(04-25-2015 10:08 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 09:42 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

Cue the ACC cheerleaders.

Perhaps FSU would pay more attention to a fellow State Institution that thought The Big Ten was the better fit, you know...the other school that objected to the ACC GoR besides FSU? Nah, they would believe you instead!

Do you mean the other state institution that just accrued a massive deficit, got blackballed by virtually every rival they have, PO'd their alumni and boosters who very publicly complained, and is located in a completely different part of the country?

#BIGTENBIGDENIAL

I actually have facts. Go back to your pitiful ACC forum that teaches you to act like this.

(04-25-2015 10:06 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  If it's any consolation, though, I don't think that the revenue gap is driven by a network/no network. I think it's structural. Some ACC schools, like Wake Forest, generate less TV interest than their counterparts in other conferences. The delivery method won't change that fact. it's a product of the size of the school and the over-saturation of the area.

This is a critical, and correct, point. The ACC doesn't make less media and bowl money than the B1G or SEC because of poor negotiating or poor delivery structure. The ACC is just fundamentally, or as you say 'structurally', inferior to those conferences in terms of the brand appeal of their football schools, and hence will always get paid somewhat less.

That is frustrating to FSU, because FSU has a football brand worthy of the B1G or SEC. But as you note, there are advantages to FSU football in being in the ACC, namely a much smoother path to the playoffs.

For example, look at 2013. That FSU team looked like a juggernaut, and slaughtered their way through the ACC schedule and into the national title game, coming close to setting records for average margin of victory. But in the title game they trailed almost the entire time, and needed a lot of luck to barely squeak by an Auburn opponent that was probably the worst SEC champion of the previous 6-7 years. Auburn beat them in every statistical category except, barely, the final score.

As good as FSU was in 2013, they almost surely would not have made the BCS title game had they played in the SEC. And as you say, winning titles is their calling-card.

(04-25-2015 10:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No, the ACCIAC is no where near the same as the CIC. Hilarious that you had the nerve to say that I bury my head in the sand and shamelessly make up stuff where as you say the ACCIAC is similar to the CIC? What a joke.

The base funding for the ACCIAC comes from.....the ACC Football Championship Game. So funny that you actually want to say it is equal.

http://acciac.org/about-the-acciac/


Meanwhile the CIC gets their money from many various sources including....

https://www.cic.net/news-and-publication...foundation


Just stop with your psychological projection issues.

Actually, you are both wrong. Both organizations are ridiculously overrated by sports message board fans who know nothing about how these things actually work (and I use to be one of those that championed the value of the CIC).

Cue Crazy Paco for another smack down on the limited value of both the CIC and the ACCIAC.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-25-2015 10:11 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 10:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  UNDERLINED: No. The ACC is a stronger academic conference with an undergrad focus (and a regional presence). FSU has an undergrad focus. As such, the B1G would be a significant downgrade.

Despite the talk about academics, and no doubt that matters, when it comes to conferences, athletics is still the #1 consideration, since they are fundamentally athletic entities.

And in terms of what counts, money and market power, the B1G is a much stronger conference than the ACC.

Among the ACC schools, I imagine only the Carolina Core would prefer to remain in the ACC if the B1G came calling. If Maryland - a school with far deeper ACC roots and much greater athletic and academic similarity with the ACC core than FSU - can leave for the B1G, FSU almost surely would.

Right. You're talking about $5 million in TV money. Do you have any idea how big donations are? PSU and TAMU both saw swings to over $200 million in donations (to the university - not just the AD) due to athletics (PSU scandal and TAMU heisman). TAMU actually saw a $300 million INCREASE in donations when Johnny Football won the Heisman. Do you *really* think that $5 MM matters to the university compared to upsetting the status quo of FSU's athletic dominance?

I do know. Despite the huge increase in media and CFP money, fans in the stands and their donations is still by far the biggest pool of money the top schools generate.

And in that regard, remember, the flipside of dominating a weaker conference is that winning it doesn't produce much in the way of fan pride, and hence donations. FSU fans I know (and I know a lot) treat ACC football titles as doorstops, I've never heard any of them brag about one. In contrast, winning an SEC football title is always a big deal, even to Alabama.

