Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
History question--has the ACC always been considered a football "power conference"?
Author Message
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #101
RE: History question--has the ACC always been considered a football "power conference"?
(04-09-2012 05:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-09-2012 05:25 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(04-09-2012 10:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Miami has changed more drastically than most major American cities. Their culture is changing and it is not a culture readily enamored with football. Their economy has dried up and therein lies the groundwork for the decline of the Hurricane football program and the rise of Central Florida and South Florida who are still in ascendancy.

If Miami has already changed (not in the midst of changing) per your post to the point where the culture is not enamored with football, why are 4 of the top 10 high school football programs in the state over the past decade located in the Miami metro area with a 5th up in Fort Lauderdale?

The demographic changes you have previously cited were in evidence back in the 2000 census. Do you know of these schools boards talking about or actually doing away with their football programs? After all, football programs do cost money to operate.

If there isn't still a large contingent of northeasterners down in the Miami metro area, can you explain why one can go to a Knicks-Heat game and have half the crowd be rooting for the Knicks?

Cheers,
Neil

I'm sure there are plenty of high school athletic programs that are still achieving excellence in the Dade and Broward county areas. High school programs do cost money, but aspects of their budgets are set at the state level of the education system and amended at the local end. What you don't spend you lose. I'm sure as long as there are budgets for high school atheltics in Bay and Duval counties there will be utilization of the funding in the Southern tip of the state. The area is not absent of people who have children who want to play football, it's just trending away from that. In fact such a trend usually tends to create stratification. As a new culture emerges, the old culture base solidifies until it finally dies out.

I'm also sure there are plenty of retirees who couldn't afford another move, or who still love it there and will remain. I'm also sure that their tastes in leisure have not changed.

However, shifts on the scale of the one that I have eluded to strike the upper end of the income range before they reach the lower end. The question is are there enough people to continue to buy $60 tickets for the Hurricane games so that they yeild the maximum for their controllable revenue. The answer is apparently not. Their stadium hasn't been near capacity for the majority of their games during these past few years.

Television revenue is great but you have to split that. The gate is your profit difference maker as it pertains to those schools with whom you have to compete for recruits, and facilities enhancements. Miami is suffering on that end of the revenue stream.

Given the average life expectancy of a woman is about 78 and high months, and that of a man is between 73 and 74 and that a higher percentage are living alot longer when they make it past the cancer years (when the immune system starts to shut down) and that the last boomers were born in '62 or '63, that gives the entire shift a completion range of finalizing between 2016 to 2033. If Miami is handed severe sanctions starting in 2014 they might only have about a 13 or 14 year period in which to recover before this shift is completed. Given the level of fan support now, I just don't see it happening for them.

Of course, all things are subject to change, but this change would have to be a whopper. Say, something on the scale of the New Madrid Fault, and Precambrian Fault dividing the SouthCentral U.S. in Half and forcing population masses to move South and Southwest.

Those were really good observations though. JR

But there have been huge state education cuts in both the 2008 and 2011 state budgets. So, shouldn't we be seeing these football programs being cut if, as you state, the culture has already changed?

I believe season tickets for the Hurricanes were a low of $110 to a high of $1595 for their Legends Suite. Which kind of reflects the Miami metro populace, both the poor and the extremely well off.

The Hurricanes report revenue generated of over $26 million from football from a 7-6 2010 season with average attendance of 52.5K which is comparable to USC's $31 million for their 8-5 season which drew an average of just under 80K per game. I think you tend to see things through SEC eyes and forget that there are universities out there which can compete on the field with SEC teams while not making the huge amounts of $$$ that SEC teams do just as a result of football.

Finally, Miami is a decently endowed university, it's got $$$ and I don't believe with all of the other factors it's got going in its favor that it is going away at all.

Only time will tell which one of us is correct on this point.

Cheers,
Neil
04-09-2012 06:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #102
RE: History question--has the ACC always been considered a football "power conference"?
(04-09-2012 06:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(04-09-2012 05:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-09-2012 05:25 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(04-09-2012 10:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Miami has changed more drastically than most major American cities. Their culture is changing and it is not a culture readily enamored with football. Their economy has dried up and therein lies the groundwork for the decline of the Hurricane football program and the rise of Central Florida and South Florida who are still in ascendancy.

If Miami has already changed (not in the midst of changing) per your post to the point where the culture is not enamored with football, why are 4 of the top 10 high school football programs in the state over the past decade located in the Miami metro area with a 5th up in Fort Lauderdale?

