(04-28-2013 01:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  For one, your understanding of what a footprint means in terms of conference coverage needs some adjusting. ACC has significant coverage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina all states you say are SEC dominant. It's just like Texas and Texas A&M. Texas/Big 12 are still the dominant conference but you can be sure the SEC is getting significant coverage now. Otherwise, why add them to the conference. This is what realignment is all about.

You don't give the ACC enough credit. You say it's structurally #5 based on not being in the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Well Notre Dame doesn't have that tie in either. There is a difference between perception and reality. ACC is perceived to be the weakest (in football) due to past performances.

My concept of footprint needs no adjustment. It just refers to the dominant conference in a particular state. E.g., for Florida and Georgia, that is the SEC, so those states are part of the SEC footprint. In contrast, we can say that the ACC's footprint is North Carolina and Virginia, but that it also has a presence in states like Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and Kentucky. Just as the SEC has a presence in Texas, though that state is in the Big 12's footprint. So i think it is useful to distinguish a conference's relations to three types of areas: Footprint states, presence states, and other territories. For the ACC, examples would be North Carolina, Florida, and Minnesota. For the SEC, Florida, Texas, and also Minnesota.

You also have to remember that there is a difference between an ACC school having a big following in a state, and the ACC having a big following in a state. They are not necessarily the same thing. For example, in the state of Florida, FSU has a large, significant fan following. But, that doesn't translate into much interest in the ACC, since most of those fans don't like the ACC and wish FSU was in a different conference. FSU fans are rabid about FSU football, but are basically indifferent or even scornful about what is happening in the rest of the ACC football world. They care about Miami but have no interest in a Virginia - NC State football game. Go to a bar in Tallahassee and you won't see anyone bothering to tune in to watch Virginia Tech - Wake Forest. In contrast, if you go to Louisiana, not only does LSU have a huge fan base, but if LSU isn't playing a game and you go in to a sports bar, you will see large masses of LSU fans watching an Arkansas-Florida game, a South Carolina-Tennessee game, an Ole Miss - Auburn game, etc. because these same fans care deeply about the SEC.

Also, I explained earlier, Notre Dame's situation is difficult to fit in to the P5 discussion because of their unique status. However, the bottom line is that if Notre Dame is invited to the Orange Bowl once every three times it can be invited, then Notre Dame will make as much money from the bowl system as a B1G or SEC school will, which means that the system was designed to make ND structurally equal to those conferences, the two very top conferences.

(04-28-2013 03:02 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 01:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  For one, your understanding of what a footprint means in terms of conference coverage needs some adjusting. ACC has significant coverage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina all states you say are SEC dominant. It's just like Texas and Texas A&M. Texas/Big 12 are still the dominant conference but you can be sure the SEC is getting significant coverage now. Otherwise, why add them to the conference. This is what realignment is all about.

You don't give the ACC enough credit. You say it's structurally #5 based on not being in the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Well Notre Dame doesn't have that tie in either. There is a difference between perception and reality. ACC is perceived to be the weakest (in football) due to past performances. However, that was during a time when the footbal schools all took a dip at the same time. Now the FSUs, Miami, and Clemson of the league are now making a name for themselves and will improve the overall conference perception with help from ND. Structurally, the Big 12 is the weakest conference. That league is built on keeping Texas happy. If Texas decides to jump ship..it's game over. So if ESPN decides to pull the plug on the LHN, Texas will be looking around.

In the states the SEC and ACC both have a presence, the SEC has THE state university, while the ACC has the #2 school. That would lead one to believe the SEC has the dominant presence in that state. That doesn't mean the ACC gets no coverage. It just means the SEC gets more, due to their having THE state university of whatever state you wish to discuss...

As for Texas, I think most people here are just hoping Texas decides to bail on the B12. They had the chance to do it earlier, but chose not to. I think that ship has sailed. The GoR gives the B12 some stability for the next 13 years, and by then the push towards bigger conferences may be over...

The bigger conferences may end up finding out they've got the same problems the old Southern Conference experienced more than once, giving rise to the SEC and ACC, and the original WAC experienced, giving birth to the MWC. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better...

Understood with SEC getting more in those states, I was just pointing out to quo that those states are still in the ACC's footprint whether he/she wants to believe it or not.

I think the Big 12's stability hinges upon the LHN and not the GOR. If ESPN pulls the plug then there's going to be a problem.

(04-28-2013 03:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 01:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  For one, your understanding of what a footprint means in terms of conference coverage needs some adjusting. ACC has significant coverage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina all states you say are SEC dominant. It's just like Texas and Texas A&M. Texas/Big 12 are still the dominant conference but you can be sure the SEC is getting significant coverage now. Otherwise, why add them to the conference. This is what realignment is all about.

You don't give the ACC enough credit. You say it's structurally #5 based on not being in the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Well Notre Dame doesn't have that tie in either. There is a difference between perception and reality. ACC is perceived to be the weakest (in football) due to past performances.

My concept of footprint needs no adjustment. It just refers to the dominant conference in a particular state. E.g., for Florida and Georgia, that is the SEC, so those states are part of the SEC footprint. In contrast, we can say that the ACC's footprint is North Carolina and Virginia, but that it also has a presence in states like Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and Kentucky. Just as the SEC has a presence in Texas, though that state is in the Big 12's footprint. So i think it is useful to distinguish a conference's relations to three types of areas: Footprint states, presence states, and other territories. For the ACC, examples would be North Carolina, Florida, and Minnesota. For the SEC, Florida, Texas, and also Minnesota.

