(12-15-2014 03:44 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  But Irish football is in an Era of great decline!

ND won 12 games in 2012 and 9 in 2013 but is "in an Era of great decline!" ????

(12-15-2014 10:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 03:44 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  But Irish football is in an Era of great decline!

ND won 12 games in 2012 and 9 in 2013 but is "in an Era of great decline!" ????

W
W
W
W W
W W
W W W
W W W
W W W
W W W
W W W
W W W
W W W
12.9. 7

Gee, IDK, sure looks like decline... I guess if it's 5 wins in 2015 we'll know for sure?

(12-15-2014 02:58 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  I think it would come down to which one causes the least heartburn. Clemson, FSU, Syracuse, Pitt, VT, Miami would probably support WVU, but they would be just as happy with Cincy. UNC, UVa and Duke would be ok with Cincy, but VERY unhappy with WVU. Clemson and FSU would be VERY unhappy with UConn because of the perpetually pitiful football program. Cincy, who has good football and basketball, is the middle ground to keep the peace and it adds new territory for recruiting and cable subscribers for the ACC network (which WILL happen).

(12-15-2014 11:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Louisville would likely support Cinci over WV. Syracuse and Pitt as well as Miami and VT would likely support WV over Cinci, unless WV support would "rock the boat" too much. No need to cause undue friction within the league.

MD used to be the number one poison pill against WVa. Now that they are gone, that falls to UVa, Duke, and GT. From an internal process, VT and Pitt would have to be okay with WVa from the outset as they face the greatest impact on market area.

UNC being "against" WVa is just lip service from some UNC folks. UNC was the school that tried to get WVa and VT back with the group back in 1954 after MD, Duke, and Clemson pulled the football schools out of the SoCon. That's not really changed. Look at it from the standpoint of "who does the addition threaten?"

From a practical standpoint, a 16th is not needed and we can find a number of way to play with 15. WVa would be a good football and basketball addition that likely paid for itself, but it adds very little new market footprint.

If you are looking at teams that are AAC, MAC, etc., under a scenario where the ACC has to add a 16th, then there are only 4 to 5 viable options - Cincy, Navy, UConn, Tulane and Houston. While UConn is an option, we already know that BC, FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State, and GT (those that make their budgets based on football plus BC) are not going to vote for UConn. The football budget schools are not going to be high on Navy with the exception of ND and perhaps VT. We know that Tulane football sucks and that Tulane has deemphasized football not one, but twice over the past 60 years, however they are located in New Orleans and they are AAU. Houston is at best 5th/6th in the Texas market. That leaves Cincy who is 2nd/3rd in the Ohio Markets, 5th or so in the Indiana market, and 3rd or 4th in Ky - but they play good football and basketball.

Cincy stands out as the best option now, but as time goes on, that best option from a demographic standpoint could be Tulane or Houston, but can you trust Tulane? Will the State of Texas stomp on Houston somehow? Who knows?

(12-16-2014 01:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 10:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 03:44 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  But Irish football is in an Era of great decline!

ND won 12 games in 2012 and 9 in 2013 but is "in an Era of great decline!" ????

W
W
W
W W
W W
W W W
W W W
W W W
W W W
W W W
W W W
W W W
12.9. 7

Gee, IDK, sure looks like decline... I guess if it's 5 wins in 2015 we'll know for sure?

He said "great decline". Next year the Irish may win 10 or 11. Lets wait and see.

(12-16-2014 01:43 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 02:58 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  I think it would come down to which one causes the least heartburn. Clemson, FSU, Syracuse, Pitt, VT, Miami would probably support WVU, but they would be just as happy with Cincy. UNC, UVa and Duke would be ok with Cincy, but VERY unhappy with WVU. Clemson and FSU would be VERY unhappy with UConn because of the perpetually pitiful football program. Cincy, who has good football and basketball, is the middle ground to keep the peace and it adds new territory for recruiting and cable subscribers for the ACC network (which WILL happen).