I bet that all things considered, fan interest and donations would jump significantly at FSU were they to join the SEC*. All of their games would hard sell-outs, rather than the thousands of empties that often are seen at their football games for ACC games. Fans would simply care a lot more thanks to the higher-profile and culturally similar schools visiting their stadium. It wouldn't just be the LSUs and Auburns that produced the hard sellouts, the South Carolinas and Ole Misses would too.

Maryland has seen a nice boost in both since joining the B1G. I expect FSU would see the same in the SEC.

* The B1G is just too far-fetched to seriously contemplate.

(04-25-2015 10:18 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No, the ACCIAC is no where near the same as the CIC. Hilarious that you had the nerve to say that I bury my head in the sand and shamelessly make up stuff where as you say the ACCIAC is similar to the CIC? What a joke.

The base funding for the ACCIAC comes from.....the ACC Football Championship Game. So funny that you actually want to say it is equal.

http://acciac.org/about-the-acciac/


Meanwhile the CIC gets their money from many various sources including....

https://www.cic.net/news-and-publication...foundation


Just stop with your psychological projection issues.

Actually, you are both wrong. Both organizations are ridiculously overrated by sports message board fans who know nothing about how these things actually work (and I use to be one of those that championed the value of the CIC).

Cue Crazy Paco for another smack down on the limited value of both the CIC and the ACCIAC.

Cheers,
Neil

Oh I cant wait for PACO to come along and try to say that the ACCIAC is similar to the CIC. Do people over sell the CIC around these parts? Absolutely.

My argument was about the ACCIAC being equivalent to the CIC. Nice try Mr. Syracuse. Looks like you learned how to create strawmen as well.

Maybe you need to go back to your ACC forum too.

Read for yourself. It's not that hard.

https://www.cic.net/docs/default-source/...f?sfvrsn=5

(04-25-2015 10:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No, the ACCIAC is no where near the same as the CIC. Hilarious that you had the nerve to say that I bury my head in the sand and shamelessly make up stuff where as you say the ACCIAC is similar to the CIC? What a joke.

The base funding for the ACCIAC comes from.....the ACC Football Championship Game. So funny that you actually want to say it is equal.

http://acciac.org/about-the-acciac/


Meanwhile the CIC gets their money from many various sources including....

https://www.cic.net/news-and-publication...foundation


Just stop with your psychological projection issues.


As I have said many times, if FSU ever joined The Big Ten it would be in coordination with some other schools from the ACC too. So how about you stay on track with your rambling and try to keep up instead of just continuously creating your own "facts" and attributing straw men to me?

Seriously guy, just go back to the ACC forum where you get nothing but applause and pats on your ass.

...and in your delusional world, the ACCIAC doesn't accept grant funding? I have news for you, bud, all of these organizations do. The ACC one, the SEC one, and the B1G one are all virtually identical. The only difference in funding is that the CIC charges its members a steeper membership fee. But there is no tangible difference. They are all 99% the same. They pool buying, share study abroad, and pool IT expertise.

IMHO, the only one of these organizations that actually does something that directly impacts education in a material way is the Colonial Group Data Exchange, and that has nothing to do with athletics.

Show the report then if it's equal. Come on big talker. You are backpedaling. I'm guessing you really only have insults because you are a child mentally around here, so used to being coddled on the ACC forum.

(04-25-2015 10:18 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No, the ACCIAC is no where near the same as the CIC. Hilarious that you had the nerve to say that I bury my head in the sand and shamelessly make up stuff where as you say the ACCIAC is similar to the CIC? What a joke.

The base funding for the ACCIAC comes from.....the ACC Football Championship Game. So funny that you actually want to say it is equal.

http://acciac.org/about-the-acciac/


Meanwhile the CIC gets their money from many various sources including....

https://www.cic.net/news-and-publication...foundation


Just stop with your psychological projection issues.

Actually, you are both wrong. Both organizations are ridiculously overrated by sports message board fans who know nothing about how these things actually work (and I use to be one of those that championed the value of the CIC).

Cue Crazy Paco for another smack down on the limited value of both the CIC and the ACCIAC.

Cheers,
Neil

I've actually frigging worked in the CIC. What specifically have I said that's wrong? Please enlighten me.