The demographic changes you have previously cited were in evidence back in the 2000 census. Do you know of these schools boards talking about or actually doing away with their football programs? After all, football programs do cost money to operate.

If there isn't still a large contingent of northeasterners down in the Miami metro area, can you explain why one can go to a Knicks-Heat game and have half the crowd be rooting for the Knicks?

Cheers,
Neil

I'm sure there are plenty of high school athletic programs that are still achieving excellence in the Dade and Broward county areas. High school programs do cost money, but aspects of their budgets are set at the state level of the education system and amended at the local end. What you don't spend you lose. I'm sure as long as there are budgets for high school atheltics in Bay and Duval counties there will be utilization of the funding in the Southern tip of the state. The area is not absent of people who have children who want to play football, it's just trending away from that. In fact such a trend usually tends to create stratification. As a new culture emerges, the old culture base solidifies until it finally dies out.

I'm also sure there are plenty of retirees who couldn't afford another move, or who still love it there and will remain. I'm also sure that their tastes in leisure have not changed.

However, shifts on the scale of the one that I have eluded to strike the upper end of the income range before they reach the lower end. The question is are there enough people to continue to buy $60 tickets for the Hurricane games so that they yeild the maximum for their controllable revenue. The answer is apparently not. Their stadium hasn't been near capacity for the majority of their games during these past few years.

Television revenue is great but you have to split that. The gate is your profit difference maker as it pertains to those schools with whom you have to compete for recruits, and facilities enhancements. Miami is suffering on that end of the revenue stream.

Given the average life expectancy of a woman is about 78 and high months, and that of a man is between 73 and 74 and that a higher percentage are living alot longer when they make it past the cancer years (when the immune system starts to shut down) and that the last boomers were born in '62 or '63, that gives the entire shift a completion range of finalizing between 2016 to 2033. If Miami is handed severe sanctions starting in 2014 they might only have about a 13 or 14 year period in which to recover before this shift is completed. Given the level of fan support now, I just don't see it happening for them.

Of course, all things are subject to change, but this change would have to be a whopper. Say, something on the scale of the New Madrid Fault, and Precambrian Fault dividing the SouthCentral U.S. in Half and forcing population masses to move South and Southwest.

Those were really good observations though. JR

But there have been huge state education cuts in both the 2008 and 2011 state budgets. So, shouldn't we be seeing these football programs being cut if, as you state, the culture has already changed?

I believe season tickets for the Hurricanes were a low of $110 to a high of $1595 for their Legends Suite. Which kind of reflects the Miami metro populace, both the poor and the extremely well off.

The Hurricanes report revenue generated of over $26 million from football from a 7-6 2010 season with average attendance of 52.5K which is comparable to USC's $31 million for their 8-5 season which drew an average of just under 80K per game. I think you tend to see things through SEC eyes and forget that there are universities out there which can compete on the field with SEC teams while not making the huge amounts of $$$ that SEC teams do just as a result of football.

Finally, Miami is a decently endowed university, it's got $$$ and I don't believe with all of the other factors it's got going in its favor that it is going away at all.

Only time will tell which one of us is correct on this point.

Cheers,
Neil

Wow, and I thought $70 per seat for the cheap seats was getting too high! The area we are in would cost us about $2,500 up front plus the price of tickets if we didn't hold Faculty Staff tickets. Our skyboxes may be higher than theirs, but we sell by the box and they seem to sell by the seat so it depends on the number of seats in a suite. I learned something about the Canes.

I agree only time will tell. In this case I hope you're right and I'm wrong it is a great school with a very interesting history. JR
04-09-2012 07:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #103
RE: History question--has the ACC always been considered a football "power conference"?
(04-09-2012 07:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Wow, and I thought $70 per seat for the cheap seats was getting too high! The area we are in would cost us about $2,500 up front plus the price of tickets if we didn't hold Faculty Staff tickets. Our skyboxes may be higher than theirs, but we sell by the box and they seem to sell by the seat so it depends on the number of seats in a suite. I learned something about the Canes.

I agree only time will tell. In this case I hope you're right and I'm wrong it is a great school with a very interesting history. JR

Okay, now I'm really confused. The low for Miami's season tickets (which would be for all 7 games was $110 total - I'm sure they are the upper deck worse seats possible, but within the price range of some of the less fortunate in Miami). Single game tickets start as low as $20, except for a big game like OSU or FSU. I believe Auburn season tickets started at a minimum of $269. Single tickets sold at about $64. Is this incorrect?

