(05-14-2015 10:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:59 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't disagree that the ACCN would sell like hot cakes in those areas, but if they take content from ESPN, won't that hurt ESPN's carriage rates?

Probably not. People are primed to overpay for something. Just having Notre Dame on the network will sell it in a lot of markets.

What ESPN sold to Raycom was the trash for lack of a better word. You can rest assured it was not sold at a premium price. This means ESPN is losing money it could make if it had that content to market on it's network, moreover, it can rebroadcast that stuff, whereas Raycom tends not to rebroadcast since the demand for a rebroadcast is not great.

I guess what I saying is that ESPN through a network, can sell it multiple times whereas Raycom sells it once. Have you actually watches the SECN? It's mostly junk, but there are a few games, and if you like to watch young female athletes they have plenty of those - sometimes it might beat a re-run of the Simpsons.

I'm not entirely sure that I follow your train of thought, but if you're claiming that A) ESPN has an inelastic demand, then I'd argue that you're wrong - otherwise they would raise the price until it was elastic, or B) that ESPN took one for the team when selling content to Raycom, then I'm not sure that I grasp the significance of this assertion, but I doubt it. The mouse doesn't strike me as an angel.

What I am saying is that ESPN sold the bottom value of the ACC to Raycom. That bottom value content has different values as:

1. Over the air
2. Cable
3. Part of dedicated network
a. ACC Stand Alone Network
b. ESPNACCN
c. Some crappy Raycom Network

When it was first packaged, the Raycom content was almost surplus to ESPN and certainly of lesser value.

Sure. How does ACC ownership affect the valuation? We sold our rights. Unless we buy them back at FMV, we aren't needed for an ACC-centric channel. And, if we do buy them back at FMV, how would we make money?

ESPN has to keep the ACC "happy". "Happy" means money. Fair market value to Raycom is one thing, fair market to an ESPN network is another.

If the value of said game is $1 dollar to Raycom, and $2 dollars to ESPN on an ACC network, there is a dollar to negotiate with so perhaps Raycom sells for a $1.50 - they make 50 cents they otherwise can not make. ESPN makes 50 cents they otherwise can not make. ESPN gives the ACC a quarter until the time the Raycom content is liquidated.

(05-14-2015 10:44 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  ESPN has to keep the ACC "happy".

At this point no they don't. If the ACC isn't "happy" they ACC is just going to be "unhappy" because they signed a long term deal at favorable terms with ESPN without going on the open market to see what they could get from Fox/NBC/CBS.

Go ahead and explain to me and everyone else why ESPN has any incentive at this point to keep the ACC happy, and explain exactly what the ACC could do to ESPN about being "unhappy" between now and 2027.

(05-14-2015 12:23 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I know we all have a rush to have an ACC Network deal.

But I don't think people think about one key point...the SEC's network deal required them to sign through 2034. They had to add TEN YEARS to their 2008 deal.

Remember, that 2008 deal, don't you? The one that tripled what they had been making, reset all expectations of what college rights were worth, an promised to set them out in front of all other conferences in perpetuity?

That's right, that contract paid $17M per school, or less than what any other conference was making in TV rights five years later.

Five years after that blockbuster deal, the SEC's deal was putrid. Worse than even the ACC's 2010 deal, when you factor in the value of the product.

The SEC deal is fantastic (by all accounts...we don't have actual numbers)...but they are under contract 20 years now to ESPN.

But how is that deal going to look in 2023, when other conference rights are up, and the SEC has another ten years on their deal?

The point is...when the ACC makes a deal for it's network, it is going to end up marrying ESPN for twenty years. No matter what change in the broadcast world, no matter how well the PAC network eventually does, no matter how rights values continue to grow. The ACC Network deal seals the ACC's options for two decades.

Now, I get why the SEC did it...they were stuck in a ridiculously low deal...what would have been potentially the lowest of all TV deals, for arguably the best conference. And more importantly...the SEC was never going to be of higher value than it was after it's string of national titles. They virtually had to capitalize on it, and they did it the only way they could.

Does that make sense for the ACC? Does it make sense for the ACC to lock in it's pay and all it's options for the next 20 years based on it's value today? It's definitely a more valuable property than it was 2-3 years ago, but is the ACC at it's peak potential? Is this the value you want to lock in at?

That's not to say that an ACC Network isn't appropriate, but it's a big freaking decision...and throwing an extra $3-4M per team...probably isn't worth it. The SEC (and potentially ACC) don't own a shred of their networks...while the PAC and BTN have a 100% and 50% stake respectively.

