(07-17-2014 11:53 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 10:37 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 10:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 09:31 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 09:30 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I guess you're unfamiliar with partnerships and joint ventures as well. There's always a "lesser party" involved somehow. Hell, I work with several that don't do a damn thing but they get paid about the same as me and have the same benefits.

That's exactly what socialism does.

I think you have a rather novel definition of socialism. E.g., by your logic, since I am the breadwinner of my family and my wife doesn't work, we are engaging in 'socialism'.

But socialism refers to a country-wide system, like when an entire economy is based on wealth redistribution, it doesn't refer to micro-level arrangements like partnerships and the like.

And it particularly doesn't apply to founders of such enterprises. I just checked the ACC website, and guess what? Wake's "join date" is May 8, 1953, the same as North Carolina's. They created the ACC, so it is rather silly to think that in a "capitalist" arrangement they'd be replaced by someone else. At the least, they'd have to be bought out, and agree to be bought out. That's capitalism.

Call it what you want but when a group decides to join and split amounts equally disregarding who brings in the cash, that's SOCIALISM. So when the ACC decided to split tv money evenly that's socialism not capitalism

I can't believe you're trying to make this argument. In a free society the ACC is free to associate with Wake Forest and they've CLEARLY chosen to do so. Even though North Carolina is saturated with ACC schools and they could perhaps broaden their footprint & increase their market presence with say... Cincy or Memphis they've decided they like to be associated with Wake Forest more. That is not socialism in any way, shape or form considering we're not talking about a system which is forced upon you.

I call it socialism because they are choosing yo split the money from tv equally even though they are not all bringing in the same revenue. That my friend is socialism.

Now if you look at the MWC where some of the tv money is determined by who plays in those TV games and is not shared equally regardless on how much you bring in that's more like capitalism.

Texas having their own Longhorn Network and not sharing with the rest of the Big12 is more like capitalism

(07-17-2014 03:03 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 02:51 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 02:49 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Why isn't it fair? We had the same chance to buy tickets as the Razorpigs and they outnumbered us 5:1. If we really travel as well as we claim you'd think we had a better showing even if Arkansas borders Memphis. In all honesty I was pretty disappointed in our showing and I was there.

We're over 800 miles away. They're less than 4 hours. Its not a good comparison.

Would be like us going to the Belk Bowl.

I was just using it as an example since we like to chest-beat about being a great travelling fan base. The tickets were there for the taking if fans wanted to go bad enough. 5:1 is pretty bad, regardless. Look up any G5 vs P5 matchup in a bowl and I'd bet the showing in the stands is fairly similar.

Ticket City Bowl, played in Texas. Houston (who had an amazing season) vs Penn State (in the middle of a scandal) yet it looked like half the crowd was PSU fans.

Still, 10k isn't a bad showing for the Pirates. Had way more the year before against UK. Over 30k to the peach bowl in '91. That's not that bad.

(07-17-2014 03:56 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I call it socialism because they are choosing yo split the money from tv equally even though they are not all bringing in the same revenue. That my friend is socialism.

Now if you look at the MWC where some of the tv money is determined by who plays in those TV games and is not shared equally regardless on how much you bring in that's more like capitalism.

Texas having their own Longhorn Network and not sharing with the rest of the Big12 is more like capitalism

You just wrecked your own argument by including the word "choosing."

(07-17-2014 06:35 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 03:56 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I call it socialism because they are choosing yo split the money from tv equally even though they are not all bringing in the same revenue. That my friend is socialism.

Now if you look at the MWC where some of the tv money is determined by who plays in those TV games and is not shared equally regardless on how much you bring in that's more like capitalism.

Texas having their own Longhorn Network and not sharing with the rest of the Big12 is more like capitalism

You just wrecked your own argument by including the word "choosing."

Because socialism is never chosen. Tell that yo the Scandinavian countries.

And I would love to see Clemson tell the ACC they don't want to split their tv money equally. How do you think that would go?

(07-17-2014 08:41 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 08:38 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 08:21 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:46 PM)F-V Pirate Wrote:  What does everyone feel it would take for this conference to be considered a power conference and do you feel that will happen

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Getting a contract to one of the big 6 bowl games where you'll send a team every year no matter what. Like the other P5.

Aside from that, nothing.

And that will take a LOT more fans from all the G5 conference. Fan bases are what this all boils down to. Without lots of fans the bowls and networks aren't willing to make the financial risk which is completely fair IMHO. I'm an ECU football fan but I'm a bigger fan of capitalism.

