(08-03-2021 09:39 AM)b2b Wrote:  The primary issue is the fact that the average enrollment and attendance is and has always significantly lagged behind the B10 and SEC. On top of that the ACC is primarily small private schools (WF, Duke, BC) and #2 publics (NC State, Pitt, VT, FSU, GT, Clemson). To Clemson and FSU credit they pack a big punch in the sport that matters. The rest are essentially a "meh" to the average football fan. Then it's basically East Coast vs Deep South/Midwest. No comparison there for who cares about football more.

Good points all.

The ACC makes a great all-sports league. Being one has always been a conference goal, actually. It's good for students. It's the main reason Florida State joined the ACC. And being one is a good argument supporting a conference network. You can show year-round content. You play sports that draw audiences in different latitudes.

In a football-rules-everything world, though, it makes you a niche product.

Personally, I've never regarded the word 'rabid' as much of a compliment. Sportscasters use it that way, though, because 'rabid' does sell product. Those who buy the product must be praised for their choices, eh?

There's probably no getting around the enrolment disadvantage. The ACC's average school size is 15,000? When land-grant schools dominate other conferences? I don't see what you can do, other than try not to miss out on a big school like Penn State and try not to lose one like Florida State or Maryland. Universities in the original-colonies footprint just tend to be smaller. It's nothing they're doing wrong. Their history is different. But that historical difference adds up when media networks do alumni counts.

______

I bet the ESPN loves the current contract with the ACC and won’t be very willing to reopen the contract. So the status quo is probably fine with them.

Jim Phillips doesn’t bring up the 9th game / divisional changes lately so maybe the ESPN is not interested in paying more for that. I kinda wonder why Phillips keep mentioning about ND. Hopefully he knows something we don’t know.

As for the original question, IMO the ESPN would definitely want the ACC to get ND and be very willing to pay for it. ND joining the BIG would be a bad outcome for them as well.

(08-03-2021 06:14 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Jim Phillips doesn’t bring up the 9th game / divisional changes lately so maybe the ESPN is not interested in paying more for that.

Divisional change will be discussed the instant other conferences aren't in a position to veto the idea. With the NCAA withering, this may soon happen.

It pays off mostly at the university level. If Florida State and Georgia Tech, for example, were to play each other more often, both schools would sell more tickets in their home stadiums and reduce travel time for all involved.

At the conference level it builds more esprit de corps to have schools face each other more often.

A ninth game isn't being discussed because it doesn't have the votes. Louisville, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State have big OOC rivalry games every year. Miami and Pittsburgh have rivals OOC that they try to schedule as often as they can. Adding a ninth conference game complicates that.

(08-03-2021 06:39 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 06:14 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Jim Phillips doesn’t bring up the 9th game / divisional changes lately so maybe the ESPN is not interested in paying more for that.

Divisional change will be discussed the instant other conferences aren't in a position to veto the idea. With the NCAA withering, this may soon happen.

It pays off mostly at the university level. If Florida State and Georgia Tech, for example, were to play each other more often, both schools would sell more tickets in their home stadiums and reduce travel time for all involved.

At the conference level it builds more esprit de corps to have schools face each other more often.

A ninth game isn't being discussed because it doesn't have the votes. Louisville, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State have big OOC rivalry games every year. Miami and Pittsburgh have rivals OOC that they try to schedule as often as they can. Adding a ninth conference game complicates that.

Agreed. You left out one thing, though: divisionless scheduling gives you the flexibility to build a more TV-friendly schedule. Want more VT/FSU or Miami/Clemson? No problem - how much will you pay me for it?

(08-03-2021 06:39 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Divisional change will be discussed the instant other conferences aren't in a position to veto the idea.

(08-03-2021 07:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Agreed. You left out one thing, though: divisionless scheduling gives you the flexibility to build a more TV-friendly schedule. Want more VT/FSU or Miami/Clemson? No problem - how much will you pay me for it?

Good thinking.

Got any stocks you think are a good buy? Just asking.



____

(07-26-2021 12:35 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-26-2021 10:07 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  ESPN is going to want the ACC to take the dregs of the B12 to lessen the threat of legal action.