If you're giving up the option to do that, you better be damn sure you're getting plenty back in return.

We've seen how quickly good deals look terrible in this area. When you're talking about locking up your future for twenty years, I don't see the rush to get something done this year versus 1-2 years from now.

I'm sure that ESPN would be VERY happy to lock the ACC up for twenty years at it's still-undervalued rates. Every year that ticks by, and puts the ACC a year closer to free agency, works to the ACC's favor.

I just don't get the rush.

It's a craps shoot at best. Is the paradigm of cable shifting? How is the macro economy going forward? Will people be able to afford high cost maintenance for all of their electronic devices going forward? Will people be able to afford the elevated ticket and contribution levels going forward? How does the interplay between these factors impact viewership, attendance, and dedication to sports from fans in general? How do lawsuits, brain injuries, and liability issues factor in? What about paying players? Can you cap that? Do they get to unionize at private schools? What about interest in football and basketball in general? As baby boomers die out what happens to these sports as a vast number of children who never played organized sports enter the majority demographic as consumers?

Lou I raise these points yet again to say that just as it is risky to rush into a deal presently, it is equally risky not to capitalize on a larger contract just as the market value for all of this may be peaking.

The SEC is not locked into everything. We can choose to purchase back %'s of our network until we own 49 or 50% of it. The ceiling is unclear between those two numbers as to whether we can be equal partners in that as well or will be relegated to a minor partner position, but still we can buy a share of our own network. So if things continue to be rosy we can up our value through exercising that option. And we can always bypass all of that and expand and renegotiate. The ACC could have the same options if they opt for a network. But until then they first need to clear the way for one. That step alone will tell everyone that the eventuality is being realized. Until progress is made and discussed publicly with setting the table for a network all talk about one remains just talk.

(05-14-2015 10:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:44 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  ESPN has to keep the ACC "happy".

At this point no they don't. If the ACC isn't "happy" they ACC is just going to be "unhappy" because they signed a long term deal at favorable terms with ESPN without going on the open market to see what they could get from Fox/NBC/CBS.

Go ahead and explain to me and everyone else why ESPN has any incentive at this point to keep the ACC happy, and explain exactly what the ACC could do to ESPN about being "unhappy" between now and 2027.

They don't have that much incentive, but they have slightly more with each year that passes. They didn't have to keep the SEC happy either, they were locked up as well, but they did, because there was some money to be made along the way.

Probably much less money to be made off an ACC network, so it's less cut and dried. But as we get closer to the end of the contract, it will become more important.

If Notre Dame starts to seriously consider a conference, it could become real important really quickly.

If the Big 12 properties start getting itchy and looking around it could be real important.

I just don't see a way that pushing forward on a deal right now, like so many people seem dead set on, is great timing, for exactly the reason you say.

Give it a couple years...maybe VT and Clemson make the playoffs this year, and Clemson wins the national title...maybe ND is left out of the playoffs with an 11-1 record...maybe Oklahoma is...there's things that could happen that could strengthen the ACC's position considerably, and very little that could weaken it's position, given the weakness of its position right now.

I am very nervous that this hell bent drive toward an ACC Network, the need to move the ACC from 5th to 4th in TV revenue and wave the network in the face of the Big 12, is going to result in an imminent announcement:

"The ACC and ESPN have agreed to launch an ACC Network. This revolutionary network will be all digital, available on Apple TV and Roku. It is expected to generate in excess of $2M more per year to each ACC team.



As part of the contract, the ACC and ESPN have extended their partnership through 2040."


I am PRAYING that we're smarter than that. But to me, the fans, ACC media, and administrators (including FSU trustees) don't seem to care about anything other than "getting a network."

(05-14-2015 10:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:44 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  ESPN has to keep the ACC "happy".

At this point no they don't. If the ACC isn't "happy" they ACC is just going to be "unhappy" because they signed a long term deal at favorable terms with ESPN without going on the open market to see what they could get from Fox/NBC/CBS.

Go ahead and explain to me and everyone else why ESPN has any incentive at this point to keep the ACC happy, and explain exactly what the ACC could do to ESPN about being "unhappy" between now and 2027.

If ESPN can make more money by creating an ACC Network with the conference, it will have every incentive to do so.

(05-15-2015 09:15 AM)orangefan Wrote:  If ESPN can make more money by creating an ACC Network with the conference, it will have every incentive to do so.