(12-15-2014 11:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Louisville would likely support Cinci over WV. Syracuse and Pitt as well as Miami and VT would likely support WV over Cinci, unless WV support would "rock the boat" too much. No need to cause undue friction within the league.

MD used to be the number one poison pill against WVa. Now that they are gone, that falls to UVa, Duke, and GT. From an internal process, VT and Pitt would have to be okay with WVa from the outset as they face the greatest impact on market area.

UNC being "against" WVa is just lip service from some UNC folks. UNC was the school that tried to get WVa and VT back with the group back in 1954 after MD, Duke, and Clemson pulled the football schools out of the SoCon. That's not really changed. Look at it from the standpoint of "who does the addition threaten?"

From a practical standpoint, a 16th is not needed and we can find a number of way to play with 15. WVa would be a good football and basketball addition that likely paid for itself, but it adds very little new market footprint.

If you are looking at teams that are AAC, MAC, etc., under a scenario where the ACC has to add a 16th, then there are only 4 to 5 viable options - Cincy, Navy, UConn, Tulane and Houston. While UConn is an option, we already know that BC, FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State, and GT (those that make their budgets based on football plus BC) are not going to vote for UConn. The football budget schools are not going to be high on Navy with the exception of ND and perhaps VT. We know that Tulane football sucks and that Tulane has deemphasized football not one, but twice over the past 60 years, however they are located in New Orleans and they are AAU. Houston is at best 5th/6th in the Texas market. That leaves Cincy who is 2nd/3rd in the Ohio Markets, 5th or so in the Indiana market, and 3rd or 4th in Ky - but they play good football and basketball.

Cincy stands out as the best option now, but as time goes on, that best option from a demographic standpoint could be Tulane or Houston, but can you trust Tulane? Will the State of Texas stomp on Houston somehow? Who knows?

The fallacy is that we need new markets. Which we do not, in that the ACC already has more population than we can reach at this particular time. What the ACC needs is better saturation in the northeast and the south (below North Carolina).
The two schools that best serve the ACC to increase saturation in these two markets are West Virginia and South Carolina.

(12-15-2014 10:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 03:44 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  But Irish football is in an Era of great decline!

ND won 12 games in 2012 and 9 in 2013 but is "in an Era of great decline!" ????

Terry the below speaks millions about ND!

2014: 7-5; lost to FSU, AZ State (55-31), Northwestern, Louisville and USC (49-14).

2013: 9-4; lost to Michigan, Oklahoma, Pitt, and Stanford.

2012: 12-1; lost to Alabama 42-14!

2011: 8-5; lost to South Florida, Michigan, USC, Stanford and FSU

2010: 8-5; lost to Michigan, Michigan State, Stanford, Navy (35-17), and Tulsa

2009: 6-6; lost to Michigan, USC, Navy, Pitt, UConn and Stanford

2008: 7-6; lost to Michigan State, North Carolina, Pitt, Boston College, Syracuse, and USC (38-3)

2007: 3-9; lost to Georgia Tech (31-3), PSU (31-10), Michigan (38-0), Michigan State (31-14) , Purdue (33-19) , Boston College (27-14), USC (38-0), Navy (46-44), and Air Force (41-24)

2006: 10-3; lost to Michigan (47-21), USC (44-24) and LSU (41-14)

2005: 9-3, lost to Michigan State, USC and Ohio State.

2004: 6-6; lost to BYU, Purdue (41-16), Boston College, Pitt, USC (41-10) and Oregon State (38-21)

2003: 5-7; lost to Michigan (38-0), Michigan State, Purdue (23-10), Pitt (20-14), USC (45-14), Boston College), FSU (37-0), and Syracuse (38-12)

The ACC's marketing situation is much different from other conferences, in that we have to compete with other conferences within our own footprint except in North Carolina, Virginia, New York and Massachusetts. Because of that we must have better penetration in our marginal areas.

(12-16-2014 04:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC's marketing situation is much different from other conferences, in that we have to compete with other conferences within our own footprint except in North Carolina, Virginia, New York and Massachusetts. Because of that we must have better penetration in our marginal areas.