You also have to remember that there is a difference between an ACC school having a big following in a state, and the ACC having a big following in a state. They are not necessarily the same thing. For example, in the state of Florida, FSU has a large, significant fan following. But, that doesn't translate into much interest in the ACC, since most of those fans don't like the ACC and wish FSU was in a different conference. FSU fans are rabid about FSU football, but are basically indifferent or even scornful about what is happening in the rest of the ACC football world. They care about Miami but have no interest in a Virginia - NC State football game. Go to a bar in Tallahassee and you won't see anyone bothering to tune in to watch Virginia Tech - Wake Forest. In contrast, if you go to Louisiana, not only does LSU have a huge fan base, but if LSU isn't playing a game and you go in to a sports bar, you will see large masses of LSU fans watching an Arkansas-Florida game, a South Carolina-Tennessee game, an Ole Miss - Auburn game, etc. because these same fans care deeply about the SEC.

Also, I explained earlier, Notre Dame's situation is difficult to fit in to the P5 discussion because of their unique status. However, the bottom line is that if Notre Dame is invited to the Orange Bowl once every three times it can be invited, then Notre Dame will make as much money from the bowl system as a B1G or SEC school will, which means that the system was designed to make ND structurally equal to those conferences, the two very top conferences.

Your first sentence if the problem. Footprint doesn't mean dominance, and it clearly doesn't mean that to the networks.

(04-28-2013 03:19 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:02 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 01:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  For one, your understanding of what a footprint means in terms of conference coverage needs some adjusting. ACC has significant coverage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina all states you say are SEC dominant. It's just like Texas and Texas A&M. Texas/Big 12 are still the dominant conference but you can be sure the SEC is getting significant coverage now. Otherwise, why add them to the conference. This is what realignment is all about.

You don't give the ACC enough credit. You say it's structurally #5 based on not being in the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Well Notre Dame doesn't have that tie in either. There is a difference between perception and reality. ACC is perceived to be the weakest (in football) due to past performances. However, that was during a time when the footbal schools all took a dip at the same time. Now the FSUs, Miami, and Clemson of the league are now making a name for themselves and will improve the overall conference perception with help from ND. Structurally, the Big 12 is the weakest conference. That league is built on keeping Texas happy. If Texas decides to jump ship..it's game over. So if ESPN decides to pull the plug on the LHN, Texas will be looking around.

In the states the SEC and ACC both have a presence, the SEC has THE state university, while the ACC has the #2 school. That would lead one to believe the SEC has the dominant presence in that state. That doesn't mean the ACC gets no coverage. It just means the SEC gets more, due to their having THE state university of whatever state you wish to discuss...

As for Texas, I think most people here are just hoping Texas decides to bail on the B12. They had the chance to do it earlier, but chose not to. I think that ship has sailed. The GoR gives the B12 some stability for the next 13 years, and by then the push towards bigger conferences may be over...

The bigger conferences may end up finding out they've got the same problems the old Southern Conference experienced more than once, giving rise to the SEC and ACC, and the original WAC experienced, giving birth to the MWC. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better...

Understood with SEC getting more in those states, I was just pointing out to quo that those states are still in the ACC's footprint whether he/she wants to believe it or not.

I think the Big 12's stability hinges upon the LHN and not the GOR. If ESPN pulls the plug then there's going to be a problem.

The LHN could also be turned into the B12N as well, which would shoot a big hole in that theory. There has been some backroom discussions about that as a possibility...

(04-28-2013 03:24 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:19 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:02 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 01:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  For one, your understanding of what a footprint means in terms of conference coverage needs some adjusting. ACC has significant coverage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina all states you say are SEC dominant. It's just like Texas and Texas A&M. Texas/Big 12 are still the dominant conference but you can be sure the SEC is getting significant coverage now. Otherwise, why add them to the conference. This is what realignment is all about.

You don't give the ACC enough credit. You say it's structurally #5 based on not being in the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Well Notre Dame doesn't have that tie in either. There is a difference between perception and reality. ACC is perceived to be the weakest (in football) due to past performances. However, that was during a time when the footbal schools all took a dip at the same time. Now the FSUs, Miami, and Clemson of the league are now making a name for themselves and will improve the overall conference perception with help from ND. Structurally, the Big 12 is the weakest conference. That league is built on keeping Texas happy. If Texas decides to jump ship..it's game over. So if ESPN decides to pull the plug on the LHN, Texas will be looking around.

In the states the SEC and ACC both have a presence, the SEC has THE state university, while the ACC has the #2 school. That would lead one to believe the SEC has the dominant presence in that state. That doesn't mean the ACC gets no coverage. It just means the SEC gets more, due to their having THE state university of whatever state you wish to discuss...

As for Texas, I think most people here are just hoping Texas decides to bail on the B12. They had the chance to do it earlier, but chose not to. I think that ship has sailed. The GoR gives the B12 some stability for the next 13 years, and by then the push towards bigger conferences may be over...

The bigger conferences may end up finding out they've got the same problems the old Southern Conference experienced more than once, giving rise to the SEC and ACC, and the original WAC experienced, giving birth to the MWC. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better...

Understood with SEC getting more in those states, I was just pointing out to quo that those states are still in the ACC's footprint whether he/she wants to believe it or not.

I think the Big 12's stability hinges upon the LHN and not the GOR. If ESPN pulls the plug then there's going to be a problem.

The LHN could also be turned into the B12N as well, which would shoot a big hole in that theory. There has been some backroom discussions about that as a possibility...

Logically that would make sense but I don't think Texas wants to share. Otherwise, the B12 network would already exist.

(04-28-2013 03:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:24 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:19 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:02 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 01:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  For one, your understanding of what a footprint means in terms of conference coverage needs some adjusting. ACC has significant coverage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina all states you say are SEC dominant. It's just like Texas and Texas A&M. Texas/Big 12 are still the dominant conference but you can be sure the SEC is getting significant coverage now. Otherwise, why add them to the conference. This is what realignment is all about.

You don't give the ACC enough credit. You say it's structurally #5 based on not being in the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Well Notre Dame doesn't have that tie in either. There is a difference between perception and reality. ACC is perceived to be the weakest (in football) due to past performances. However, that was during a time when the footbal schools all took a dip at the same time. Now the FSUs, Miami, and Clemson of the league are now making a name for themselves and will improve the overall conference perception with help from ND. Structurally, the Big 12 is the weakest conference. That league is built on keeping Texas happy. If Texas decides to jump ship..it's game over. So if ESPN decides to pull the plug on the LHN, Texas will be looking around.

