add to the bottom line, but mainly because the ACC is already undervalued.

The ACC's best options are:
1) ESPN-sanctioned partnership with the Pac-12, or
2) grow brands in-house by winning BIG

For #2 to work, we're not talking ACC wins, nor even OOC wins over the likes of South Carolina and Illinois. We're talking wins over Georgia, Alabama, Texas A&M, Ohio State, and especially Notre Dame. The ACC has been failing MISERABLY at this since the one great season of 2016.

Great analysis.

Hopefully the possibility of so many ACC institutions realizing they could lose out on their status motivates enough of the mid-tier and lower-tier ACC football programs to improve. It's really up to at least 4 of the following 8 programs - UNC, VT, Pitt, Louisville, NC State, UVA, GT, and SU to do better overall both inside and outside conference and hope at least two of Clemson, FSU, and Miami maintain high tier status year in and year out.

If it doesn't happen, then perhaps the ACC deserves to lose out to the B12?

Cheers,
Neil

Question: does it help or hurt the conference when Duke and Wake - both of whom struggle to draw 1 million viewers - win? I propose those schools do their part by losing, not winning. (I'm in a weird mood today - I own it).

If Duke and Wake won consistently, they'd be drawing 1 million viewers too. TV eyeballs is an amalgamation of circumstances including timeslot, channel, what else is on at the same time, and ranking of both teams. Teams that are ranked and doing well obviously get better slots. If Duke and Wake won consistently, their numbers would go up as their slots would improve with the perceived meaningfulness of the games they were in.

(07-14-2022 04:50 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 02:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 12:45 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 11:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 07:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  New states for the ACC?
Our best play for new states would be to add 4 schools in three states:
Cincinnati
Tulane
Baylor
TCU

This would give us the biggest bang for our buck more mouths to feed and not have to go clear across the country. Ohio and Texas for network penetration and Louisiana provides a bridge to Texas.

Tulane is a money loser, pure and simple. I don't even think they are among the top tv draws for the American.

Cincinnati tries hard, bless their hearts, but the best they could do is turn a small profit for the ACC - maybe.

Baylor and TCU could add to the bottom line, but mainly because the ACC is already undervalued.

The ACC's best options are:
1) ESPN-sanctioned partnership with the Pac-12, or
2) grow brands in-house by winning BIG

For #2 to work, we're not talking ACC wins, nor even OOC wins over the likes of South Carolina and Illinois. We're talking wins over Georgia, Alabama, Texas A&M, Ohio State, and especially Notre Dame. The ACC has been failing MISERABLY at this since the one great season of 2016.

Great analysis.

Hopefully the possibility of so many ACC institutions realizing they could lose out on their status motivates enough of the mid-tier and lower-tier ACC football programs to improve. It's really up to at least 4 of the following 8 programs - UNC, VT, Pitt, Louisville, NC State, UVA, GT, and SU to do better overall both inside and outside conference and hope at least two of Clemson, FSU, and Miami maintain high tier status year in and year out.

If it doesn't happen, then perhaps the ACC deserves to lose out to the B12?

Cheers,
Neil

Question: does it help or hurt the conference when Duke and Wake - both of whom struggle to draw 1 million viewers - win? I propose those schools do their part by losing, not winning. (I'm in a weird mood today - I own it).

If Duke and Wake won consistently, they'd be drawing 1 million viewers too. TV eyeballs is an amalgamation of circumstances including timeslot, channel, what else is on at the same time, and ranking of both teams. Teams that are ranked and doing well obviously get better slots. If Duke and Wake won consistently, their numbers would go up as their slots would improve with the perceived meaningfulness of the games they were in.

That is so true. There's no better example of time slots mattering than last year's championship game weekend. WF/Pitt played up against UGa and Bama. Who did they think would draw more eyeballs? The Panthers vs Falcons would have drawn fewer viewers.

(07-14-2022 04:50 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 02:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 12:45 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 11:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 07:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  New states for the ACC?
Our best play for new states would be to add 4 schools in three states:
Cincinnati
Tulane
Baylor
TCU

This would give us the biggest bang for our buck more mouths to feed and not have to go clear across the country. Ohio and Texas for network penetration and Louisiana provides a bridge to Texas.

Tulane is a money loser, pure and simple. I don't even think they are among the top tv draws for the American.

Cincinnati tries hard, bless their hearts, but the best they could do is turn a small profit for the ACC - maybe.

Baylor and TCU could add to the bottom line, but mainly because the ACC is already undervalued.

The ACC's best options are:
1) ESPN-sanctioned partnership with the Pac-12, or
2) grow brands in-house by winning BIG

For #2 to work, we're not talking ACC wins, nor even OOC wins over the likes of South Carolina and Illinois. We're talking wins over Georgia, Alabama, Texas A&M, Ohio State, and especially Notre Dame. The ACC has been failing MISERABLY at this since the one great season of 2016.

