Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
An odd ACC idea
Author Message
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #21
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-05-2013 12:37 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Thanks for the detailed reply, JR. In response without copying it all again:

1. Auburn's strength is exactly why I would think ESPN would want to move them to the ACC in such a scenario (SEC flagships, ACC states/privates). While we disagree on how ESPN would want to use their value, we both agree that they are highly valuable. Many people don't realize that if Auburn moved to the ACC today, they would immediately be the highest revenue school in the conference, including Notre Dame.

2. I understand the monetary value of adding Va. Tech and NC State, but I strongly believe action would have been taken these last six months if the SEC felt the same way. UVA/UNC to the B1G and Va. Tech/NC State to the SEC would have been an absolute home run for all the schools involved and the state legislatures. There is no doubt the B1G and the SEC would have taken UNC and/or UVA. The problem had to have been with VT/NCSU in some form or fashion. Perhaps you are correct that future considerations will change everyone's view (just like the current climate probably is giving the B1G leaders a fit that they did not take Mizzou when they had the chance).

3. Again, I think keeping Va. Tech and NCSU in the ACC and moving the flagships to the SEC still keeps that corridor to the northeast open, but I get your point.

4. Yep, we've talked about this before. Unfortunate, but true.

To respond to Hokie about WVU, yes, the SEC prefers flagships if possible. The conversation above talks about the pro's and con's of Va. Tech and NC State. It is more about fit than the school profile viewed in a vacuum. I personally think WVU would fit long term better than Va. Tech or NC State. Of course, markets come into play, as well. As schools, Va. Tech and NC State are awesome and would be a benefit, but flagships are where the SEC (and the B1G, for that matter) are headed, at least based on history.

Think about what you are saying here as it applies to economics. The goal would be to equalize the earning potential of the SEC and ACC to make them both too strong to fail. A weakened ACC as we just witnessed is not in the interest long or short term for the SEC. The SEC has grown with the ACC as a buffer. Nobody in Birmingham wanted the Big 10 in Atlanta or Florida, nobody! Do you really think that Auburn would move to an academically crippled ACC? If Virginia and North Carolina move that is exactly what you would have and Auburn would no longer be a top earner. Pitt, Syracuse and Notre Dame would all be shopping and there wouldn't be anything left but an even more impaired ACC ripe for the picking by the Big 10. Georgia Tech, Clemson and Florida State in the ACC are rivals. Put those three in the Big 10 and they become a problem.

I think the real reason that there was no movement was because Virginia and North Carolina weren't interested and Viriginia Tech wasn't going anywhere if the Cavaliers were sticking and N.C. State couldn't have gotten permission from the University of North Carolina System if the Heels were staying put. The move that would have cracked the nut would have been for the SEC to take Clemson and F.S.U. but the networks made it clear that such moves would not be rewarded. There is your answer as to why it didn't happen.

I doubt it would happen but the ideal situation for both the ACC and SEC would be a move to 18 each in which the ACC could have a six team Western division. Then the crossover games would not be as frequent and it would be more like a scheduling alliance. They could compromise on Oklahoma and Kansas and form even a more complete zipper. The top properties would become the sole property of ESPN and there is your network motivation, if one is needed.

The eight teams taken would be enough to dissolve the Big 12. 3 six team divisions would group rivals well enough to eliminate permanent cross overs and then with a 9 game conference schedule you could play everyone ever three years and have a wild card for the team with the remaining best record after the divisional champs were crowned. That would reward divisions that were stronger and bring more balance to a conference playoff. If the Big 10 and PAC want to go to 16 let them work it out.
06-05-2013 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #22
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-05-2013 01:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 12:37 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

Think about what you are saying here as it applies to economics. The goal would be to equalize the earning potential of the SEC and ACC to make them both too strong to fail. A weakened ACC as we just witnessed is not in the interest long or short term for the SEC. The SEC has grown with the ACC as a buffer. Nobody in Birmingham wanted the Big 10 in Atlanta or Florida, nobody! Do you really think that Auburn would move to an academically crippled ACC? If Virginia and North Carolina move that is exactly what you would have and Auburn would no longer be a top earner. Pitt, Syracuse and Notre Dame would all be shopping and there wouldn't be anything left but an even more impaired ACC ripe for the picking by the Big 10. Georgia Tech, Clemson and Florida State in the ACC are rivals. Put those three in the Big 10 and they become a problem.