In the states the SEC and ACC both have a presence, the SEC has THE state university, while the ACC has the #2 school. That would lead one to believe the SEC has the dominant presence in that state. That doesn't mean the ACC gets no coverage. It just means the SEC gets more, due to their having THE state university of whatever state you wish to discuss...

As for Texas, I think most people here are just hoping Texas decides to bail on the B12. They had the chance to do it earlier, but chose not to. I think that ship has sailed. The GoR gives the B12 some stability for the next 13 years, and by then the push towards bigger conferences may be over...

The bigger conferences may end up finding out they've got the same problems the old Southern Conference experienced more than once, giving rise to the SEC and ACC, and the original WAC experienced, giving birth to the MWC. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better...

Understood with SEC getting more in those states, I was just pointing out to quo that those states are still in the ACC's footprint whether he/she wants to believe it or not.

I think the Big 12's stability hinges upon the LHN and not the GOR. If ESPN pulls the plug then there's going to be a problem.

The LHN could also be turned into the B12N as well, which would shoot a big hole in that theory. There has been some backroom discussions about that as a possibility...

Logically that would make sense but I don't think Texas wants to share. Otherwise, the B12 network would already exist.

Texas had planned to share it with A&M originally. But A&M told Texas to get stuffed...

As for sharing it with the rest of the B12, that wasn't an option originally. But since it would give networks the added push needed to get it carried, it's become a possible option...

Again...just my opinion on the Big XII...like Bit said turn the LHN into the Longhorn Network...and if it is appaently that not having a CCG is hurting the Big XII in regards to the CFP go ahead if TV Deems it & add Cincinnati and one other between BYU/USF/UCF/UConn.

(04-28-2013 03:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:24 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:19 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:02 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  In the states the SEC and ACC both have a presence, the SEC has THE state university, while the ACC has the #2 school. That would lead one to believe the SEC has the dominant presence in that state. That doesn't mean the ACC gets no coverage. It just means the SEC gets more, due to their having THE state university of whatever state you wish to discuss...

As for Texas, I think most people here are just hoping Texas decides to bail on the B12. They had the chance to do it earlier, but chose not to. I think that ship has sailed. The GoR gives the B12 some stability for the next 13 years, and by then the push towards bigger conferences may be over...

The bigger conferences may end up finding out they've got the same problems the old Southern Conference experienced more than once, giving rise to the SEC and ACC, and the original WAC experienced, giving birth to the MWC. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better...

Understood with SEC getting more in those states, I was just pointing out to quo that those states are still in the ACC's footprint whether he/she wants to believe it or not.

I think the Big 12's stability hinges upon the LHN and not the GOR. If ESPN pulls the plug then there's going to be a problem.

The LHN could also be turned into the B12N as well, which would shoot a big hole in that theory. There has been some backroom discussions about that as a possibility...

Logically that would make sense but I don't think Texas wants to share. Otherwise, the B12 network would already exist.

Texas had planned to share it with A&M originally. But A&M told Texas to get stuffed...

As for sharing it with the rest of the B12, that wasn't an option originally. But since it would give networks the added push needed to get it carried, it's become a possible option...

If it occurs then the next question would be, are 10 teams enough to support a network...I believe the ACC sponsors 4 more sports and has 4 more teams than the Big 12 so content isn't really an issue.

(04-28-2013 03:22 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 01:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  For one, your understanding of what a footprint means in terms of conference coverage needs some adjusting. ACC has significant coverage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina all states you say are SEC dominant. It's just like Texas and Texas A&M. Texas/Big 12 are still the dominant conference but you can be sure the SEC is getting significant coverage now. Otherwise, why add them to the conference. This is what realignment is all about.

You don't give the ACC enough credit. You say it's structurally #5 based on not being in the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Well Notre Dame doesn't have that tie in either. There is a difference between perception and reality. ACC is perceived to be the weakest (in football) due to past performances.

My concept of footprint needs no adjustment. It just refers to the dominant conference in a particular state. E.g., for Florida and Georgia, that is the SEC, so those states are part of the SEC footprint. In contrast, we can say that the ACC's footprint is North Carolina and Virginia, but that it also has a presence in states like Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and Kentucky. Just as the SEC has a presence in Texas, though that state is in the Big 12's footprint. So i think it is useful to distinguish a conference's relations to three types of areas: Footprint states, presence states, and other territories. For the ACC, examples would be North Carolina, Florida, and Minnesota. For the SEC, Florida, Texas, and also Minnesota.

You also have to remember that there is a difference between an ACC school having a big following in a state, and the ACC having a big following in a state. They are not necessarily the same thing. For example, in the state of Florida, FSU has a large, significant fan following. But, that doesn't translate into much interest in the ACC, since most of those fans don't like the ACC and wish FSU was in a different conference. FSU fans are rabid about FSU football, but are basically indifferent or even scornful about what is happening in the rest of the ACC football world. They care about Miami but have no interest in a Virginia - NC State football game. Go to a bar in Tallahassee and you won't see anyone bothering to tune in to watch Virginia Tech - Wake Forest. In contrast, if you go to Louisiana, not only does LSU have a huge fan base, but if LSU isn't playing a game and you go in to a sports bar, you will see large masses of LSU fans watching an Arkansas-Florida game, a South Carolina-Tennessee game, an Ole Miss - Auburn game, etc. because these same fans care deeply about the SEC.

Also, I explained earlier, Notre Dame's situation is difficult to fit in to the P5 discussion because of their unique status. However, the bottom line is that if Notre Dame is invited to the Orange Bowl once every three times it can be invited, then Notre Dame will make as much money from the bowl system as a B1G or SEC school will, which means that the system was designed to make ND structurally equal to those conferences, the two very top conferences.

Your first sentence if the problem. Footprint doesn't mean dominance, and it clearly doesn't mean that to the networks.