(04-25-2015 10:24 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Read for yourself. It's not that hard.

https://www.cic.net/docs/default-source/...f?sfvrsn=5

Trying to prove your point that some posters "over sell the CIC around these parts?"

I have read all I need to read about the CIC. It's vastly overrated. On the other hand, most don't even know the ACCIAC exists so it's harder for that organization to be as "overrated" in terms of the general public. Only on message boards where posters want to make it the equivalent of the CIC does it become overrated.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-25-2015 10:31 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:18 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No, the ACCIAC is no where near the same as the CIC. Hilarious that you had the nerve to say that I bury my head in the sand and shamelessly make up stuff where as you say the ACCIAC is similar to the CIC? What a joke.

The base funding for the ACCIAC comes from.....the ACC Football Championship Game. So funny that you actually want to say it is equal.

http://acciac.org/about-the-acciac/


Meanwhile the CIC gets their money from many various sources including....

https://www.cic.net/news-and-publication...foundation


Just stop with your psychological projection issues.

Actually, you are both wrong. Both organizations are ridiculously overrated by sports message board fans who know nothing about how these things actually work (and I use to be one of those that championed the value of the CIC).

Cue Crazy Paco for another smack down on the limited value of both the CIC and the ACCIAC.

Cheers,
Neil

I've actually frigging worked in the CIC. What specifically have I said that's wrong? Please enlighten me.

Well, for one you used the "word" frigging. That is most certainly wrong.

(04-25-2015 10:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Show the report then if it's equal. Come on big talker. You are backpedaling. I'm guessing you really only have insults because you are a child mentally around here, so used to being coddled on the ACC forum.

I don't need a report. Read the services provided section of the web sites.

Backpedaling? Once again, stop shamelessly making things up. Please, try to maintain a nexus with reality. I get that you are insecure about your Midwestern conference which is literally rusting away, but you are getting crazy.

(04-25-2015 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Show the report then if it's equal. Come on big talker. You are backpedaling. I'm guessing you really only have insults because you are a child mentally around here, so used to being coddled on the ACC forum.

I don't need a report. Read the services provided section of the web sites.

Backpedaling? Once again, stop shamelessly making things up. Please, try to maintain a nexus with reality. I get that you are insecure about your Midwestern conference which is literally rusting away, but you are getting crazy.

Oh this is hilarious, you have ZERO numbers. Look at you, you have nothing but insults. I am winning, you are losing. Go back to the ACC forum where you can get some hugs in the kiddie pool.

The Big Ten is rusting away guys!

You are so easy.

(04-25-2015 10:32 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:24 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Read for yourself. It's not that hard.

https://www.cic.net/docs/default-source/...f?sfvrsn=5

Trying to prove your point that some posters "over sell the CIC around these parts?"

I have read all I need to read about the CIC. It's vastly overrated. On the other hand, most don't even know the ACCIAC exists so it's harder for that organization to be as "overrated" in terms of the general public. Only on message boards where posters want to make it the equivalent of the CIC does it become overrated.

Cheers,
Neil

See Mr. nzmorange, even Neil says you are wrong when you try to say the ACCIAC is equivalent to the CIC.

(04-25-2015 10:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:11 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 10:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  UNDERLINED: No. The ACC is a stronger academic conference with an undergrad focus (and a regional presence). FSU has an undergrad focus. As such, the B1G would be a significant downgrade.

Despite the talk about academics, and no doubt that matters, when it comes to conferences, athletics is still the #1 consideration, since they are fundamentally athletic entities.

And in terms of what counts, money and market power, the B1G is a much stronger conference than the ACC.

Among the ACC schools, I imagine only the Carolina Core would prefer to remain in the ACC if the B1G came calling. If Maryland - a school with far deeper ACC roots and much greater athletic and academic similarity with the ACC core than FSU - can leave for the B1G, FSU almost surely would.

Right. You're talking about $5 million in TV money. Do you have any idea how big donations are? PSU and TAMU both saw swings to over $200 million in donations (to the university - not just the AD) due to athletics (PSU scandal and TAMU heisman). TAMU actually saw a $300 million INCREASE in donations when Johnny Football won the Heisman. Do you *really* think that $5 MM matters to the university compared to upsetting the status quo of FSU's athletic dominance?