I think the real reason that there was no movement was because Virginia and North Carolina weren't interested and Viriginia Tech wasn't going anywhere if the Cavaliers were sticking and N.C. State couldn't have gotten permission from the University of North Carolina System if the Heels were staying put. The move that would have cracked the nut would have been for the SEC to take Clemson and F.S.U. but the networks made it clear that such moves would not be rewarded. There is your answer as to why it didn't happen.

I doubt it would happen but the ideal situation for both the ACC and SEC would be a move to 18 each in which the ACC could have a six team Western division. Then the crossover games would not be as frequent and it would be more like a scheduling alliance. They could compromise on Oklahoma and Kansas and form even a more complete zipper. The top properties would become the sole property of ESPN and there is your network motivation, if one is needed.

The eight teams taken would be enough to dissolve the Big 12. 3 six team divisions would group rivals well enough to eliminate permanent cross overs and then with a 9 game conference schedule you could play everyone ever three years and have a wild card for the team with the remaining best record after the divisional champs were crowned. That would reward divisions that were stronger and bring more balance to a conference playoff. If the Big 10 and PAC want to go to 16 let them work it out.

Yes, I do believe that it would be in ESPN's interests to move UNC and UVA to the SEC under such a circumstance and market the heck out of the bitter hatred and rivalries between the flagships and their state/private peers. I really believe you would divide fans along those lines and increase the popularity even more. Again, I am not thinking what any individual school would want; I am thinking of what ESPN would want. ESPN would take care of everyone very well financially. Additionally, the swap I suggest hardly puts the ACC in a crippled position. With UNC and UVA, the average school rank is 56. Remove UNC and UVA, and that membership still averages a 60 for overall ranking. The SEC is currently a 98 average. Adding UVA and UNC still only puts that at a 90 average. Additionally, the ACC would only increase the gap if Vandy moved over to the ACC. Heck, if the names SEC and ACC are what everybody is hung up on, drop the name and call it the Southern. It wouldn't take much to buy they name back.

As to why the NC and VA schools did not move conferences, no one knows for sure. Your reason is plausible, but I don't believe for a second that UVA and UNC were not at least a bit interested to see what their options could be, especially before they got the Notre Dame deal. Remember back to before that was even a possibility; things were not stable at all.

For argument's sake, below is what it would look like if you divided the current SEC and ACC into flagships vs. state/private. I am going to leave TAMU out because it they could fit in either position as needed:

Flagship (12 schools). Academic average - 92. Revenue average - $91 mil

State/Private (16 schools). Academic average - 65. Revenue average - $70 mil

TAMU is ranked 65 and has an $80 mil revenue, so they would not skew the results much either way. Flagship makes more money, but it is proportionate to how much better the State/Private schools are at academics. There is not a huge disparity here. Also, WVU would jump on this wagon in a heartbeat once their Big 12 GoR expires. They are a 165 rank with 80 mil. That brings the average even closer in revenue and furthers the divide in academics. If Auburn absolutely can't stand being away from the flagships, the numbers lay out in such a way that a few state schools may need to join the flagships. That's fine; its the general overview of the entire thing that is important.