It's not a problem once you realize that networks care greatly about the degree of penetration within an area, and my concepts of "footprint" and "presence" capture that nicely.

The ACC surely gets paid less than the SEC for the state of Georgia, because the SEC is the dominant conference, the footprint conference, while the ACC has a presence there. The ACC gets more for Georgia than the Big 12, which neither has a footprint nor a presence there.

Here is a point that should make it clear to you the error of your ways: By your logic, the networks should consider states like Florida, Tennessee, and Texas part of the new AAC's footprint, since the AAC has schools in those states. They therefore should be paying the AAC as much money for those states as they are paying the SEC and Big 12 for those states. But of course they are not.

(04-28-2013 03:35 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:24 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:19 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Understood with SEC getting more in those states, I was just pointing out to quo that those states are still in the ACC's footprint whether he/she wants to believe it or not.

I think the Big 12's stability hinges upon the LHN and not the GOR. If ESPN pulls the plug then there's going to be a problem.

The LHN could also be turned into the B12N as well, which would shoot a big hole in that theory. There has been some backroom discussions about that as a possibility...

Logically that would make sense but I don't think Texas wants to share. Otherwise, the B12 network would already exist.

Texas had planned to share it with A&M originally. But A&M told Texas to get stuffed...

As for sharing it with the rest of the B12, that wasn't an option originally. But since it would give networks the added push needed to get it carried, it's become a possible option...

If it occurs then the next question would be, are 10 teams enough to support a network...I believe the ACC sponsors 4 more sports and has 4 more teams than the Big 12 so content isn't really an issue.

Of the sports the ACC sponsors, only a few are supported to any major degree. It's the same with any conference. Who's going to watch gymnastics, volleyball, or most other minor sports? Lacrosse will be watch in ACC country. But even if the B12 sponsored it, nobody in B12 country has much interest. It's more of an eastern thing...

However, rifle would probably be watched, even though it's not an official conference sport. But WVU and TCU are among the nation's best, and it has a historical significance to most everyone in B12 country. After all, the B12 has all the armed mascots...

(04-28-2013 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:22 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 01:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  For one, your understanding of what a footprint means in terms of conference coverage needs some adjusting. ACC has significant coverage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina all states you say are SEC dominant. It's just like Texas and Texas A&M. Texas/Big 12 are still the dominant conference but you can be sure the SEC is getting significant coverage now. Otherwise, why add them to the conference. This is what realignment is all about.

You don't give the ACC enough credit. You say it's structurally #5 based on not being in the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Well Notre Dame doesn't have that tie in either. There is a difference between perception and reality. ACC is perceived to be the weakest (in football) due to past performances.

My concept of footprint needs no adjustment. It just refers to the dominant conference in a particular state. E.g., for Florida and Georgia, that is the SEC, so those states are part of the SEC footprint. In contrast, we can say that the ACC's footprint is North Carolina and Virginia, but that it also has a presence in states like Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and Kentucky. Just as the SEC has a presence in Texas, though that state is in the Big 12's footprint. So i think it is useful to distinguish a conference's relations to three types of areas: Footprint states, presence states, and other territories. For the ACC, examples would be North Carolina, Florida, and Minnesota. For the SEC, Florida, Texas, and also Minnesota.

You also have to remember that there is a difference between an ACC school having a big following in a state, and the ACC having a big following in a state. They are not necessarily the same thing. For example, in the state of Florida, FSU has a large, significant fan following. But, that doesn't translate into much interest in the ACC, since most of those fans don't like the ACC and wish FSU was in a different conference. FSU fans are rabid about FSU football, but are basically indifferent or even scornful about what is happening in the rest of the ACC football world. They care about Miami but have no interest in a Virginia - NC State football game. Go to a bar in Tallahassee and you won't see anyone bothering to tune in to watch Virginia Tech - Wake Forest. In contrast, if you go to Louisiana, not only does LSU have a huge fan base, but if LSU isn't playing a game and you go in to a sports bar, you will see large masses of LSU fans watching an Arkansas-Florida game, a South Carolina-Tennessee game, an Ole Miss - Auburn game, etc. because these same fans care deeply about the SEC.

Also, I explained earlier, Notre Dame's situation is difficult to fit in to the P5 discussion because of their unique status. However, the bottom line is that if Notre Dame is invited to the Orange Bowl once every three times it can be invited, then Notre Dame will make as much money from the bowl system as a B1G or SEC school will, which means that the system was designed to make ND structurally equal to those conferences, the two very top conferences.

Your first sentence if the problem. Footprint doesn't mean dominance, and it clearly doesn't mean that to the networks.

It's not a problem once you realize that networks care greatly about the degree of penetration within an area, and my concepts of "footprint" and "presence" capture that nicely.

The ACC surely gets paid less than the SEC for the state of Georgia, because the SEC is the dominant conference, the footprint conference, while the ACC has a presence there. The ACC gets more for Georgia than the Big 12, which neither has a footprint nor a presence there.

Here is a point that should make it clear to you the error of your ways: By your logic, the networks should consider states like Florida, Tennessee, and Texas part of the new AAC's footprint, since the AAC has schools in those states. They therefore should be paying the AAC as much money for those states as they are paying the SEC and Big 12 for those states. But of course they are not.

If you read my previous posts I said footprint requires a significant presence. It doesn't have to be the dominant one just like A&M in Texas. The ACC has a significant presence in Fla, Georgia, SC, and Kentucky. The problem is you seem to discount that level of presence. Well if you've ever been to a GA-GT game then you know that presence isn't small. Likewise for Lou-Kentucky. I don't even want to get into Florida. Miami and FSU have been two of the best programs over the last 20 years so you know their presence in Fla is significant.

(04-28-2013 03:54 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:35 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:24 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The LHN could also be turned into the B12N as well, which would shoot a big hole in that theory. There has been some backroom discussions about that as a possibility...

Logically that would make sense but I don't think Texas wants to share. Otherwise, the B12 network would already exist.

