(07-21-2022 02:43 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(07-21-2022 02:14 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-21-2022 08:31 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-21-2022 08:22 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Why would any school leave the B12 for the ACC? It appears that the ACC will have little, if any, financial advantage over the B12 and there's nobody left in the B12 that would increase revenue per school for the ACC anyway. Why would any school leave the PAC for the ACC. The ACC has a financial advantage over the PAC but the B12 is a far more natural landing spot for a PAC school than the ACC and, again, there's probably no school in the PAC that would even help ACC revenues per school. The best that's left is probably Oregon but would adding them really help the ACC? Also, have you noticed that Oregon is a long way away from the East Coast?

There's an expectation that Phillips can pull a rabbit out of a hat but there's no rabbit and no hat.

By the way, the ACC is at a significant financial disadvantage to the B10 and the SEC but would people quit comparing past ACC revenues to future B10 and ACC revenues! You can't reasonably compare ACC revenues for 2020-21 to anticipated SEC revenues for 2024-25, for instance. That makes the threat, which is large, appear more catastrophic than it is. ACC revenues are actually surging. It's just that some others are surging more. ACC football and basketball programs are well funded, maybe even lavishly funded, and there will be more and more money to fund them as we go along.

+3 The absolute truth

The only Big 12 programs The ACC would want, that might listen, would be WVU and Cincinnati. The only reason they would listen would be location and getting back to the eastern time zone.

I doubt The ACC would pursue UCF because of FSU and Miami.

However if FSU and Miami are ok...take UCF

Citrus Bowl might be a nice prize

First, UCF has a contractual obligation to join the B12 and second, UCF probably wouldn't bring sufficient revenues to help the ACC. Other than these two fatal flaws, great idea.

The ACC can always add additional revenue by adding more schools but unless those school bring in more revenue than what it costs to pay them a share of conference revenues, there's no point adding them. UCF is more valuable to the B12 than the ACC because the ACC, unlike the B12, already has two schools in FL. Adding UCF probably wouldn't add to ACC Network revenues and UCF isn't that big a TV draw.

If adding UCF would help the ACC, it would have already happened. Same for adding Cincy and W.Va. and pretty much anyone else you can name who has been even remotely available to the ACC.

One depressing fact for ACC basketball fans is that adding Kansas would dramatically increase ACC basketball revenues but it's apparent that this fact can't overcome the fact that Kansas is so weak in football. If Kansas were strong in football but really weak in basketball, they'd already be in the B10.

The potential of UCF is 70k ESPN+ subscribers and just overall increases in viewership across the board of or all ACC games. Yes the main channel is already in the TV viewing area, but a in large populous school offers more viewers and a better incentive for advertisers to increase advertising spending to go along with increased viewership. Again one way to mitigate against ACC structural problems is admitting large enrollment schools. It would be better to add Houston, Cincinnati and Standford than UCF to go after new TV areas, but just adding large schools will also help. Remember avg ACC school populations are 27k vs 50k in the BIG/SEC.

(07-20-2022 09:00 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Is this guy going to get abused by the other power conference commissioners?

Going to? Feels like he already is.

(07-20-2022 11:49 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  Phillips is a good commissioner for the old model. The new world he is over his head it seems. He needs to wake up quick. Q

Quoting myself...
ND needs to play hard ball with him.

(07-21-2022 04:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  Phillips is not a wartime Consigliere.

I’m coming around to your position. Moralizing about the welfare of student-athletes or the need for Congressional action on NIL means that he’s not in-touch with today’s environment. USC and UCLA didn’t jump to the B1G to enhance the experience of student-athletes. After a half-century of obtuse NCAA moralizing about the virtues of amateurism, Congress is leery of “saving” college athletics. Phillips needs to talk and focus on revenue.

(07-22-2022 04:14 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-21-2022 04:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  Phillips is not a wartime Consigliere.

I’m coming around to your position. Moralizing about the welfare of student-athletes or the need for Congressional action on NIL means that he’s not in-touch with today’s environment. USC and UCLA didn’t jump to the B1G to enhance the experience of student-athletes. After a half-century of obtuse NCAA moralizing about the virtues of amateurism, Congress is leery of “saving” college athletics. Phillips needs to talk and focus on revenue.

he used the word "revenue" about 15 times, so he's beating that drum. He wasn't pounding his fist on the podium, but I would think the tone of the public statements are about 20 dB below the closed door conversations.