^^^ THIS ^^^

It doesn't matter who's "happy" or not. My confidence is in ESPN to make more money, and creating a new channel they can sell for an extra dollar a month in footprint would definitely make them more money (that assumes the ACC fetches about $1.00/$1.25 = 80% as much as the SEC Network).

How does the SEC react to an ACCN? If ESPN runs both ships, how can an ACCN help the SECN? Seems like, depending on the tier, the BTN might benefit from an ACCN if Fox and ESPN are partners. Is there anyplace that you can get the BTN without having ESPN? What about getting ESPN without the BTN?

(05-15-2015 03:31 PM)Dasville Wrote:  How does the SEC react to an ACCN? If ESPN runs both ships, how can an ACCN help the SECN? Seems like, depending on the tier, the BTN might benefit from an ACCN if Fox and ESPN are partners. Is there anyplace that you can get the BTN without having ESPN? What about getting ESPN without the BTN?

Fox won't be in the picture with an ACC network in any event. I guess it's theoretically possible NBC could be involved depending on what ND is willing to do.

As for the SEC, as long as they can't get into North Carolina and Virginia, then they're all about the status quo. The SEC would be more than happy to have the ACC in perennial little brother position. I'm sure they feel the same way about the Big 12.

I don't see any circumstance that the SEC would make trouble for the ACC (unless UNC and UVA started leading them on).

As things stand, the SEC shares the entire southern part of the country, the only place football REALLY matters, with two little brothers that can never make as much money or challenge their football dominance.

If the SEC destabilizes things, they run at least the possibility of the B1G ending up with Texas, North Carolina, UVA, GT, and theoretically OU and FSU. The B1G right now can make all the money in the world, and it's still sequestered in an area which will prevent it from ever becoming the equal of the SEC or challenging it in football.

Have the B1G add three kings and a couple princes and geographically surround you, and it's not so clear.

So I don't expect any trouble from the SEC whatever the ACC tries to do.

(05-15-2015 04:02 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 03:31 PM)Dasville Wrote:  How does the SEC react to an ACCN? If ESPN runs both ships, how can an ACCN help the SECN? Seems like, depending on the tier, the BTN might benefit from an ACCN if Fox and ESPN are partners. Is there anyplace that you can get the BTN without having ESPN? What about getting ESPN without the BTN?

Fox won't be in the picture with an ACC network in any event. I guess it's theoretically possible NBC could be involved depending on what ND is willing to do.

As for the SEC, as long as they can't get into North Carolina and Virginia, then they're all about the status quo. The SEC would be more than happy to have the ACC in perennial little brother position. I'm sure they feel the same way about the Big 12.

I don't see any circumstance that the SEC would make trouble for the ACC (unless UNC and UVA started leading them on).

As things stand, the SEC shares the entire southern part of the country, the only place football REALLY matters, with two little brothers that can never make as much money or challenge their football dominance.

If the SEC destabilizes things, they run at least the possibility of the B1G ending up with Texas, North Carolina, UVA, GT, and theoretically OU and FSU. The B1G right now can make all the money in the world, and it's still sequestered in an area which will prevent it from ever becoming the equal of the SEC or challenging it in football.

Have the B1G add three kings and a couple princes and geographically surround you, and it's not so clear.

So I don't expect any trouble from the SEC whatever the ACC tries to do.

The ACC and SEC are not in as direct a competition with each other as both are with the B10. That's because neither the ACC nor the SEC have as balanced a product as the B10.

SECN is already on most cable systems in Western NC. Draw a line down I-77 and then west and everyone seems to have it. I can't speak for the Triangle or Triad metros.

What an ACCN does for a SECN is to be the junior money partner in Chicagoland, Indiana, Cincy, PA, DC, Va, Greater Boston/ND, WVa, MD, NY and NYC.

The SEC has the better fall football product, but the ACC has the better winter basketball product. JR has refereed to this obliquely several times, but it's essentially are reconstruction of the old Southern Conference of the 1920's and early 30's plus friends such as Mizzou, Arkansas, FSU, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, and ND.

Nothing about ESPNs actions show it wants to make the ACC happy.

It regularly takes shots at ACC football, it lead the way in taking down Winston, they lead the way in pushing metrics that pushed FSU down in playoff rankings, they must have 20 analysts with SEC backgrounds to the ACCs 2-3, it regularly leads the way with 'the ACC is weak in footba', etc, etc, etc.