Texas had planned to share it with A&M originally. But A&M told Texas to get stuffed...

As for sharing it with the rest of the B12, that wasn't an option originally. But since it would give networks the added push needed to get it carried, it's become a possible option...

If it occurs then the next question would be, are 10 teams enough to support a network...I believe the ACC sponsors 4 more sports and has 4 more teams than the Big 12 so content isn't really an issue.

Of the sports the ACC sponsors, only a few are supported to any major degree. It's the same with any conference. Who's going to watch gymnastics, volleyball, or most other minor sports? Lacrosse will be watch in ACC country. But even if the B12 sponsored it, nobody in B12 country has much interest. It's more of an eastern thing...

However, rifle would probably be watched, even though it's not an official conference sport. But WVU and TCU are among the nation's best, and it has a historical significance to most everyone in B12 country. After all, the B12 has all the armed mascots...

There's that and is there enough left after the networks choose which games to show on TV. One of the problems of the Big 12 is after Texas and Oklahoma the TV interest drops fast. You probably won't get much out of Baylor, Texas Tech, Iowa State, TCU, Kansas football, K St and the match ups with each other. That's 60% of the conference.

(04-28-2013 03:02 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 01:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  For one, your understanding of what a footprint means in terms of conference coverage needs some adjusting. ACC has significant coverage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina all states you say are SEC dominant. It's just like Texas and Texas A&M. Texas/Big 12 are still the dominant conference but you can be sure the SEC is getting significant coverage now. Otherwise, why add them to the conference. This is what realignment is all about.

You don't give the ACC enough credit. You say it's structurally #5 based on not being in the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Well Notre Dame doesn't have that tie in either. There is a difference between perception and reality. ACC is perceived to be the weakest (in football) due to past performances. However, that was during a time when the footbal schools all took a dip at the same time. Now the FSUs, Miami, and Clemson of the league are now making a name for themselves and will improve the overall conference perception with help from ND. Structurally, the Big 12 is the weakest conference. That league is built on keeping Texas happy. If Texas decides to jump ship..it's game over. So if ESPN decides to pull the plug on the LHN, Texas will be looking around.

In the states the SEC and ACC both have a presence, the SEC has THE state university, while the ACC has the #2 school. That would lead one to believe the SEC has the dominant presence in that state. That doesn't mean the ACC gets no coverage. It just means the SEC gets more, due to their having THE state university of whatever state you wish to discuss...

As for Texas, I think most people here are just hoping Texas decides to bail on the B12. They had the chance to do it earlier, but chose not to. I think that ship has sailed. The GoR gives the B12 some stability for the next 13 years, and by then the push towards bigger conferences may be over...

The bigger conferences may end up finding out they've got the same problems the old Southern Conference experienced more than once, giving rise to the SEC and ACC, and the original WAC experienced, giving birth to the MWC. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better...

Some thoughts and comments on this ongoing thread as it relates to the state of South Carolina. First, I have lived in SC since I was 12 years old – I am now 56. I currently reside in the Charleston area. I attended and graduated from both Clemson and South Carolina. To say that the state of South Carolina is “dominated” or controlled by USC is most definitely a gross exaggeration. USC is the “flagship” school in the state of South Carolina by name only. This state is pretty much evenly divided between these two fan bases – and both are very loyal and very passionate. Let’s look at the demographics based on population and Nielson ratings. There are primarily four major population centers in the state: Greenville/Spartanburg, Columbia, Charleston, & Myrtle Beach. According to the 2012 census and the SC Budget and Controls Statistical Abstract, the populations for these four metro areas were: Greenville/Spartanburg – 920,000; Columbia – 768,000; Charleston – 665,000; and Myrtle Beach – 269,000. According to the 2011-2012 Nielson rankings, Greenville/Spartanburg ranked #37, Columbia ranked #77, Charleston ranked #98, and Myrtle Beach ranked #103. Based on my observations, I would say that the Greenville/Spartanburg area is predominantly Clemson, the Columbia area is predominantly USC, the Charleston and Myrtle Beach areas are fairly evenly divided with maybe a slight edge to USC in both areas. I think that USC currently gets the edge in the other areas of the state – this is due to their recent successes in football and baseball which always draws in the undecided fence sitters. So, if you look at the state by population I would have to say that it is pretty evenly divided with USC currently enjoying a slight edge. If you look at it by TV market rankings, I would say that Clemson has a slight edge. Now, I do not disagree with saying that USC’s popularity has been positively impacted by the SEC’s popularity and by the presence of Spurrier and I definitely do not disagree with the fact that the SEC currently is by far the marquee football league in the US and certainly in the South. I also do not disagree that the SEC may have a dominate position in other states where the ACC and SEC overlap, however, I would strongly argue that this is definitely not the case in South Carolina. This state is about as evenly divided as it can get so I would argue that SC is a wash in terms of SEC vs ACC "domination".

(04-28-2013 03:59 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:54 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:35 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Logically that would make sense but I don't think Texas wants to share. Otherwise, the B12 network would already exist.

Texas had planned to share it with A&M originally. But A&M told Texas to get stuffed...

As for sharing it with the rest of the B12, that wasn't an option originally. But since it would give networks the added push needed to get it carried, it's become a possible option...

If it occurs then the next question would be, are 10 teams enough to support a network...I believe the ACC sponsors 4 more sports and has 4 more teams than the Big 12 so content isn't really an issue.

Of the sports the ACC sponsors, only a few are supported to any major degree. It's the same with any conference. Who's going to watch gymnastics, volleyball, or most other minor sports? Lacrosse will be watch in ACC country. But even if the B12 sponsored it, nobody in B12 country has much interest. It's more of an eastern thing...

However, rifle would probably be watched, even though it's not an official conference sport. But WVU and TCU are among the nation's best, and it has a historical significance to most everyone in B12 country. After all, the B12 has all the armed mascots...