Cheers,
Neil
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2012 07:23 PM by omniorange.)
04-09-2012 07:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #104
RE: History question--has the ACC always been considered a football "power conference"?
(04-09-2012 07:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(04-09-2012 07:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Wow, and I thought $70 per seat for the cheap seats was getting too high! The area we are in would cost us about $2,500 up front plus the price of tickets if we didn't hold Faculty Staff tickets. Our skyboxes may be higher than theirs, but we sell by the box and they seem to sell by the seat so it depends on the number of seats in a suite. I learned something about the Canes.

I agree only time will tell. In this case I hope you're right and I'm wrong it is a great school with a very interesting history. JR

Okay, now I'm really confused. The low for Miami's season tickets (which would be for all 7 games was $110 total - I'm sure they are the upper deck worse seats possible, but within the price range of some of the less fortunate in Miami). Single game tickets start as low as $20, except for a big game like OSU or FSU. I believe Auburn season tickets started at a minimum of $269. Single tickets sold at about $64. Is this incorrect?

Cheers,
Neil

No Neil, I was the one who was confused. And the $269 dollar book is a partial which includes three OOC games and one conference game, if they are even available after initial season ticket sales.

I thought you meant that Miami tickets started at 115 per game. A conference game in the SEC last year was $70 for a cheap seat for one game. Usually the only single tickets available are for OOC games with La Monroe, Utah State, etc. OOC games with FBS opponents have gone for as much as the Conference games to as little as $60 each depending on who you're playing. If a family of 4 comes to one game that is $280 for the tickets (even for small children) plus whatever they had to contribute upfront for the privilege to buy the tickets. Different areas require different levels of giving plus the cost of the tickets. That's fairly standard at SEC venues. The skyboxes range from 50,000 to 100,000 and that was several years ago, I really haven't kept up with those.

I know that to get tickets between the 40 and 20 yardline in the lower area back in the 80's, before our Faculty Staff ticket days, it cost us $2500 up front per year plus the cost of tickets. I know that's alot higher now. They sell standing room tickets, but I don't know what they cost and I don't know anyone who ever bought one. So a pair of season tickets to the endzone in Jordan Hare, or the outer limits of the upper deck, would cost about $980 less the difference for small team OOC games. To get seats from the goal line in, or between the 20's in the upper deck would cost a hefty contribution up front, plus the roughly $980 for a pair of 7 home game books. For that hefty upfront contribution you get to purchase up to 4 books.

Even full season books in the endzone require upfront giving. I woud guess in the $500-$700 range.

In Auburn realtors now sell game day condos, and second homes are purchased near the campus for the same purpose. That's if you don't stay in your Tiffen motor home, which is a converted bus/winnebago hybrid that rock stars might use. We have about half a dozen areas geared for motorhomes on gameday. On a big game day we easily have 96,000 in the stadium and another 40-50 thousand milling around outside. It's ridiculous. Glad I got Miami's price straight. I was thinking no wonder they've had problems sellling out.

Take care, JR
04-09-2012 08:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nola Gator Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 722
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Florida
Location: Mardi Gras City
Post: #105
RE: History question--has the ACC always been considered a football "power conference"?
(04-08-2012 09:13 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  
(04-08-2012 09:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That is a great point if you use 30 year periods as your test point.

I don't, therefore I disagree. College football 30 years ago was a much different beast than it is now.

Since we are doing edits, yes you can debate Miami being the best college football program over the past 30 years. I find it silly you would state that as not being able to be argued against.

Okay, then by all means fire away. When one takes into account things like national championships, 10 win seasons, NFL draft picks, NFL success of those players, etc., who would you rank ahead of the Canes since 1982? Honestly, I don't think it's even close but I'm all ears.

You can call me biased but I think Florida has an argument to be called the most successful team in the past 30 years. The Gators have won the most games over that period (despite playing in the toughest conference) and has more top 10 finishes than Miami over that span:16-14, and each has finished in the top 25 22 times.

Miami does have the nod in national titles 5-3, which obviously matters a great deal, but they have also had 6 6+ loss seasons (including 3 losing seasons) and Florida has only had 2 6+ loss seasons (and have not had a losing season over that span). So Miami has the most championship seasons but Florida has more great seasons (top 10 finish) and fewer terrible seasons (6+ losses) and has a better overall record over the 30 year period despite playing better competition on a yearly basis.