Yes but if you are a fan of capitalism then you should be upset that ECU with a larger fan base it's kept out of those bowls while Wake Forest with a smaller one is allowed to participate.

there is no way we get the p5 invite its about money they don't wanna share money with us they want for themselves.things will stay as they are they don't care if we feel like we're at g5

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

cubanbull - It's not socialism. Each fully integrated school is effectively an equal equity owner of a conference. When you have equal ownership in a business, it is perfectly within a capitalistic society to split revenue equally. Note that many conferences don't just grant you a full equity share immediately - see the Big Ten with its additions and the Big 12 with West Virginia. It's no different than any other business that has 10 to 14 equal equity partners - there's nothing socialistic about that at all. Whether an equity owner is as valuable as another equity owner is irrelevant. Paul Allen barely contributed anything of substance to Microsoft after its founding, but by being there in the very beginning (like, say, Wake Forest in the ACC), he had more equity in the company than anyone other than Bill Gates and his net worth reflects that. This is pure capitalism at its finest.

(07-18-2014 12:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  cubanbull - It's not socialism. Each fully integrated school is effectively an equal equity owner of a conference. When you have equal ownership in a business, it is perfectly within a capitalistic society to split revenue equally.

Don't bother, I tried to explain this to him two days ago. It's a particularly weird idea when applied to Wake Forest, since they are literally a FOUNDER of the ACC.

Hello, this is my first post. I've been lurking on this board for a couple months, curious about the development of this new/re-arranged league, but I finally decided to contribute. I'm an App State grad and come from a family of Florida State fans and alumni, but I'm interested in the ACC, the American, the Big East, and college sports in general. I hope that in anything I post, I will convey reason and fairness, never "trolling," even for those who disagree with me.

Anyway, just one man's opinion, but I think there are a few things that signify a "Power Conference," which I think the American Conference could achieve, but not without a lot of on-the-field success and a lot of luck on its side. For instance, Cincinnati, UCF, ECU, UConn, etc. would all have to stay in the league long term and not get picked off by the Big 12 or ACC.

One of the things, and perhaps most obvious, that would signify the American as one of the "Power Six" and not part of the Group of Five would be if it was included among autonomous conferences in NCAA legislation. Going by the info in the other thread, the Power 5 will be able to enact legislation without the rest of Division 1's approval. This legislation could be enacted by only getting 60% of P5 members' votes or by getting 3 of the 5 leagues' approval. Other leagues could adopt the P5's legislation for themselves, but they couldn't stop the P5 leagues from creating and enacting it themselves. For the American to become part of a "Power Six," it would have to become part of those other five leagues, so that 60% of Power conference members' votes, INCLUDING THE AMERICAN but not other G5, FCS, or non-football schools, would have be required for autonomous legislation to pass. Alternatively, autonomous legislation would have to be approved by 4 of 6 autonomous leagues, including the American Conference, rather than 3 of the 5 that don't include the AAC. Now, I have no idea how the American could be included in the autonomous governance structure, but it would have to be in one way or the other. Otherwise, the league will remain, fairly or unfairly, associated with the MAC, C-USA, the Sun Belt, and the MW.

Secondly, the league would have to have a television/media package comparable to Power Five conferences. As Stewart Mandel wrote recently, that money will be necessary in order for the American to retain its best coaches from venturing off to more lucrative jobs in other leagues.

Third, the league would have to get television ratings on par with other Power Five leagues. It may only take one or two teams to do this. Most of the ACC doesn't generate a great amount of viewership, but Florida State, Miami, and, sometimes, Clemson help the ACC get on Saturday nights on ABC and get some of the most watched games each year. Those games flash up "ACC on ESPN," and implant in the minds of viewers that it's a power conference, regardless of how much depth the league actually has or doesn't have.

Fourth, the league has to have an automatic berth in the New Year's Six bowls. Most likely, it would need a direct berth into the Peach, Cotton, or Fiesta every year, much as the other leagues have with the Rose, Sugar, and Orange.

In basketball, the American is already a "Power Conference." Yes, the teams at the bottom need to improve, but the basketball league is definitely the equivalent of a Power Five league for football. Basketball isn't where the American truly needs to prove itself. In my mind, it is one of seven power conferences: ACC, American, Big Ten, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-12. I know some will disagree with me on that list, but those seven are clearly distinguished from the other leagues.

In football, the American is roughly where the Atlantic 10 is for basketball. It's very strong at the top, but pretty weak at the bottom. It is repeatedly the source of other raiding conferences (Xavier, Butler, Temple, and Charlotte have all left in the past two years.) It is striving to be included among the power conferences in its premier sport but still falls short, fairly or unfairly, in the eyes of the public. It has impressive support locally but doesn't generate very much attention nationally, and the ratings show this compared with power conferences.

I do think the American's exposure on ESPN will help a ton towards its goal of being part of the "Power Six," but it has a ways to go.

Honestly that was very thought out and informative. Great opening comments.