Great analysis.

Hopefully the possibility of so many ACC institutions realizing they could lose out on their status motivates enough of the mid-tier and lower-tier ACC football programs to improve. It's really up to at least 4 of the following 8 programs - UNC, VT, Pitt, Louisville, NC State, UVA, GT, and SU to do better overall both inside and outside conference and hope at least two of Clemson, FSU, and Miami maintain high tier status year in and year out.

If it doesn't happen, then perhaps the ACC deserves to lose out to the B12?

Cheers,
Neil

Question: does it help or hurt the conference when Duke and Wake - both of whom struggle to draw 1 million viewers - win? I propose those schools do their part by losing, not winning. (I'm in a weird mood today - I own it).

If Duke and Wake won consistently, they'd be drawing 1 million viewers too. TV eyeballs is an amalgamation of circumstances including timeslot, channel, what else is on at the same time, and ranking of both teams. Teams that are ranked and doing well obviously get better slots. If Duke and Wake won consistently, their numbers would go up as their slots would improve with the perceived meaningfulness of the games they were in.

I was thinking with 4 teams in NC, there's a zero-sum game situation in terms of fan support. I don't think it's possible to have 4 well-supported teams in NC.

(07-14-2022 05:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 04:50 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 02:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 12:45 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 11:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Tulane is a money loser, pure and simple. I don't even think they are among the top tv draws for the American.

Cincinnati tries hard, bless their hearts, but the best they could do is turn a small profit for the ACC - maybe.

Baylor and TCU could add to the bottom line, but mainly because the ACC is already undervalued.

The ACC's best options are:
1) ESPN-sanctioned partnership with the Pac-12, or
2) grow brands in-house by winning BIG

For #2 to work, we're not talking ACC wins, nor even OOC wins over the likes of South Carolina and Illinois. We're talking wins over Georgia, Alabama, Texas A&M, Ohio State, and especially Notre Dame. The ACC has been failing MISERABLY at this since the one great season of 2016.

Great analysis.

Hopefully the possibility of so many ACC institutions realizing they could lose out on their status motivates enough of the mid-tier and lower-tier ACC football programs to improve. It's really up to at least 4 of the following 8 programs - UNC, VT, Pitt, Louisville, NC State, UVA, GT, and SU to do better overall both inside and outside conference and hope at least two of Clemson, FSU, and Miami maintain high tier status year in and year out.

If it doesn't happen, then perhaps the ACC deserves to lose out to the B12?

Cheers,
Neil

Question: does it help or hurt the conference when Duke and Wake - both of whom struggle to draw 1 million viewers - win? I propose those schools do their part by losing, not winning. (I'm in a weird mood today - I own it).

If Duke and Wake won consistently, they'd be drawing 1 million viewers too. TV eyeballs is an amalgamation of circumstances including timeslot, channel, what else is on at the same time, and ranking of both teams. Teams that are ranked and doing well obviously get better slots. If Duke and Wake won consistently, their numbers would go up as their slots would improve with the perceived meaningfulness of the games they were in.

I was thinking with 4 teams in NC, there's a zero-sum game situation in terms of fan support. I don't think it's possible to have 4 well-supported teams in NC.

Certainly not in football. It was obviously predicated on basketball.

(07-14-2022 05:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 04:50 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 02:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 12:45 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 11:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Tulane is a money loser, pure and simple. I don't even think they are among the top tv draws for the American.

Cincinnati tries hard, bless their hearts, but the best they could do is turn a small profit for the ACC - maybe.

Baylor and TCU could add to the bottom line, but mainly because the ACC is already undervalued.

The ACC's best options are:
1) ESPN-sanctioned partnership with the Pac-12, or
2) grow brands in-house by winning BIG

For #2 to work, we're not talking ACC wins, nor even OOC wins over the likes of South Carolina and Illinois. We're talking wins over Georgia, Alabama, Texas A&M, Ohio State, and especially Notre Dame. The ACC has been failing MISERABLY at this since the one great season of 2016.

Great analysis.

Hopefully the possibility of so many ACC institutions realizing they could lose out on their status motivates enough of the mid-tier and lower-tier ACC football programs to improve. It's really up to at least 4 of the following 8 programs - UNC, VT, Pitt, Louisville, NC State, UVA, GT, and SU to do better overall both inside and outside conference and hope at least two of Clemson, FSU, and Miami maintain high tier status year in and year out.

If it doesn't happen, then perhaps the ACC deserves to lose out to the B12?

Cheers,
Neil

Question: does it help or hurt the conference when Duke and Wake - both of whom struggle to draw 1 million viewers - win? I propose those schools do their part by losing, not winning. (I'm in a weird mood today - I own it).

