(07-25-2022 02:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote: (07-25-2022 12:55 PM)Gamenole Wrote: (07-25-2022 11:27 AM)random asian guy Wrote: (07-25-2022 12:55 AM)Gitanole Wrote: (07-22-2022 06:28 PM)random asian guy Wrote: Which ACC school is better than A&M and Tenn in terns of viewership and revenue generaring?
UNC? UVa or Duke? Are you kidding me?
I really don’t see any good candidate here. Clemson and FSU *maybe* are similar to Tenn but not clearly better
You have much to learn, young Padawan.
Haha maybe.
But remember which school the SEC chose for its 14th member? FSU was availiable and wanted that spot badly.
The FSU and Clemson leadership were not dumb. There was a reason why they signed the GoR. In my opinion, FSU has a better chance with the BIG than SEC. Clemson probably has even less chance...
That all makes sense....10 years ago in the market-based, network launching era of conference realignment. Today it is more about brands that get viewers for the networks, which is why FSU & Clemson are far more enticing to the SEC than they were when A&M and Missouri were added.
We will see.
The market based approach is not dead. UCLA doesn’t draw that many eyeballs. Even an ESPN analyst suggested the market based expansion for the ACC. Also remember the threshold for the SEC addmission is much higher now compared to 10 years ago because UT and OU raised the bar.
My thought is the conference needs:
1) Current "brands" to start playing like they are brands - having 2 of the 3 of them (FSU and Miami in somewhat of a funk) doesn't help the only Tier 1 football program playing at a high level;
2) Next tier down football programs like VT, Louisville, UNC, GT and Pitt need at least three of these programs to be good year in and year out;
3) Add football programs that will help support the current 3 "brands" - Oregon looks like the best bet here as they are the closest to achieving "brand" status - but if not available than a Tier 2 level program may need to step up.
4) Add more Tier 2 level programs like Washington, Stanford, Utah, to VT, Louisville, UNC, GT, and Pitt. Perhaps even get 2 of Oklahoma State, Baylor, and TCU to have even more Tier 2 level programs.
More brand, near-brand and Tier 2 level programs will provide many more interesting match-ups for TV. And most of these additions will add to the markets the ACC already has.
Hokie Mark said the following about more brands:
"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"
At best the ACC is going to add only one brand and it's possibly more a near brand than an actual brand at this time but Oregon is beyond Tier 2 level. So SIX big games are doable.
But also with the right expansion the ACC could get 3 to 5 more Tier 2 level programs to add to the five that are currently in the conference and make those match-ups something that will also draw viewers.
The ACC has been left for dead in the last decade and perhaps now this decade as well. But creative thinking could save the conference once again as well - and enough to save it so that when 2033 comes around there could be multiple media that want the ACC theirs (and not just Disney/ESPN) - including perhaps Apple and/or Amazon Prime.
We just don't know yet. Phillips you are up. Try not to strike out like your recent speech.
Cheers,
Neil