They'll make the ACC take like OSU and Texas Tech. Then they'll give the ACC like $4M more per year per team, extend the contract to 2058, and then the ACC media and front office will do victory laps about Jim Phillips being Ninja II.

Oh, and they'll do it quick, before the new SEC and B1G and PAC deals, so the ACC will think they've "closed the gap" some.

That is 100% how John Swofford & Co would've done it!



Now, seriously, if I'm the ACC Commish and ESPN asks me to take Big XII dregs, I'd say Sure, on 3 conditions:
1. ESPN must pay market rate for EVERY game from now until the contract expires - even the ones already under contract.
2. the ACC CG split out in a separate contract paying $30M
3. ESPN must guarantee the ACC 15 games per year on ABC, with at least 7 of them on Saturday night; on weeks when the ACC is not on ABC Prime Time, it gets a game on either ESPN or ESPN2 (ESPNU doesn't count).

Oh, and I'm not extending the contract unless you throw in a guarantee that we will always be paid at least 80% of the highest-paid conference.

If I'm doing ESPN's dirty work, I want to get paid for it!

I found some of things you mentioned interesting in this post for not just the ACC but teams that land in the ACC or PAC 12 or Big 12 as conferences that are supposed to have a P4 or P5 rating at the time but not making the money of the SEC/B1G. Do each of them get to 20-24 members?

You mentioned 80% of the highest conference, but will that number be? I don't see it getting to 80% but can it get to 70-75%? You mentioned games on ABC & prime time. Maybe some of them get on ABC but eventually do these 2 or 3 leagues even have to play on weeknights to get a higher contract when they don't have live content?

At what reduced payout level, do fans from the conferences left out tune out of nationally televised games and end up reducing the overall pie of college football as a result? I really hope viewers out of the SEC, send ESPN a message and don't watch SEC football. I'm from a team left behind and I know I won't watch any of them.

(08-11-2021 10:53 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  ...At what reduced payout level, do fans from the conferences left out tune out of nationally televised games and end up reducing the overall pie of college football as a result? I really hope viewers out of the SEC, send ESPN a message and don't watch SEC football. I'm from a team left behind and I know I won't watch any of them.

Look, it's way past time for fans of non-SEC teams to boycott SEC football games. If you watch an SEC conference football game, you have no business complaining about how much more the SEC gets paid than the ACC (or whatever conference). By watching that game, you are part of the problem - stop it!

The flip side is this: if you want your conference to get paid more money, you need to watch as many conference games as you can - especially the games on ABC, ESPN, and ESPN2. TV contracts are driven by viewership numbers. Your team gets more money when you watch them and their conference mates; the competition gets more money when you watch them. It's just that simple.

(08-11-2021 11:18 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 10:53 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  ...At what reduced payout level, do fans from the conferences left out tune out of nationally televised games and end up reducing the overall pie of college football as a result? I really hope viewers out of the SEC, send ESPN a message and don't watch SEC football. I'm from a team left behind and I know I won't watch any of them.

Look, it's way past time for fans of non-SEC teams to boycott SEC football games. If you watch an SEC conference football game, you have no business complaining about how much more the SEC gets paid than the ACC (or whatever conference). By watching that game, you are part of the problem - stop it!

The flip side is this: if you want your conference to get paid more money, you need to watch as many conference games as you can - especially the games on ABC, ESPN, and ESPN2. TV contracts are driven by viewership numbers. Your team gets more money when you watch them and their conference mates; the competition gets more money when you watch them. It's just that simple.

My workaround hack of watching ESPN Goal Line is getting more and more tenuous every year. First they started later in the day. Then they finished earlier in the day. Then they got rid of any studio production value ... no more summaries of the day's best action and events every 90 minutes. Then they got rid of heavy split screening and aggressive switching to the most exciting action. Then they switched to FCS garbage deliberately for long swaths of time for no apparent reason.

I hate ESPN and Disney. I'd still pay them over $100/yr to get the ORIGINAL ESPN Goal Line back. Noon to midnight. Heavy split screening and jumping. Summaries every 90m. Rotate in a blend of FCS potluck and great plays at any level.