But didn't you just suggest WVU and South Carolina? West Virginia is a new market, correct? Meanwhile, the least important state in the ACC geographically is South Carolina. So I don't see why that helps that much.

If the ACC wants better penetration in their key states, then Georgia, Florida, and Penn State are the programs they should consider.

Cheers,
Neil

Talking about markets in a directly monetizing TV context is stupid. Fans are what matters.

Other than as it relates to recruiting, markets don't matter. They haven't mattered in the past. And, they won't matter in the future.

(12-16-2014 05:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 04:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC's marketing situation is much different from other conferences, in that we have to compete with other conferences within our own footprint except in North Carolina, Virginia, New York and Massachusetts. Because of that we must have better penetration in our marginal areas.

But didn't you just suggest WVU and South Carolina? West Virginia is a new market, correct? Meanwhile, the least important state in the ACC geographically is South Carolina. So I don't see why that helps that much.

If the ACC wants better penetration in their key states, then Georgia, Florida, and Penn State are the programs they should consider.

Cheers,
Neil

1. Florida was looking to move in the 70's, they are no longer looking to move. Penn State might have moved in the 80's, but MD blocked it, MD blocked Florida and PSU in fact. Georgia has NEVER made an overture to the ACC and it's not a social match.


2. If you look at the geography of West Va, you will note that Pitt, VT, and VA DMA's as well as large broadcast stations penetrate most of West Va. The only part of West Va., that is "new" would the be Huntington area which bleeds over into Ohio.

3. XLance - do you think the exit of MD is enough for SC to even consider such a move? IIRC it was UNC and Duke to a lesser degree, they hated, even though the big on court fights were with MD. After being screwed with the 800 SAT rule, do you really think the PTB in Columbia would risk an association with Duke, BC, ND, UVa, WF, and GT. When Spurrier is gone, SC football will sink again.

(12-16-2014 06:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Talking about markets in a directly monetizing TV context is stupid. Fans are what matters.

Other than as it relates to recruiting, markets don't matter. They haven't mattered in the past. And, they won't matter in the future.

The B10 says markets matter - Rutgers and MD agree, they damn sure were not added for their fans.

(12-16-2014 07:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 06:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Talking about markets in a directly monetizing TV context is stupid. Fans are what matters.

Other than as it relates to recruiting, markets don't matter. They haven't mattered in the past. And, they won't matter in the future.

The B10 says markets matter - Rutgers and MD agree, they damn sure were not added for their fans.

No. The B1G says PSU matters, and everyone on the planet agrees. PSU wants games close to home and games in front of rich alumni donors, not Midwestern corn fields. Notice the relative popularity of joining the ACC in GTS' poll? That isn't a random chance.

Also, removing UMD, which served as a link between the north (BC, SU, Pitt, and ND) and the south (UNC, NCSU, WF, FSU, GT, and Clemson) made the ACC less stable, thus increasing the possibility that the B1G could raid it and take schools with large fan bases in good recruiting areas (i.e. UNC). Notice Gordon Gee's comment about driving a wedge in the ACC?

Markets are irrelevant. Fans matter. If that wasn't the case, why did that Wisconsin (?) AD make that comment about PSU getting wandering eyes? Why was Nebraska added?

(12-16-2014 07:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 06:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Talking about markets in a directly monetizing TV context is stupid. Fans are what matters.

Other than as it relates to recruiting, markets don't matter. They haven't mattered in the past. And, they won't matter in the future.

The B10 says markets matter - Rutgers and MD agree, they damn sure were not added for their fans.

The Big 10 has a conference network, we don't.

We were touted as a possible bridge for the Big 12, I think we fill the role pretty well in the ACC as well.

(12-16-2014 07:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 06:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Talking about markets in a directly monetizing TV context is stupid. Fans are what matters.

Other than as it relates to recruiting, markets don't matter. They haven't mattered in the past. And, they won't matter in the future.