I certainly don't have all the answers, and everybody has their ideal of what they want to see out of college athletics. Personally, I want to see peers together and for there to be some serious competitive juices flowing. Heck, I wouldn't care if they called the whole thing the ACC and drop SEC altogether if that got the deal done. For branding, just calling it the "Atlantic Conference" makes sense. It is not about the names, it is about the match-ups and what would be successful for each university and their TV partners.
06-05-2013 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #23
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-05-2013 03:59 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 01:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 12:37 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

Think about what you are saying here as it applies to economics. The goal would be to equalize the earning potential of the SEC and ACC to make them both too strong to fail. A weakened ACC as we just witnessed is not in the interest long or short term for the SEC. The SEC has grown with the ACC as a buffer. Nobody in Birmingham wanted the Big 10 in Atlanta or Florida, nobody! Do you really think that Auburn would move to an academically crippled ACC? If Virginia and North Carolina move that is exactly what you would have and Auburn would no longer be a top earner. Pitt, Syracuse and Notre Dame would all be shopping and there wouldn't be anything left but an even more impaired ACC ripe for the picking by the Big 10. Georgia Tech, Clemson and Florida State in the ACC are rivals. Put those three in the Big 10 and they become a problem.

I think the real reason that there was no movement was because Virginia and North Carolina weren't interested and Viriginia Tech wasn't going anywhere if the Cavaliers were sticking and N.C. State couldn't have gotten permission from the University of North Carolina System if the Heels were staying put. The move that would have cracked the nut would have been for the SEC to take Clemson and F.S.U. but the networks made it clear that such moves would not be rewarded. There is your answer as to why it didn't happen.

I doubt it would happen but the ideal situation for both the ACC and SEC would be a move to 18 each in which the ACC could have a six team Western division. Then the crossover games would not be as frequent and it would be more like a scheduling alliance. They could compromise on Oklahoma and Kansas and form even a more complete zipper. The top properties would become the sole property of ESPN and there is your network motivation, if one is needed.

The eight teams taken would be enough to dissolve the Big 12. 3 six team divisions would group rivals well enough to eliminate permanent cross overs and then with a 9 game conference schedule you could play everyone ever three years and have a wild card for the team with the remaining best record after the divisional champs were crowned. That would reward divisions that were stronger and bring more balance to a conference playoff. If the Big 10 and PAC want to go to 16 let them work it out.

Yes, I do believe that it would be in ESPN's interests to move UNC and UVA to the SEC under such a circumstance and market the heck out of the bitter hatred and rivalries between the flagships and their state/private peers. I really believe you would divide fans along those lines and increase the popularity even more. Again, I am not thinking what any individual school would want; I am thinking of what ESPN would want. ESPN would take care of everyone very well financially. Additionally, the swap I suggest hardly puts the ACC in a crippled position. With UNC and UVA, the average school rank is 56. Remove UNC and UVA, and that membership still averages a 60 for overall ranking. The SEC is currently a 98 average. Adding UVA and UNC still only puts that at a 90 average. Additionally, the ACC would only increase the gap if Vandy moved over to the ACC. Heck, if the names SEC and ACC are what everybody is hung up on, drop the name and call it the Southern. It wouldn't take much to buy they name back.

As to why the NC and VA schools did not move conferences, no one knows for sure. Your reason is plausible, but I don't believe for a second that UVA and UNC were not at least a bit interested to see what their options could be, especially before they got the Notre Dame deal. Remember back to before that was even a possibility; things were not stable at all.

For argument's sake, below is what it would look like if you divided the current SEC and ACC into flagships vs. state/private. I am going to leave TAMU out because it they could fit in either position as needed:

Flagship (12 schools). Academic average - 92. Revenue average - $91 mil

State/Private (16 schools). Academic average - 65. Revenue average - $70 mil

TAMU is ranked 65 and has an $80 mil revenue, so they would not skew the results much either way. Flagship makes more money, but it is proportionate to how much better the State/Private schools are at academics. There is not a huge disparity here. Also, WVU would jump on this wagon in a heartbeat once their Big 12 GoR expires. They are a 165 rank with 80 mil. That brings the average even closer in revenue and furthers the divide in academics. If Auburn absolutely can't stand being away from the flagships, the numbers lay out in such a way that a few state schools may need to join the flagships. That's fine; its the general overview of the entire thing that is important.