(07-22-2022 08:02 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 04:14 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-21-2022 04:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  Phillips is not a wartime Consigliere.

I’m coming around to your position. Moralizing about the welfare of student-athletes or the need for Congressional action on NIL means that he’s not in-touch with today’s environment. USC and UCLA didn’t jump to the B1G to enhance the experience of student-athletes. After a half-century of obtuse NCAA moralizing about the virtues of amateurism, Congress is leery of “saving” college athletics. Phillips needs to talk and focus on revenue.

he used the word "revenue" about 15 times, so he's beating that drum. He wasn't pounding his fist on the podium, but I would think the tone of the public statements are about 20 dB below the closed door conversations.

Well, to be exact, he only used the word "revenue" once during his speech, but 13 times in answer to reporters' questions.

"devotion to antiquated collegiate model will ultimately cost ACC"

I wouldn't expect any different from the ACC. It's who the conference is.

David Smoak, Paul Catalina, and Craig Smoak discuss ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips comments about college football's history of "never" being elitist.

Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvmr1dpvct4

(07-22-2022 04:14 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I’m coming around to your position. Moralizing about the welfare of student-athletes or the need for Congressional action on NIL means that he’s not in-touch with today’s environment. USC and UCLA didn’t jump to the B1G to enhance the experience of student-athletes. After a half-century of obtuse NCAA moralizing about the virtues of amateurism, Congress is leery of “saving” college athletics. Phillips needs to talk and focus on revenue.

Yes. It's essential to look after students' well-being, but this doesn't happen by being vague and retro. You have to size up the landscape as it is now and take precise, active steps to meet the needs of your students now and 40 years from now.

It feels like a long speech about not very much. It's OK not to have news to report. Every school in the ACC has been working the phones and every reporter in the room knows. Best just to keep things short. Let the coaches talk about the new season.

(07-21-2022 02:43 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(07-21-2022 02:14 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-21-2022 08:31 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-21-2022 08:22 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Why would any school leave the B12 for the ACC? It appears that the ACC will have little, if any, financial advantage over the B12 and there's nobody left in the B12 that would increase revenue per school for the ACC anyway. Why would any school leave the PAC for the ACC. The ACC has a financial advantage over the PAC but the B12 is a far more natural landing spot for a PAC school than the ACC and, again, there's probably no school in the PAC that would even help ACC revenues per school. The best that's left is probably Oregon but would adding them really help the ACC? Also, have you noticed that Oregon is a long way away from the East Coast?

There's an expectation that Phillips can pull a rabbit out of a hat but there's no rabbit and no hat.

By the way, the ACC is at a significant financial disadvantage to the B10 and the SEC but would people quit comparing past ACC revenues to future B10 and ACC revenues! You can't reasonably compare ACC revenues for 2020-21 to anticipated SEC revenues for 2024-25, for instance. That makes the threat, which is large, appear more catastrophic than it is. ACC revenues are actually surging. It's just that some others are surging more. ACC football and basketball programs are well funded, maybe even lavishly funded, and there will be more and more money to fund them as we go along.

+3 The absolute truth

The only Big 12 programs The ACC would want, that might listen, would be WVU and Cincinnati. The only reason they would listen would be location and getting back to the eastern time zone.

I doubt The ACC would pursue UCF because of FSU and Miami.

However if FSU and Miami are ok...take UCF

Citrus Bowl might be a nice prize

First, UCF has a contractual obligation to join the B12 and second, UCF probably wouldn't bring sufficient revenues to help the ACC. Other than these two fatal flaws, great idea.

The ACC can always add additional revenue by adding more schools but unless those school bring in more revenue than what it costs to pay them a share of conference revenues, there's no point adding them. UCF is more valuable to the B12 than the ACC because the ACC, unlike the B12, already has two schools in FL. Adding UCF probably wouldn't add to ACC Network revenues and UCF isn't that big a TV draw.

If adding UCF would help the ACC, it would have already happened. Same for adding Cincy and W.Va. and pretty much anyone else you can name who has been even remotely available to the ACC.