If Duke and Wake won consistently, they'd be drawing 1 million viewers too. TV eyeballs is an amalgamation of circumstances including timeslot, channel, what else is on at the same time, and ranking of both teams. Teams that are ranked and doing well obviously get better slots. If Duke and Wake won consistently, their numbers would go up as their slots would improve with the perceived meaningfulness of the games they were in.

I was thinking with 4 teams in NC, there's a zero-sum game situation in terms of fan support. I don't think it's possible to have 4 well-supported teams in NC.

Carolina and Duke are local and national brands. State and Wake are local/alumni.

(07-14-2022 12:29 PM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  Baylor for sure. SMU? Good grief.

If the Pony Express was delivering NIL money like Miami, I'd invite them in a heartbeat.

(07-15-2022 09:23 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 12:29 PM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  Baylor for sure. SMU? Good grief.

If the Pony Express was delivering NIL money like Miami, I'd invite them in a heartbeat.

SMU has some really deep pockets.

SMU could equal Baylor if given the right environment, I mean for the last 40 years smu athletics = trying to grow a plant without sun.

(07-15-2022 09:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 09:23 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 12:29 PM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  Baylor for sure. SMU? Good grief.

If the Pony Express was delivering NIL money like Miami, I'd invite them in a heartbeat.

SMU has some really deep pockets.

I think you'll agree with have enough Methodists in the ACC.

I'm a Methodist, btw.

(07-15-2022 09:35 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 09:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 09:23 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 12:29 PM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  Baylor for sure. SMU? Good grief.

If the Pony Express was delivering NIL money like Miami, I'd invite them in a heartbeat.

SMU has some really deep pockets.

I think you'll agree with have enough Methodists in the ACC.

I'm a Methodist, btw.

So, how many Methodists DOES it take to screw in a lightbulb?

(07-15-2022 10:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 09:35 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 09:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 09:23 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 12:29 PM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  Baylor for sure. SMU? Good grief.

If the Pony Express was delivering NIL money like Miami, I'd invite them in a heartbeat.

SMU has some really deep pockets.

I think you'll agree with have enough Methodists in the ACC.

I'm a Methodist, btw.

So, how many Methodists DOES it take to screw in a lightbulb?

You'll never fit them in there.

(07-15-2022 11:10 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 10:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 09:35 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 09:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 09:23 AM)esayem Wrote:  If the Pony Express was delivering NIL money like Miami, I'd invite them in a heartbeat.

SMU has some really deep pockets.

I think you'll agree with have enough Methodists in the ACC.

I'm a Methodist, btw.

So, how many Methodists DOES it take to screw in a lightbulb?

You'll never fit them in there.

(07-14-2022 02:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 12:45 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 11:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 07:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 02:38 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  If the ACC has to expand, I'd rather they get 4 new states...

New states for the ACC?
Our best play for new states would be to add 4 schools in three states:
Cincinnati
Tulane
Baylor
TCU

This would give us the biggest bang for our buck more mouths to feed and not have to go clear across the country. Ohio and Texas for network penetration and Louisiana provides a bridge to Texas.

Tulane is a money loser, pure and simple. I don't even think they are among the top tv draws for the American.

Cincinnati tries hard, bless their hearts, but the best they could do is turn a small profit for the ACC - maybe.

Baylor and TCU could add to the bottom line, but mainly because the ACC is already undervalued.

The ACC's best options are:
1) ESPN-sanctioned partnership with the Pac-12, or
2) grow brands in-house by winning BIG

For #2 to work, we're not talking ACC wins, nor even OOC wins over the likes of South Carolina and Illinois. We're talking wins over Georgia, Alabama, Texas A&M, Ohio State, and especially Notre Dame. The ACC has been failing MISERABLY at this since the one great season of 2016.

Great analysis.

Hopefully the possibility of so many ACC institutions realizing they could lose out on their status motivates enough of the mid-tier and lower-tier ACC football programs to improve. It's really up to at least 4 of the following 8 programs - UNC, VT, Pitt, Louisville, NC State, UVA, GT, and SU to do better overall both inside and outside conference and hope at least two of Clemson, FSU, and Miami maintain high tier status year in and year out.

If it doesn't happen, then perhaps the ACC deserves to lose out to the B12?

Cheers,
Neil

Question: does it help or hurt the conference when Duke and Wake - both of whom struggle to draw 1 million viewers - win? I propose those schools do their part by losing, not winning. (I'm in a weird mood today - I own it).

It's okay. We all get into weird moods from time to time. LOL

As a Syracuse fan I know I want to win against the big boys - screw the conference in those instances. Our win over Clemson in 2017 is one of the few football moments the Orange have had since joining the ACC. The second was beating WVU in the Camping World Bowl the next year and finishing ranked in the Top 20. They owned us during most of the 00's and got close to even with us in the series overall but in the 10's we beat them four consecutive times to give us some comfort room in that series.

Cheers,
Neil