I certainly don't have all the answers, and everybody has their ideal of what they want to see out of college athletics. Personally, I want to see peers together and for there to be some serious competitive juices flowing. Heck, I wouldn't care if they called the whole thing the ACC and drop SEC altogether if that got the deal done. For branding, just calling it the "Atlantic Conference" makes sense. It is not about the names, it is about the match-ups and what would be successful for each university and their TV partners.

Nobody is moving anywhere for a cut in pay. The only answer to the problem is to form a 32 team conference with 8 divisions of 4, have your own internal playoffs for a champion and then have your champion play for the national title every year. If everyone shared the revenue and had multiple network channels for the different regions sold singularly and bundled then we might be in business. Just call it the Great South Conference and let it be comprised of the 10 Southern ACC schools, the 14 members of the SEC, the 4 schools in Texas now in the Big 12, the Oklahoma schools, and either Kansas and Kansas State, or Tulane and South Florida. When the income is the same anything may be accomplished. The Big 10 could partner with the PAC and add Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Notre Dame, Iowa State and Cincinnati or Connecticut and do the same. If you wanted to bump both conferences to 36 for a broader cut off that could be done too. Call it the Union Pacific Conference. Terms like Big 10, SEC, PAC, ACC, and Big 12 could be reserved for academic associations if they so desire. Then you've cleared all the hoops and found a way for Cincinnati to be included where they belong without having to be AAU.

Of course good luck trying to clear out the bureaucrats desiring to hold onto their lucrative conference positions. Somewhere in between the conference offices and network offices you will find almost all of your obstacles to meaningful and fair solutions.
(This post was last modified: 06-05-2013 05:02 PM by JRsec.)
06-05-2013 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,686
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #24
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-05-2013 12:56 PM)lew240z Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 10:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 05:00 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Wonder what Gordon Gee would have said about That!

"Nothing screams ACC like Salt Lake City." He probably would have disparaged Mormons.

Elwood G. Gee is a Mormon.
..and Salt Lake City is neither the home of BYU nor a predominantly Mormon city.

This board needs to learn a little something about the great state of Utah

.jpg  Utah Map2.JPG (Size: 45.42 KB / Downloads: 17)
Also, a Mormon tutorial featuring grossly inappropriate stereotypes.
Non-Mormon: Ute fan, or if recent immigrant to Utah, fan of prior home team.
Ex-Mormon: Ute fan
Jack Mormon: Ute fan
Secular Mormon: Ute fan
How to recognize these people (according to BYU fan): These "Yewts" are recognized by their obesity, goatees, PAC12 paraphenalia, double liquor flasks (one for drinking and one for pouring on BYU fans), and have DISH network dishes affixed to their trailers.

Orthodox Mormon: BYU fan.
How to recognize these people (according to Ute fan): These "zoobs" are advanced in age, wear braided belts and free T-shirts commemorating 1984 (Zoobs don't buy merch), watch BYU games using their brother in laws' account info (BYU's national fanbase doesn't pay for cable), and when attending a game (using Groupon discount) brings sack lunches for the family and crossstitch/Twighlight books for his wife.

Fundamentalist Mormon: Accompanied to Costco by child bride with french braid, long dress, and uncomfortable shoes.

Cow: It moos and roots for USU.
(This post was last modified: 06-05-2013 07:07 PM by jrj84105.)
06-05-2013 07:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chargeradio Offline
Vamos Morados
*

Posts: 7,466
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 121
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #25
An odd ACC idea
(06-05-2013 08:24 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that he means that BYU would play 9 ACC games (14-5=9), which is more than 12/14 of the actual ACC teams play in a given year.
I intended it to be 5 games. Kind of hard to ask BYU to play 9 ACC games when no one else in the conference does. Then there's that whole distance issue.