The B10 says markets matter - Rutgers and MD agree, they damn sure were not added for their fans.

The Big 10 has a conference network, we don't.

It doesn't matter. As with any channel, people have to be willing to A) pay for access to the channel, and/or B) buy products advertised on the channel (and thus increase the value of the advertisement time) for the channel to make money. Without fans, both carriage rates and viewership are low, driving down the channel's revenue. If cable companies could just jack up carriage rates just by adding content (as opposed to interesting content), MACtion would be extremely valuable. But, it isn't because nobody cares because there are very few MAC fans in the world (compared to the number of ACC/B1G/SEC/Pac 12/Big XII fans). Similarly, if networks could make money just by putting stuff on the air, FS1 would get much better ratings and advertising revenue. However, that isn't the case because their content agreements doesn't give them access to enough compelling match-ups involving teams with large fan bases.

When the ACC sells content to ESPN, the ACC is compensated for the price of the next best alternative, plus the added value that the ACC creates in both advertising revenue and carriage rates. Both of those are purely products of willing to be flexible with scheduling and inherent fan support, not geography (except to the extent that it affects fan support).

So, 99.9% of conversations about "markets" are deeply flawed and based on economic assumptions which are very far from reality.

(12-16-2014 07:52 PM)Dasville Wrote:  We were touted as a possible bridge for the Big 12, I think we fill the role pretty well in the ACC as well.

Yes, UL gives southern schools games that they can stomach, while doing the same for northern schools. UL also has the added benefits of having extremely strong fan support (and thus is good for TV negotiations), not over-crowing weaker northern football recruiting grounds, and being on amicable terms with the northern ACC schools. The fact that a strong UL is a thorn in the B1G's weakening recruiting side icing on the cake.

Maryland & Rutgers were added for their huge fan bases, LMFAO! They're fan bases are extremely limited due to all the pro sports surrounding them. They were added for their markets to bolster the B1G network payout plain & simple. Making Penn St happy was an added bonus.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

(12-18-2014 11:50 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Maryland & Rutgers were added for their huge fan bases, LMFAO! They're fan bases are extremely limited due to all the pro sports surrounding them. They were added for their markets to bolster the B1G network payout plain & simple. Making Penn St happy was an added bonus.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Nobody said that they were added for *their* fan bases (my post is below and as you can see I never claimed that either UMD or Ru had huge fan bases). Those schools were added for PSU's huge fan base (as well as other concerns which are beyond the scope of TV money). Look at who donates to PSU and where they live if you don't believe me. Also, NJ and DC are great for recruiting, athletic and academic and, at least in UMD's case, created the potential possibility of additional ACC raids.

(12-16-2014 07:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...The B1G says PSU matters, and everyone on the planet agrees. PSU wants games close to home and games in front of rich alumni donors, not Midwestern corn fields. Notice the relative popularity of joining the ACC in GTS' poll? That isn't a random chance.

Also, removing UMD, which served as a link between the north (BC, SU, Pitt, and ND) and the south (UNC, NCSU, WF, FSU, GT, and Clemson) made the ACC less stable, thus increasing the possibility that the B1G could raid it and take schools with large fan bases in good recruiting areas (i.e. UNC). Notice Gordon Gee's comment about driving a wedge in the ACC?

Markets are irrelevant. Fans matter. If that wasn't the case, why did that Wisconsin (?) AD make that comment about PSU getting wandering eyes? Why was Nebraska added?

Feel free to come up with an economic argument that proves me wrong. If you disagree with me, then explain how you think value is/was created.

Imagine how different the world would look if UMD had not jumped to the B1G and PSU had jumped to the ACC. That, combined with the ever-present threat of ND going all in for football would dramatically alter the balance of power in the collegiate landscape.

(12-18-2014 11:50 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Maryland & Rutgers were added for their huge fan bases, LMFAO! They're fan bases are extremely limited due to all the pro sports surrounding them. They were added for their markets to bolster the B1G network payout plain & simple. Making Penn St happy was an added bonus.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

The B10's current model values the TV sets in NJ and Maryland far beyond their fan bases. MD has a decent base, Rutgers not so much. But those addition the B10 are about TV money and giving Penn State more reason not to feel like they are on an island.