There's that and is there enough left after the networks choose which games to show on TV. One of the problems of the Big 12 is after Texas and Oklahoma the TV interest drops fast. You probably won't get much out of Baylor, Texas Tech, Iowa State, TCU, Kansas football, K St and the match ups with each other. That's 60% of the conference.

I think you're underestimating things a mite. Either that, or you're overestimating the national interest in ACC football programs outside of FSU...

(04-28-2013 04:15 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:02 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 01:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  For one, your understanding of what a footprint means in terms of conference coverage needs some adjusting. ACC has significant coverage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina all states you say are SEC dominant. It's just like Texas and Texas A&M. Texas/Big 12 are still the dominant conference but you can be sure the SEC is getting significant coverage now. Otherwise, why add them to the conference. This is what realignment is all about.

You don't give the ACC enough credit. You say it's structurally #5 based on not being in the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Well Notre Dame doesn't have that tie in either. There is a difference between perception and reality. ACC is perceived to be the weakest (in football) due to past performances. However, that was during a time when the footbal schools all took a dip at the same time. Now the FSUs, Miami, and Clemson of the league are now making a name for themselves and will improve the overall conference perception with help from ND. Structurally, the Big 12 is the weakest conference. That league is built on keeping Texas happy. If Texas decides to jump ship..it's game over. So if ESPN decides to pull the plug on the LHN, Texas will be looking around.

In the states the SEC and ACC both have a presence, the SEC has THE state university, while the ACC has the #2 school. That would lead one to believe the SEC has the dominant presence in that state. That doesn't mean the ACC gets no coverage. It just means the SEC gets more, due to their having THE state university of whatever state you wish to discuss...

As for Texas, I think most people here are just hoping Texas decides to bail on the B12. They had the chance to do it earlier, but chose not to. I think that ship has sailed. The GoR gives the B12 some stability for the next 13 years, and by then the push towards bigger conferences may be over...

The bigger conferences may end up finding out they've got the same problems the old Southern Conference experienced more than once, giving rise to the SEC and ACC, and the original WAC experienced, giving birth to the MWC. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better...

Some thoughts and comments on this ongoing thread as it relates to the state of South Carolina. First, I have lived in SC since I was 12 years old – I am now 56. I currently reside in the Charleston area. I attended and graduated from both Clemson and South Carolina. To say that the state of South Carolina is “dominated” or controlled by USC is most definitely a gross exaggeration. USC is the “flagship” school in the state of South Carolina by name only. This state is pretty much evenly divided between these two fan bases – and both are very loyal and very passionate. Let’s look at the demographics based on population and Nielson ratings. There are primarily four major population centers in the state: Greenville/Spartanburg, Columbia, Charleston, & Myrtle Beach. According to the 2012 census and the SC Budget and Controls Statistical Abstract, the populations for these four metro areas were: Greenville/Spartanburg – 920,000; Columbia – 768,000; Charleston – 665,000; and Myrtle Beach – 269,000. According to the 2011-2012 Nielson rankings, Greenville/Spartanburg ranked #37, Columbia ranked #77, Charleston ranked #98, and Myrtle Beach ranked #103. Based on my observations, I would say that the Greenville/Spartanburg area is predominantly Clemson, the Columbia area is predominantly USC, the Charleston and Myrtle Beach areas are fairly evenly divided with maybe a slight edge to USC in both areas. I think that USC currently gets the edge in the other areas of the state – this is due to their recent successes in football and baseball which always draws in the undecided fence sitters. So, if you look at the state by population I would have to say that it is pretty evenly divided with USC currently enjoying a slight edge. If you look at it by TV market rankings, I would say that Clemson has a slight edge. Now, I do not disagree with saying that USC’s popularity has been positively impacted by the SEC’s popularity and by the presence of Spurrier and I definitely do not disagree with the fact that the SEC currently is by far the marquee football league in the US and certainly in the South. I also do not disagree that the SEC may have a dominate position in other states where the ACC and SEC overlap, however, I would strongly argue that this is definitely not the case in South Carolina. This state is about as evenly divided as it can get so I would argue that SC is a wash in terms of SEC vs ACC "domination".

South Carolina is kind of unique in that respect. But that's mostly due to the football dominance of Clemson under Frank Howard. USC really didn't do much in football until the late 1960s, and it wasn't until Steve Spurrier hit Columbia that they started playing SEC-type football...

When Spurrier retires 'lil carolina will revert back to its old self and Clemson will again be the dominant school in South Carolina.

(04-28-2013 04:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  When Spurrier retires 'lil carolina will revert back to its old self and Clemson will again be the dominant school in South Carolina.

It could be the case this season. Clemson is going to have a really good team this year. But don't bet on USC falling off the map. SEC membership and money is going to allow them to have their choice of good coaches. That wasn't the case previously...

(04-28-2013 03:59 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  You probably won't get much out of Baylor, Texas Tech, Iowa State, TCU, Kansas football, K St and the match ups with each other. That's 60% of the conference.

Not true. We did a study that showed we had some of the highest TV ratings in the Big 12.

http://lubbockonline.com/sports-red-raid...X2gEsrvjKc

Quote:Hance said he thought the most nervous time for Tech was last year. To build the Red Raiders’ case as storm clouds swirled, the university hired a Denver firm to determine where Tech’s three-year average television ratings ranked within the Big 12 geographic area. Hance said the firm reported that Tech football had the second-highest television ratings in Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Waco/Temple/Bryan, Ames, Iowa, and Columbia-Jefferson City, Mo. The Red Raiders were the third most popular TV team over a three-year period in Houston, San Antonio and St. Louis, he said, and fourth most popular in Tulsa, Okla.

“The reason I hired and spent the money on this firm is I wanted to dismiss the myth that we’re a regional school or regional market,” Hance said. “We have a national following. We have a state following.

(04-28-2013 03:55 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:22 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 01:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  For one, your understanding of what a footprint means in terms of conference coverage needs some adjusting. ACC has significant coverage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina all states you say are SEC dominant. It's just like Texas and Texas A&M. Texas/Big 12 are still the dominant conference but you can be sure the SEC is getting significant coverage now. Otherwise, why add them to the conference. This is what realignment is all about.