Theoretically, BYU-ND could be the 5th game every three years to keep the rotation at exactly once every three years for the rest of the ACC, but I'd imagine Notre Dame's traditional rivals (i.e., Pitt, BC) would want to play Notre Dame in the "extra" game every third year.
06-05-2013 08:12 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-05-2013 12:56 PM)lew240z Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 10:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 05:00 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Wonder what Gordon Gee would have said about That!

"Nothing screams ACC like Salt Lake City." He probably would have disparaged Mormons.

Elwood G. Gee is a Mormon.

I didn't know what he was and didn't care. A rump by any other name is still a rump.
06-05-2013 09:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #27
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-05-2013 07:03 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 12:56 PM)lew240z Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 10:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 05:00 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Wonder what Gordon Gee would have said about That!

"Nothing screams ACC like Salt Lake City." He probably would have disparaged Mormons.

Elwood G. Gee is a Mormon.
..and Salt Lake City is neither the home of BYU nor a predominantly Mormon city.

This board needs to learn a little something about the great state of Utah

Also, a Mormon tutorial featuring grossly inappropriate stereotypes.
Non-Mormon: Ute fan, or if recent immigrant to Utah, fan of prior home team.
Ex-Mormon: Ute fan
Jack Mormon: Ute fan
Secular Mormon: Ute fan
How to recognize these people (according to BYU fan): These "Yewts" are recognized by their obesity, goatees, PAC12 paraphenalia, double liquor flasks (one for drinking and one for pouring on BYU fans), and have DISH network dishes affixed to their trailers.

Orthodox Mormon: BYU fan.
How to recognize these people (according to Ute fan): These "zoobs" are advanced in age, wear braided belts and free T-shirts commemorating 1984 (Zoobs don't buy merch), watch BYU games using their brother in laws' account info (BYU's national fanbase doesn't pay for cable), and when attending a game (using Groupon discount) brings sack lunches for the family and crossstitch/Twighlight books for his wife.

Fundamentalist Mormon: Accompanied to Costco by child bride with french braid, long dress, and uncomfortable shoes.

Cow: It moos and roots for USU.

I know where Provo is. The play was on "Atlantic Coast Conference" with the only the coastline being by the Salt Lake with Salt Lake City being the most identifiable municipality in proximity. I did enjoy reading the rest of the post.
(This post was last modified: 06-05-2013 09:47 PM by JRsec.)
06-05-2013 09:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #28
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-05-2013 08:12 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 08:24 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that he means that BYU would play 9 ACC games (14-5=9), which is more than 12/14 of the actual ACC teams play in a given year.
I intended it to be 5 games. Kind of hard to ask BYU to play 9 ACC games when no one else in the conference does. Then there's that whole distance issue.

Theoretically, BYU-ND could be the 5th game every three years to keep the rotation at exactly once every three years for the rest of the ACC, but I'd imagine Notre Dame's traditional rivals (i.e., Pitt, BC) would want to play Notre Dame in the "extra" game every third year.

I don't think that anyone in the ACC wants to lose a ND game for no reason (other than to help our Mormon friends to the west). It would take a LOT of free ski passes and designated driver weekends... a LOT.

"Since all ACC teams will be playing Notre Dame twice every six years, BYU could fill in two of the other four years."

I'm not sure how that would work with only 5 games/yr from BYU. If BYU is to fill the other two "open" slots for each team, then they would have to play 9 ACC games.

Either way, I don't really see a reason to play BYU on a regular basis. Nothing against BYU, but it's just too far away. A BYU-Pac-12 agreement or a BYU-Big XII agreement might work, but BYU-ACC just doesn't give the ACC anything. ACC teams have rivalries with SEC teams (GT, WF, FSU, Clemson, Miami, and UL), B1G teams (Syracuse, Pitt, and Miami), Big XII teams (Virginia Tech, Syracuse and Pitt), and ND (BC, Pitt, and Miami), and that's not even counting VT-aTm, which is a rivalry waiting to happen, and Syracuse-ND, which is a (one-way) rivalry waiting to happen. We aren't exactly hurting for quality teams to play. BYU would have to bring something elite. Although BYU is undoubtedly solid, I don't think that BYU has an elite team, following, or location (for recruiting).