I do know. Despite the huge increase in media and CFP money, fans in the stands and their donations is still by far the biggest pool of money the top schools generate.

And in that regard, remember, the flipside of dominating a weaker conference is that winning it doesn't produce much in the way of fan pride, and hence donations. FSU fans I know (and I know a lot) treat ACC football titles as doorstops, I've never heard any of them brag about one. In contrast, winning an SEC football title is always a big deal, even to Alabama.

I bet that all things considered, fan interest and donations would jump significantly at FSU were they to join the SEC*. All of their games would hard sell-outs, rather than the thousands of empties that often are seen at their football games for ACC games. Fans would simply care a lot more thanks to the higher-profile and culturally similar schools visiting their stadium. It wouldn't just be the LSUs and Auburns that produced the hard sellouts, the South Carolinas and Ole Misses would too.

Maryland has seen a nice boost in both since joining the B1G. I expect FSU would see the same in the SEC.

* The B1G is just too far-fetched to seriously contemplate.

The problem is that FSU wouldn't win the conference every year. What happens when they finish 4-5th in the conference most years? What happens when they can't sell recruits on the idea BCS bowls EVERY year? Then FSU becomes middle of the pack in their conference and completely overshadowed by UF. How is that going to impact donations?

Yes, I get that the SEC media deal is better than the ACC's and I get that bowl payouts and attendance are better, too. But you're talking about several million dollars. I'm talking about millions. FSU fans generally say they want to be in the SEC, but then when they think about the implications of that move, they back off the ledge.

Every school has a different situation. Keep that in mind. I'm not saying that the SEC < ACC in the abstract. It isn't. I'm simply saying that FSU has a special situation. If it was Clemson that we were talking about, then yes, they would be way better off in the SEC. However, like I said in an earlier post, Clemson is an argument for another thread and I don't think that the SEC wants them.

(04-25-2015 10:35 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Show the report then if it's equal. Come on big talker. You are backpedaling. I'm guessing you really only have insults because you are a child mentally around here, so used to being coddled on the ACC forum.

I don't need a report. Read the services provided section of the web sites.

Backpedaling? Once again, stop shamelessly making things up. Please, try to maintain a nexus with reality. I get that you are insecure about your Midwestern conference which is literally rusting away, but you are getting crazy.

Oh this is hilarious, you have ZERO numbers. Look at you, you have nothing but insults. I am winning, you are losing. Go back to the ACC forum where you can get some hugs in the kiddie pool.

The Big Ten is rusting away guys!

You are so easy.

Yes, I have zero numbers because you asked a qualitative question. What do you think that they do differently?

Btw, "[The ACCCG funding is s]upplemental allocations by individual universities and various grants expand program impact." That is an excerpt from the link that you sent me earlier when you implied that the ACCIAC didn't accept grant funding. Try reading links before you send them.

(04-25-2015 10:31 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:18 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No, the ACCIAC is no where near the same as the CIC. Hilarious that you had the nerve to say that I bury my head in the sand and shamelessly make up stuff where as you say the ACCIAC is similar to the CIC? What a joke.

The base funding for the ACCIAC comes from.....the ACC Football Championship Game. So funny that you actually want to say it is equal.

http://acciac.org/about-the-acciac/


Meanwhile the CIC gets their money from many various sources including....

https://www.cic.net/news-and-publication...foundation


Just stop with your psychological projection issues.

Actually, you are both wrong. Both organizations are ridiculously overrated by sports message board fans who know nothing about how these things actually work (and I use to be one of those that championed the value of the CIC).

Cue Crazy Paco for another smack down on the limited value of both the CIC and the ACCIAC.

Cheers,
Neil

I've actually frigging worked in the CIC. What specifically have I said that's wrong? Please enlighten me.

If you have to ask then I can't help you. And since I don't want to continue a discussion about the limited value of either I won't respond to any more posts in this thread around this particular topic.