You don't give the ACC enough credit. You say it's structurally #5 based on not being in the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Well Notre Dame doesn't have that tie in either. There is a difference between perception and reality. ACC is perceived to be the weakest (in football) due to past performances.

My concept of footprint needs no adjustment. It just refers to the dominant conference in a particular state. E.g., for Florida and Georgia, that is the SEC, so those states are part of the SEC footprint. In contrast, we can say that the ACC's footprint is North Carolina and Virginia, but that it also has a presence in states like Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and Kentucky. Just as the SEC has a presence in Texas, though that state is in the Big 12's footprint. So i think it is useful to distinguish a conference's relations to three types of areas: Footprint states, presence states, and other territories. For the ACC, examples would be North Carolina, Florida, and Minnesota. For the SEC, Florida, Texas, and also Minnesota.

You also have to remember that there is a difference between an ACC school having a big following in a state, and the ACC having a big following in a state. They are not necessarily the same thing. For example, in the state of Florida, FSU has a large, significant fan following. But, that doesn't translate into much interest in the ACC, since most of those fans don't like the ACC and wish FSU was in a different conference. FSU fans are rabid about FSU football, but are basically indifferent or even scornful about what is happening in the rest of the ACC football world. They care about Miami but have no interest in a Virginia - NC State football game. Go to a bar in Tallahassee and you won't see anyone bothering to tune in to watch Virginia Tech - Wake Forest. In contrast, if you go to Louisiana, not only does LSU have a huge fan base, but if LSU isn't playing a game and you go in to a sports bar, you will see large masses of LSU fans watching an Arkansas-Florida game, a South Carolina-Tennessee game, an Ole Miss - Auburn game, etc. because these same fans care deeply about the SEC.

Also, I explained earlier, Notre Dame's situation is difficult to fit in to the P5 discussion because of their unique status. However, the bottom line is that if Notre Dame is invited to the Orange Bowl once every three times it can be invited, then Notre Dame will make as much money from the bowl system as a B1G or SEC school will, which means that the system was designed to make ND structurally equal to those conferences, the two very top conferences.

Your first sentence if the problem. Footprint doesn't mean dominance, and it clearly doesn't mean that to the networks.

It's not a problem once you realize that networks care greatly about the degree of penetration within an area, and my concepts of "footprint" and "presence" capture that nicely.

The ACC surely gets paid less than the SEC for the state of Georgia, because the SEC is the dominant conference, the footprint conference, while the ACC has a presence there. The ACC gets more for Georgia than the Big 12, which neither has a footprint nor a presence there.

Here is a point that should make it clear to you the error of your ways: By your logic, the networks should consider states like Florida, Tennessee, and Texas part of the new AAC's footprint, since the AAC has schools in those states. They therefore should be paying the AAC as much money for those states as they are paying the SEC and Big 12 for those states. But of course they are not.

If you read my previous posts I said footprint requires a significant presence. It doesn't have to be the dominant one just like A&M in Texas. The ACC has a significant presence in Fla, Georgia, SC, and Kentucky. The problem is you seem to discount that level of presence. Well if you've ever been to a GA-GT game then you know that presence isn't small. Likewise for Lou-Kentucky. I don't even want to get into Florida. Miami and FSU have been two of the best programs over the last 20 years so you know their presence in Fla is significant.

I read your previous post, and explained why your concept of significant presence is inadequate.

As for Florida, remember what i said about FSU and Miami fans caring little about the ACC. It's important.

(04-28-2013 04:15 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:02 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 01:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  For one, your understanding of what a footprint means in terms of conference coverage needs some adjusting. ACC has significant coverage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina all states you say are SEC dominant. It's just like Texas and Texas A&M. Texas/Big 12 are still the dominant conference but you can be sure the SEC is getting significant coverage now. Otherwise, why add them to the conference. This is what realignment is all about.

You don't give the ACC enough credit. You say it's structurally #5 based on not being in the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Well Notre Dame doesn't have that tie in either. There is a difference between perception and reality. ACC is perceived to be the weakest (in football) due to past performances. However, that was during a time when the footbal schools all took a dip at the same time. Now the FSUs, Miami, and Clemson of the league are now making a name for themselves and will improve the overall conference perception with help from ND. Structurally, the Big 12 is the weakest conference. That league is built on keeping Texas happy. If Texas decides to jump ship..it's game over. So if ESPN decides to pull the plug on the LHN, Texas will be looking around.

In the states the SEC and ACC both have a presence, the SEC has THE state university, while the ACC has the #2 school. That would lead one to believe the SEC has the dominant presence in that state. That doesn't mean the ACC gets no coverage. It just means the SEC gets more, due to their having THE state university of whatever state you wish to discuss...

As for Texas, I think most people here are just hoping Texas decides to bail on the B12. They had the chance to do it earlier, but chose not to. I think that ship has sailed. The GoR gives the B12 some stability for the next 13 years, and by then the push towards bigger conferences may be over...

The bigger conferences may end up finding out they've got the same problems the old Southern Conference experienced more than once, giving rise to the SEC and ACC, and the original WAC experienced, giving birth to the MWC. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better...