BYU and UC would be a great move for the Big XII, though, and BYU would be a great addition to the Pac-12 as well (if they ever get over their no private religiously-affiliated school stance).
(This post was last modified: 06-05-2013 10:51 PM by nzmorange.)
06-05-2013 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #29
RE: An odd ACC idea
JR, that 32 team conference makes too much sense to ever happen. With Maryland's decision to go to the B1G, they drew the perfect geographical line to divide the ACC for such a purpose.
06-06-2013 11:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ChrisLords Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,639
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 336
I Root For: Virginia Tech
Location: Earth
Post: #30
RE: An odd ACC idea
Nah. I'm surprised this needs to be pointed out but BYU is not the same caliber of program as ND. I doubt a scheduling agreement with BYU would add a single dollar to the TV contract.
06-08-2013 02:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #31
RE: An odd ACC idea
In BYU's case, it wouldn't be about the money. It's about the viewing audience. There are a lot of Mormons, and not just in Utah. BYU is their university...
06-08-2013 10:23 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #32
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-08-2013 10:23 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  In BYU's case, it wouldn't be about the money. It's about the viewing audience. There are a lot of Mormons, and not just in Utah. BYU is their university...

I don't think that their following is that big. I realize that they are subsidizing Mormon TV, but they are still only making about $8 million/yr in TV money.
06-08-2013 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ChrisLords Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,639
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 336
I Root For: Virginia Tech
Location: Earth
Post: #33
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-08-2013 03:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(06-08-2013 10:23 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  In BYU's case, it wouldn't be about the money. It's about the viewing audience. There are a lot of Mormons, and not just in Utah. BYU is their university...

I don't think that their following is that big. I realize that they are subsidizing Mormon TV, but they are still only making about $8 million/yr in TV money.

Actually, I think the LDS subsidizes BYU athletics not the other way around.
06-08-2013 10:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #34
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-08-2013 10:15 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(06-08-2013 03:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(06-08-2013 10:23 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  In BYU's case, it wouldn't be about the money. It's about the viewing audience. There are a lot of Mormons, and not just in Utah. BYU is their university...
I don't think that their following is that big. I realize that they are subsidizing Mormon TV, but they are still only making about $8 million/yr in TV money.
Actually, I think the LDS subsidizes BYU athletics not the other way around.
You are correct, Chris... 04-cheers
06-08-2013 10:18 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,686
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #35
RE: An odd ACC idea
Actually, the line from BYU is that no mandated giving (I.e. the required 10% tithe) is used to fund athletics, although certain dual use facilities certainly are open to receiving funds from tithes. Athletic programs do benefit indirectly from church funding because the tuition that the scholarships cover is dirt cheap due to heavy tuition subsidization (this is also why the USNWR data look good for BYU- insanely discounted tuition = lots of applicants and very selective admissions).