However, you may want to research how the current ACCIAC, which started as an ACC international student focused consortium morphed into its current version and precisely how long the current model has been in place versus how long the current CIC model has been in place. Let's just say the ACCIAC has some catching up to do and leave it at that though it shouldn't take long precisely due to the limited value of both organizations.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-25-2015 10:43 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:35 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Show the report then if it's equal. Come on big talker. You are backpedaling. I'm guessing you really only have insults because you are a child mentally around here, so used to being coddled on the ACC forum.

I don't need a report. Read the services provided section of the web sites.

Backpedaling? Once again, stop shamelessly making things up. Please, try to maintain a nexus with reality. I get that you are insecure about your Midwestern conference which is literally rusting away, but you are getting crazy.

Oh this is hilarious, you have ZERO numbers. Look at you, you have nothing but insults. I am winning, you are losing. Go back to the ACC forum where you can get some hugs in the kiddie pool.

The Big Ten is rusting away guys!

You are so easy.

Yes, I have zero numbers because you asked a qualitative question. What do you think that they do differently?

Btw, "[The ACCCG funding is s]upplemental allocations by individual universities and various grants expand program impact." That is an excerpt from the link that you sent me earlier when you implied that the ACCIAC didn't accept grant funding. Try reading links before you send them.

Provide something that shows this...other than "your word" as someone that has attended a Big Ten school and an ACC school. It is funny to see you try to sell this fiction that simply going to two schools means you know everything about everything on this subject.

You obviously havn't even looked at the websites. One is created with everything being easily accessed, including actual funding reports.

The other? An incomplete website that tells us nothing more than that the ACCIAC gets most of it's funding from a *** **** football game. I provided an actual funding report for the CIC. You have nothing. Take Neil's advice and slither away back to the ACC forum where you never need proof and facts when cheerleading something connected to The ACC.

Please continue being a joke though.

(04-25-2015 10:39 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  FSU fans generally say they want to be in the SEC, but then when they think about the implications of that move, they back off the ledge.

Despite the good points you make about the specialness of FSU in the ACC, I am just about certain that if FSU suddenly announced tomorrow it had accepted an invite to the SEC, there would be a huge cheer from FSU fans, it would be an overwhelmingly positive response from the FSU fan base, not the somewhat mixed response of Maryland to the B1G.

(04-25-2015 10:44 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:31 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:18 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No, the ACCIAC is no where near the same as the CIC. Hilarious that you had the nerve to say that I bury my head in the sand and shamelessly make up stuff where as you say the ACCIAC is similar to the CIC? What a joke.

The base funding for the ACCIAC comes from.....the ACC Football Championship Game. So funny that you actually want to say it is equal.

http://acciac.org/about-the-acciac/


Meanwhile the CIC gets their money from many various sources including....

https://www.cic.net/news-and-publication...foundation


Just stop with your psychological projection issues.

Actually, you are both wrong. Both organizations are ridiculously overrated by sports message board fans who know nothing about how these things actually work (and I use to be one of those that championed the value of the CIC).

Cue Crazy Paco for another smack down on the limited value of both the CIC and the ACCIAC.

Cheers,
Neil

I've actually frigging worked in the CIC. What specifically have I said that's wrong? Please enlighten me.

If you have to ask then I can't help you. And since I don't want to continue a discussion about the limited value of either I won't respond to any more posts in this thread around this particular topic.

However, you may want to research how the current ACCIAC, which started as an ACC international student focused consortium morphed into its current version and precisely how long the current model has been in place versus how long the current CIC model has been in place. Let's just say the ACCIAC has some catching up to do and leave it at that though it shouldn't take long precisely due to the limited value of both organizations.

Cheers,
Neil

Founding dates are entirely irrelevant to their operation, and I never said anything about the founding date (without looking I am going to say that the CIC was founded in 1961-1963 - am I right? And, does that somehow magically give me credibility?). What specifically did I say that's wrong?

In my first post on the subject, I said:
"The ACC has a counter to the CIC called the ACCIAC, so the conferences do pretty much the same thing. These conference academic organizations shouldn't be overblown, though."

Now you're calling me wrong and saying "I don't want to continue a discussion about the limited value of either...," meaning you admit that they both exist (my first claim) and that they're tangibly the same thing (my second claim) because if they are of limited value, by definition, they can't have material differences.

So please, once again, what did I say that was wrong? Cite one specific material thing.