You can disagree if you like (and its certainly about even) but you can't say that there is no doubt that Miami has been the best. Now had you said from 1980-2005, I don't think there would be an argument.

Florida State may have an equally good argument. They finished in the top 10, 14 times (all but 1 of which was a top 5 finish!), in the top 25, 24 times and won 2 national titles.

Ohio State should also be in the discussion. They have had 13 top 10 seasons, 23 top 25 seasons and have also won more games over the past 30 years than Miami. But they have only had one national title so I don't think they have as good of a claim as Florida or Miami or FSU.


EDIT: I actually did some research after making my post and I actually think Nebraska (one of my 4 least liked programs) may have had the best 30 year run in college football. 3 national titles, 14 top 10 finishes, 23 top 25 finishes and the most total wins in college football over that span. Anyway, the point is that at least 5 programs have a legitimate argument for that honor. Its certainly not Miami by a large margin as you proposed.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2012 06:05 PM by Nola Gator.)
04-10-2012 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #106
RE: History question--has the ACC always been considered a football "power conference"?
(04-10-2012 05:37 PM)Nola Gator Wrote:  
(04-08-2012 09:13 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  
(04-08-2012 09:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That is a great point if you use 30 year periods as your test point.

I don't, therefore I disagree. College football 30 years ago was a much different beast than it is now.

Since we are doing edits, yes you can debate Miami being the best college football program over the past 30 years. I find it silly you would state that as not being able to be argued against.

Okay, then by all means fire away. When one takes into account things like national championships, 10 win seasons, NFL draft picks, NFL success of those players, etc., who would you rank ahead of the Canes since 1982? Honestly, I don't think it's even close but I'm all ears.

You can call me biased but I think Florida has an argument to be called the most successful team in the past 30 years. The Gators have won the most games over that period (despite playing in the toughest conference) and has more top 10 finishes than Miami over that span:16-14, and each has finished in the top 25 22 times.

Miami does have the nod in national titles 5-3, which obviously matters a great deal, but they have also had 6 6+ loss seasons (including 3 losing seasons) and Florida has only had 2 6+ loss seasons (and have not had a losing season over that span). So Miami has the most championship seasons but Florida has more great seasons (top 10 finish) and fewer terrible seasons (6+ losses) and has a better overall record over the 30 year period despite playing better competition on a yearly basis.

You can disagree if you like (and its certainly about even) but you can't say that there is no doubt that Miami has been the best. Now had you said from 1980-2005, I don't think there would be an argument.

Florida State may have an equally good argument. They finished in the top 10, 14 times (all but 1 of which was a top 5 finish!), in the top 25, 24 times and won 2 national titles.

Ohio State should also be in the discussion. They have had 13 top 10 seasons, 23 top 25 seasons and have also won more games over the past 30 years than Miami. But they have only had one national title so I don't think they have as good of a claim as Florida or Miami or FSU.


EDIT: I actually did some research after making my post and I actually think Nebraska (one of my 4 least liked programs) may have had the best 30 year run in college football. 3 national titles, 14 top 10 finishes, 23 top 25 finishes and the most total wins in college football over that span. Anyway, the point is that at least 5 programs have a legitimate argument for that honor. Its certainly not Miami by a large margin as you proposed.

We may also see Ohio State add to that national title total in a few years. I think it is not a stretch to say that the Meyer led Buckeyes have a much better set up to win a Championship than Miami.

As a Florida fan I think you would attest to that?
04-10-2012 07:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ecumbh1999 Offline
Keeper of the Code
*

Posts: 11,888
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 255
I Root For: East Carolina
Location:
Post: #107
RE: History question--has the ACC always been considered a football "power conference"?
(04-08-2012 07:09 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  the real question should be "has the ACC EVER been considered a power FB conference?"

The answer is NO, other than FSU and a blip here or there from Clemson, GT, and Maryland, no. UNC had an okay run in the 1990s with Mac Brown, but they still weren't good enough to win the ACC, heck Duke has won a ACC title since UNC and NCSU last won in FB 1979 and 1980. Duke still sucks Wake isn't that big, Maryland is sucking again with UVa., GT sticks, NCSU sucks, FSU isn't the same, Maimi sucks now. Power confrence my arse.
04-12-2012 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.