BYU is independent because it is very much the best financial model for them (should have done it earlier IMO). Every conference expansion decision has been determined by finances, and this has been the case for BYU being left out as well (not primarily religious reasons). Larry Scott looked at the numbers, including the big demographic shifts that have been occurring in Utah (becoming a much less Mormon state very rapidly) and knew that BYU would not be the best option for delivering that market near term and especially long term. Money, not Sunday play or any other code for religion, is why the BigXii is looking elsewhere as well.
06-09-2013 12:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #36
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-08-2013 10:18 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-08-2013 10:15 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(06-08-2013 03:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(06-08-2013 10:23 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  In BYU's case, it wouldn't be about the money. It's about the viewing audience. There are a lot of Mormons, and not just in Utah. BYU is their university...
I don't think that their following is that big. I realize that they are subsidizing Mormon TV, but they are still only making about $8 million/yr in TV money.
Actually, I think the LDS subsidizes BYU athletics not the other way around.
You are correct, Chris... 04-cheers
Someone told me a few years ago that the LDS are behind approximately 1/4 of the businesses in the USA. They have the money... and they do have a national audience.
06-09-2013 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,686
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #37
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-09-2013 01:22 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(06-08-2013 10:18 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-08-2013 10:15 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(06-08-2013 03:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(06-08-2013 10:23 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  In BYU's case, it wouldn't be about the money. It's about the viewing audience. There are a lot of Mormons, and not just in Utah. BYU is their university...
I don't think that their following is that big. I realize that they are subsidizing Mormon TV, but they are still only making about $8 million/yr in TV money.
Actually, I think the LDS subsidizes BYU athletics not the other way around.
You are correct, Chris... 04-cheers
Someone told me a few years ago that the LDS are behind approximately 1/4 of the businesses in the USA. They have the money... and they do have a national audience.
And the Jews and Illuminati account for the other 75%?01-wingedeagle
06-09-2013 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #38
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-09-2013 12:10 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Actually, the line from BYU is that no mandated giving (I.e. the required 10% tithe) is used to fund athletics, although certain dual use facilities certainly are open to receiving funds from tithes. Athletic programs do benefit indirectly from church funding because the tuition that the scholarships cover is dirt cheap due to heavy tuition subsidization (this is also why the USNWR data look good for BYU- insanely discounted tuition = lots of applicants and very selective admissions).

BYU is independent because it is very much the best financial model for them (should have done it earlier IMO). Every conference expansion decision has been determined by finances, and this has been the case for BYU being left out as well (not primarily religious reasons). Larry Scott looked at the numbers, including the big demographic shifts that have been occurring in Utah (becoming a much less Mormon state very rapidly) and knew that BYU would not be the best option for delivering that market near term and especially long term. Money, not Sunday play or any other code for religion, is why the BigXii is looking elsewhere as well.
The BYU network is heavily funded by the church, since much of it's programming is church related. So while what you say may be true, it doesn't tell the whole story...

As for BYU being left out in conference realignment, some of that was their own decision. They had a chance to join the B12, but refused to play any games on Sunday, when many conference championships are played. So they ruled themselves out voluntarily, and it was for religious reasons that they did this.
06-09-2013 02:37 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,686
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #39
RE: An odd ACC idea
(06-09-2013 02:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-09-2013 12:10 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Actually, the line from BYU is that no mandated giving (I.e. the required 10% tithe) is used to fund athletics, although certain dual use facilities certainly are open to receiving funds from tithes. Athletic programs do benefit indirectly from church funding because the tuition that the scholarships cover is dirt cheap due to heavy tuition subsidization (this is also why the USNWR data look good for BYU- insanely discounted tuition = lots of applicants and very selective admissions).

BYU is independent because it is very much the best financial model for them (should have done it earlier IMO). Every conference expansion decision has been determined by finances, and this has been the case for BYU being left out as well (not primarily religious reasons). Larry Scott looked at the numbers, including the big demographic shifts that have been occurring in Utah (becoming a much less Mormon state very rapidly) and knew that BYU would not be the best option for delivering that market near term and especially long term. Money, not Sunday play or any other code for religion, is why the BigXii is looking elsewhere as well.
The BYU network is heavily funded by the church, since much of it's programming is church related. So while what you say may be true, it doesn't tell the whole story...

As for BYU being left out in conference realignment, some of that was their own decision. They had a chance to join the B12, but refused to play any games on Sunday, when many conference championships are played. So they ruled themselves out voluntarily, and it was for religious reasons that they did this.

The network infrastructure would count as a dual use asset, so could be funded directly. I think the whole Sunday play thing is a red herring- a convenient face-saving measure for all parties. If the money were right, there would be a work around.
06-09-2013 03:21 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.