One depressing fact for ACC basketball fans is that adding Kansas would dramatically increase ACC basketball revenues but it's apparent that this fact can't overcome the fact that Kansas is so weak in football. If Kansas were strong in football but really weak in basketball, they'd already be in the B10.

In other words, if something hasn't happened, it never will. Man will never fly. There will never be a polio vaccine. Women will never get the vote. It would be nice to have a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, but it'll never happen. Blah, blah, blah...

Perpetual stasis.

(07-30-2022 09:12 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(07-21-2022 02:43 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(07-21-2022 02:14 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-21-2022 08:31 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-21-2022 08:22 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Why would any school leave the B12 for the ACC? It appears that the ACC will have little, if any, financial advantage over the B12 and there's nobody left in the B12 that would increase revenue per school for the ACC anyway. Why would any school leave the PAC for the ACC. The ACC has a financial advantage over the PAC but the B12 is a far more natural landing spot for a PAC school than the ACC and, again, there's probably no school in the PAC that would even help ACC revenues per school. The best that's left is probably Oregon but would adding them really help the ACC? Also, have you noticed that Oregon is a long way away from the East Coast?

There's an expectation that Phillips can pull a rabbit out of a hat but there's no rabbit and no hat.

By the way, the ACC is at a significant financial disadvantage to the B10 and the SEC but would people quit comparing past ACC revenues to future B10 and ACC revenues! You can't reasonably compare ACC revenues for 2020-21 to anticipated SEC revenues for 2024-25, for instance. That makes the threat, which is large, appear more catastrophic than it is. ACC revenues are actually surging. It's just that some others are surging more. ACC football and basketball programs are well funded, maybe even lavishly funded, and there will be more and more money to fund them as we go along.

+3 The absolute truth

The only Big 12 programs The ACC would want, that might listen, would be WVU and Cincinnati. The only reason they would listen would be location and getting back to the eastern time zone.

I doubt The ACC would pursue UCF because of FSU and Miami.

However if FSU and Miami are ok...take UCF

Citrus Bowl might be a nice prize

First, UCF has a contractual obligation to join the B12 and second, UCF probably wouldn't bring sufficient revenues to help the ACC. Other than these two fatal flaws, great idea.

The ACC can always add additional revenue by adding more schools but unless those school bring in more revenue than what it costs to pay them a share of conference revenues, there's no point adding them. UCF is more valuable to the B12 than the ACC because the ACC, unlike the B12, already has two schools in FL. Adding UCF probably wouldn't add to ACC Network revenues and UCF isn't that big a TV draw.

If adding UCF would help the ACC, it would have already happened. Same for adding Cincy and W.Va. and pretty much anyone else you can name who has been even remotely available to the ACC.

One depressing fact for ACC basketball fans is that adding Kansas would dramatically increase ACC basketball revenues but it's apparent that this fact can't overcome the fact that Kansas is so weak in football. If Kansas were strong in football but really weak in basketball, they'd already be in the B10.

In other words, if something hasn't happened, it never will. Man will never fly. There will never be a polio vaccine. Women will never get the vote. It would be nice to have a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, but it'll never happen. Blah, blah, blah...

Perpetual stasis.

You forgot "no G5 team will ever make the playoffs as an at-large team" and "Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF will never get called up into the P5s".

Circumstances change - and they HAVE changed.

(07-22-2022 04:14 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  .... Moralizing about the welfare of student-athletes or the need for Congressional action on NIL means that he’s not in-touch with today’s environment. USC and UCLA didn’t jump to the B1G to enhance the experience of student-athletes. After a half-century of obtuse NCAA moralizing about the virtues of amateurism, Congress is leery of “saving” college athletics. Phillips needs to talk and focus on revenue.

In fairness to all three of these commissioners right now at the ACC, PAC and B12... They're all feeling sucker-punched by the news. It arrives just as they go off and host these summer conference events. Every reporter in the room knows there's only a P2 now. The commissioners have no plan formulated yet, they don't decide the most important things that happen next, and yet each one has to stand in front of a mike and say something that sounds confident.

What can you do? You can recycle some standard boilerplate or bluff like you're still a kingmaker. Either way, someone is going to say you're 'out of touch.'