The ACC's current model does not yet prioritize a network, but we know it will in the future. That network is not likely to be as important to the ACC as B10, but it will matter. Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville all help with that as they stick the ACC's tentacle into areas that had not ACC home presence.

We ALL know the ideal ACC addition for 16th is Penn State. We all know that MD help to blow that up and if you are old enough to remember MD's existential conference actions going back to the 1950's, you know why they did it - you know that MD did not want FSU, you know that MD did not want ND, you know that MD did not want to be southernmost ACC school in a northern ACC division.

While adding a huge rabid fan base sounds great, it's not great if that fan base is not attached to a school that the nation or region will watch. South Carolina for example is the poster child for football and basketball mediocrity over the past 80 years, yet they will put 80K people in their football stands at Williams Bryce.

Test national ratings and you will see that Clemson beats SC - even when Clemson falls into Clemsoning, people outside the region will watch Clemson. Now NC State, UNC, Clemson, GT, Duke, and WF would all profit at the football gate by having SC back in the fold. Some of State's most memorable games are with South Carolina. But does South Carolina add what the ACC needs now?

West Virginia with their weak admission standards and their well known couch burners were the original de-stabilizing force in the Southern Conference in 1952. No one likes their airport. No one likes a night game there. However, they do poke a finger in MD's eye in DC, and they have competitive Football and Basketball programs.

Once you go past Penn State, and Texas - you are in a world populated by West Va, South Carolina, and perhaps schools like Vandy, Northwestern, Purdue, (schools that can not compete year in and year out on the football field win the SEC or B10 and don't have a basketball program so good that they dominate those leagues)

Then you are down to a set of schools that add something with that something being an extension of the ACC tentacle and a future network outlet into virgin territory, that's when you get to Cincy, Tulane, and Houston - three schools with acceptable academics, three schools that open a new market, even if they are not the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd team in that market and three schools that can play football and have recruits in their state. Then you have Navy

But the question was who would be 16th if you had to have a 16th.

The ideal 16th was one of the two schools that approached us in the 1970's and early 1980's - Florida and Penn State.

But the ACC doesn't need a 16th school.

If the playoff if de-regulated we can go forward with 15 school just fine.

Personally I would like to see three divisions of 5 so that you have three division titles, and you could have the best two of the three play, or perhaps further down the road have a playoff with the three division winners and a wild card. - That would be fun.

Let's look at this year with this year's records:

ACC South

Miami
FSU Division Champ 1st Seed
GT Wild Card Seeded 4th
Clemson
WF

ACC Central

UNC
Duke Division Champ 2nd Seed
NCSU
UVA
VT

ACC North

ND
Louisville Division Champ 3rd Seed
Pitt
Syracuse
BC

GT plays at FSU and Louisville plays at Duke (perhaps borrowing NC State's stadium depending on ticket demand)

Then the winners meet in Charlotte. Yes it adds a 14th game for two teams. Yes divisions can be tweeked instead of North, Central, and South you could have West, SE, NE, etc.

My point is we don't need 16 unless the 16th actually brings some real value to the other schools.

The other issue is that the two best teams in the three divisions get an extra home game for their fans and tangible bonus that should offset travel costs to the final in Charlotte.

I think this helps to cure FSU's long time complaint about traveling to Charlotte and losing money. Moreover, it allows schools in the other divisions to play for something and keeps four schools playing for something to the very end of the season. You can also allow a school to compete with less than a full 8 game slate, but have the rule that they have to sweep their division to qualify as the champion of that division.

If/when the ACC gets its own cable network, there are teams which might make sense to add from a TV market point of view (e.g. Cincinnati => Ohio market). However, without that revenue model I'm not sure any non-P5 team makes sense (and TBH, a lot of P5 teams wouldn't pay their own way, either).

Just my 2 cents.