(03-22-2024 05:11 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ... I just went back and listened to it again, it's at the 8:26 mark in the video:

"Well, if you look at how the split was made, and the ACC had, what, Clemson in twice and Florida St in once in the past 12 years I wanna say, and the Big 12 had ...."

He missed 3 top 2s from Clemson and that ND qualification in 2020 that was an ACC bid, more than half of their total. All he remembered were the actual National Titles. ...

The first point is a point ... the question about about participation and titles, and his language in the answer was phrased as if he was talking about the schools in either the CFP4 or else the NCG, and the count were the titles.

The ND qualification on behalf of the ACC is just quibbling. Playing in the ND in the middle of a global pandemic as a short term fix to the problem of scheduling games to play is not the same as actually joining the conference.

Of course, what is being made of it is far too much of a leap ... making that mistake in a written piece where there is time to double check what is said is one thing, but mis-stating that eight minutes into an almost half hour long interview just doesn't carry very much weight for an argument of "this guy doesn't know anything!!!!"

(03-23-2024 01:21 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 11:01 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  One other point of Bob Thompson's that I like is that if the ACC wants to be a big player in media rights they would have to do it on the FB field.

That says to me if the SEC didn't have a nice run in the 00's and 10's and instead it was FSU, Miami, VT and Clemson in the Top 10 every year it would be the ACC with the TV money.

The SEC was comparatively lacking in markets but got it done on the FB field where it counted IMO. They also got it done in an era before realignment broke loose and there was no questions around their limited mid-south footprint.

If the ACC had more on-field success, would things be closer? Sure. But what is valued in rights negotiations were always going to lead to the SEC and B1G being on top. Not sure how the SEC is "lacking in markets." They own the statewide market everywhere they are.

The SEC and B1G just have more large-enrollment state universities that are flagships or flagship-equivalent than any other conference. They have huge alumni bases and attract loads of t-shirt fans, aka eyeballs.

Fewer national championships would only mitigate that so much. Take South Carolina. They're overall a below average team in the SEC. They have a .380 win percentage all-time against SEC teams. There's not really any reason they should be packing in 85,000+ week in and week out--and yet they do. Show me a South Carolina-level school that could do that in the ACC and XII.

Before the SEC started expanding above 12 they didn't have many good sized markets within their boarders.

Atlanta
Nashville
New Orleans
Jacksonville
Louisville

Compared to the ACC having

Miami
Atlanta
Charlotte
Washington DC
Pittsburgh
Boston

This of course has now changed significantly in the SEC's favor as they've added Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio by virtue of the additions.

(03-23-2024 02:52 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 01:21 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 11:01 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  One other point of Bob Thompson's that I like is that if the ACC wants to be a big player in media rights they would have to do it on the FB field.

That says to me if the SEC didn't have a nice run in the 00's and 10's and instead it was FSU, Miami, VT and Clemson in the Top 10 every year it would be the ACC with the TV money.

The SEC was comparatively lacking in markets but got it done on the FB field where it counted IMO. They also got it done in an era before realignment broke loose and there was no questions around their limited mid-south footprint.

If the ACC had more on-field success, would things be closer? Sure. But what is valued in rights negotiations were always going to lead to the SEC and B1G being on top. Not sure how the SEC is "lacking in markets." They own the statewide market everywhere they are.

The SEC and B1G just have more large-enrollment state universities that are flagships or flagship-equivalent than any other conference. They have huge alumni bases and attract loads of t-shirt fans, aka eyeballs.

Fewer national championships would only mitigate that so much. Take South Carolina. They're overall a below average team in the SEC. They have a .380 win percentage all-time against SEC teams. There's not really any reason they should be packing in 85,000+ week in and week out--and yet they do. Show me a South Carolina-level school that could do that in the ACC and XII.

Before the SEC started expanding above 12 they didn't have many good sized markets within their boarders.

Atlanta
Nashville
New Orleans
Jacksonville
Louisville

Compared to the ACC having

Miami
Atlanta
Charlotte
Washington DC
Pittsburgh
Boston

This of course has now changed significantly in the SEC's favor as they've added Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio by virtue of the additions.

Except that doesn't really matter a whole lot. A little, yeah. It's why the B1G's TV deal is slightly more than the SEC, because they do have some better city markets despite not having as much on-field success.

Sure, Tuscaloosa isn't a conventional "great" market. Even the state of Alabama isn't a conventional great market. But the SEC owns the entire state. Yeah, in the cable-sub era owning Boston brought something to the ACC, but we're moving past that now.

The reality is that if the marketz approach was as great as you say, the ACC should absolutely be blowing the XII out of the water in media rights. But, they're simply making a few million more, driven largely by the existence of their conference network that doesn't exist for the XII.

SEC simply has people that actually wants to watch their games. 85,000+ in Columbia for a below-average team. No one in the ACC or XII is doing that.

(03-23-2024 01:21 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 11:01 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  One other point of Bob Thompson's that I like is that if the ACC wants to be a big player in media rights they would have to do it on the FB field.

That says to me if the SEC didn't have a nice run in the 00's and 10's and instead it was FSU, Miami, VT and Clemson in the Top 10 every year it would be the ACC with the TV money.

The SEC was comparatively lacking in markets but got it done on the FB field where it counted IMO. They also got it done in an era before realignment broke loose and there was no questions around their limited mid-south footprint.

If the ACC had more on-field success, would things be closer? Sure. But what is valued in rights negotiations were always going to lead to the SEC and B1G being on top. Not sure how the SEC is "lacking in markets." They own the statewide market everywhere they are.

The SEC and B1G just have more large-enrollment state universities that are flagships or flagship-equivalent than any other conference. They have huge alumni bases and attract loads of t-shirt fans, aka eyeballs.

Fewer national championships would only mitigate that so much. Take South Carolina. They're overall a below average team in the SEC. They have a .380 win percentage all-time against SEC teams. There's not really any reason they should be packing in 85,000+ week in and week out--and yet they do. Show me a South Carolina-level school that could do that in the ACC and XII.

To add to this, the B1G won jack squat for over 50 years, with just 2.5 titles in football until Michigan's last year made it 3.5, and they haven't won the NCAAT in over 20 years. The only way the ACC was going to be viewed as somewhat equal would have been if they'd just gone on an SEC-like level of dominance and had 5-6 teams with Championships, and even then they'd still have smaller stadiums and smaller alumni bases than the SEC, B1G or Pac. The only weird thing that's happened was that the Pac's stable of Flagship AAUs self-destructed after chasing Stanford's siren song of "Olympic sports good, money sports bad" too far down the rabbit hole, until USC finally had enough and decided to bolt.

ESPN with SEC




ESPN with ACC

$800-850M in the last year of the old deal to $1.15B in the first year of the new deal is not a "25% increase."

It's a 35-44% increase. Bob is bad at math.