Some thoughts and comments on this ongoing thread as it relates to the state of South Carolina. First, I have lived in SC since I was 12 years old – I am now 56. I currently reside in the Charleston area. I attended and graduated from both Clemson and South Carolina. To say that the state of South Carolina is “dominated” or controlled by USC is most definitely a gross exaggeration. USC is the “flagship” school in the state of South Carolina by name only. This state is pretty much evenly divided between these two fan bases – and both are very loyal and very passionate. Let’s look at the demographics based on population and Nielson ratings. There are primarily four major population centers in the state: Greenville/Spartanburg, Columbia, Charleston, & Myrtle Beach. According to the 2012 census and the SC Budget and Controls Statistical Abstract, the populations for these four metro areas were: Greenville/Spartanburg – 920,000; Columbia – 768,000; Charleston – 665,000; and Myrtle Beach – 269,000. According to the 2011-2012 Nielson rankings, Greenville/Spartanburg ranked #37, Columbia ranked #77, Charleston ranked #98, and Myrtle Beach ranked #103. Based on my observations, I would say that the Greenville/Spartanburg area is predominantly Clemson, the Columbia area is predominantly USC, the Charleston and Myrtle Beach areas are fairly evenly divided with maybe a slight edge to USC in both areas. I think that USC currently gets the edge in the other areas of the state – this is due to their recent successes in football and baseball which always draws in the undecided fence sitters. So, if you look at the state by population I would have to say that it is pretty evenly divided with USC currently enjoying a slight edge. If you look at it by TV market rankings, I would say that Clemson has a slight edge. Now, I do not disagree with saying that USC’s popularity has been positively impacted by the SEC’s popularity and by the presence of Spurrier and I definitely do not disagree with the fact that the SEC currently is by far the marquee football league in the US and certainly in the South. I also do not disagree that the SEC may have a dominate position in other states where the ACC and SEC overlap, however, I would strongly argue that this is definitely not the case in South Carolina. This state is about as evenly divided as it can get so I would argue that SC is a wash in terms of SEC vs ACC "domination".

Let me ask you something: beyond Clemson's direct involvement, do Clemson fans like yourself care about ACC football?

(04-28-2013 07:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 04:15 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 03:02 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-28-2013 01:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  For one, your understanding of what a footprint means in terms of conference coverage needs some adjusting. ACC has significant coverage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina all states you say are SEC dominant. It's just like Texas and Texas A&M. Texas/Big 12 are still the dominant conference but you can be sure the SEC is getting significant coverage now. Otherwise, why add them to the conference. This is what realignment is all about.

You don't give the ACC enough credit. You say it's structurally #5 based on not being in the Sugar or Rose Bowl. Well Notre Dame doesn't have that tie in either. There is a difference between perception and reality. ACC is perceived to be the weakest (in football) due to past performances. However, that was during a time when the footbal schools all took a dip at the same time. Now the FSUs, Miami, and Clemson of the league are now making a name for themselves and will improve the overall conference perception with help from ND. Structurally, the Big 12 is the weakest conference. That league is built on keeping Texas happy. If Texas decides to jump ship..it's game over. So if ESPN decides to pull the plug on the LHN, Texas will be looking around.

In the states the SEC and ACC both have a presence, the SEC has THE state university, while the ACC has the #2 school. That would lead one to believe the SEC has the dominant presence in that state. That doesn't mean the ACC gets no coverage. It just means the SEC gets more, due to their having THE state university of whatever state you wish to discuss...

As for Texas, I think most people here are just hoping Texas decides to bail on the B12. They had the chance to do it earlier, but chose not to. I think that ship has sailed. The GoR gives the B12 some stability for the next 13 years, and by then the push towards bigger conferences may be over...

The bigger conferences may end up finding out they've got the same problems the old Southern Conference experienced more than once, giving rise to the SEC and ACC, and the original WAC experienced, giving birth to the MWC. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better...

Some thoughts and comments on this ongoing thread as it relates to the state of South Carolina. First, I have lived in SC since I was 12 years old – I am now 56. I currently reside in the Charleston area. I attended and graduated from both Clemson and South Carolina. To say that the state of South Carolina is “dominated” or controlled by USC is most definitely a gross exaggeration. USC is the “flagship” school in the state of South Carolina by name only. This state is pretty much evenly divided between these two fan bases – and both are very loyal and very passionate. Let’s look at the demographics based on population and Nielson ratings. There are primarily four major population centers in the state: Greenville/Spartanburg, Columbia, Charleston, & Myrtle Beach. According to the 2012 census and the SC Budget and Controls Statistical Abstract, the populations for these four metro areas were: Greenville/Spartanburg – 920,000; Columbia – 768,000; Charleston – 665,000; and Myrtle Beach – 269,000. According to the 2011-2012 Nielson rankings, Greenville/Spartanburg ranked #37, Columbia ranked #77, Charleston ranked #98, and Myrtle Beach ranked #103. Based on my observations, I would say that the Greenville/Spartanburg area is predominantly Clemson, the Columbia area is predominantly USC, the Charleston and Myrtle Beach areas are fairly evenly divided with maybe a slight edge to USC in both areas. I think that USC currently gets the edge in the other areas of the state – this is due to their recent successes in football and baseball which always draws in the undecided fence sitters. So, if you look at the state by population I would have to say that it is pretty evenly divided with USC currently enjoying a slight edge. If you look at it by TV market rankings, I would say that Clemson has a slight edge. Now, I do not disagree with saying that USC’s popularity has been positively impacted by the SEC’s popularity and by the presence of Spurrier and I definitely do not disagree with the fact that the SEC currently is by far the marquee football league in the US and certainly in the South. I also do not disagree that the SEC may have a dominate position in other states where the ACC and SEC overlap, however, I would strongly argue that this is definitely not the case in South Carolina. This state is about as evenly divided as it can get so I would argue that SC is a wash in terms of SEC vs ACC "domination".

Let me ask you something: beyond Clemson's direct involvement, do Clemson fans like yourself care about ACC football?

I can not speak for all Clemson fans but as for myself, I do care about ACC football because what happens in the conference directly affects Clemson. I always pull for ACC teams when they play OOC games. As far as watching games go, I like to watch interesting games regardless of conference. I would not waste my time watching a Duke / BC game nor would I waste my time watching Miss St / Kentucky. Granted, there do tend to be more interesting football games in the SEC because there are more "brand" schools then in the ACC. However, I don't just watch a game because it has two SEC teams - they (the SEC) has it's far share of snoozer match ups just as every conference does. If I had to choose between watching an Alabama / LSU vs a FSU / VT game for instance, I would choose the FSU / VT game because this game would/could directly impact Clemson.