ESPN treats ACC football like it is their competition..........not their own conference. IF the ACC is happy with that,......and in truth, the ACC rarely notices anything outside of basketball....so maybe the see the ACCs indifference as 'happy', then it is more poorly run than I feared.

(05-14-2015 10:44 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:59 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Probably not. People are primed to overpay for something. Just having Notre Dame on the network will sell it in a lot of markets.

What ESPN sold to Raycom was the trash for lack of a better word. You can rest assured it was not sold at a premium price. This means ESPN is losing money it could make if it had that content to market on it's network, moreover, it can rebroadcast that stuff, whereas Raycom tends not to rebroadcast since the demand for a rebroadcast is not great.

I guess what I saying is that ESPN through a network, can sell it multiple times whereas Raycom sells it once. Have you actually watches the SECN? It's mostly junk, but there are a few games, and if you like to watch young female athletes they have plenty of those - sometimes it might beat a re-run of the Simpsons.

I'm not entirely sure that I follow your train of thought, but if you're claiming that A) ESPN has an inelastic demand, then I'd argue that you're wrong - otherwise they would raise the price until it was elastic, or B) that ESPN took one for the team when selling content to Raycom, then I'm not sure that I grasp the significance of this assertion, but I doubt it. The mouse doesn't strike me as an angel.

What I am saying is that ESPN sold the bottom value of the ACC to Raycom. That bottom value content has different values as:

1. Over the air
2. Cable
3. Part of dedicated network
a. ACC Stand Alone Network
b. ESPNACCN
c. Some crappy Raycom Network

When it was first packaged, the Raycom content was almost surplus to ESPN and certainly of lesser value.

Sure. How does ACC ownership affect the valuation? We sold our rights. Unless we buy them back at FMV, we aren't needed for an ACC-centric channel. And, if we do buy them back at FMV, how would we make money?

ESPN has to keep the ACC "happy". "Happy" means money. Fair market value to Raycom is one thing, fair market to an ESPN network is another.

If the value of said game is $1 dollar to Raycom, and $2 dollars to ESPN on an ACC network, there is a dollar to negotiate with so perhaps Raycom sells for a $1.50 - they make 50 cents they otherwise can not make. ESPN makes 50 cents they otherwise can not make. ESPN gives the ACC a quarter until the time the Raycom content is liquidated.

Why does ESPN have to keep the ACC "happy?"

Why is the value higher on ESPN?

(05-15-2015 08:35 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  "The ACC and ESPN have agreed to launch an ACC Network. This revolutionary network will be all digital, available on Apple TV and Roku. It is expected to generate in excess of $2M more per year to each ACC team.

As part of the contract, the ACC and ESPN have extended their partnership through 2040."

I am PRAYING that we're smarter than that. But to me, the fans, ACC media, and administrators (including FSU trustees) don't seem to care about anything other than "getting a network."

That is a ridiculous fear.

(05-15-2015 06:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 12:23 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I know we all have a rush to have an ACC Network deal.

But I don't think people think about one key point...the SEC's network deal required them to sign through 2034. They had to add TEN YEARS to their 2008 deal.

Remember, that 2008 deal, don't you? The one that tripled what they had been making, reset all expectations of what college rights were worth, an promised to set them out in front of all other conferences in perpetuity?

That's right, that contract paid $17M per school, or less than what any other conference was making in TV rights five years later.

Five years after that blockbuster deal, the SEC's deal was putrid. Worse than even the ACC's 2010 deal, when you factor in the value of the product.

The SEC deal is fantastic (by all accounts...we don't have actual numbers)...but they are under contract 20 years now to ESPN.

But how is that deal going to look in 2023, when other conference rights are up, and the SEC has another ten years on their deal?

The point is...when the ACC makes a deal for it's network, it is going to end up marrying ESPN for twenty years. No matter what change in the broadcast world, no matter how well the PAC network eventually does, no matter how rights values continue to grow. The ACC Network deal seals the ACC's options for two decades.

Now, I get why the SEC did it...they were stuck in a ridiculously low deal...what would have been potentially the lowest of all TV deals, for arguably the best conference. And more importantly...the SEC was never going to be of higher value than it was after it's string of national titles. They virtually had to capitalize on it, and they did it the only way they could.

Does that make sense for the ACC? Does it make sense for the ACC to lock in it's pay and all it's options for the next 20 years based on it's value today? It's definitely a more valuable property than it was 2-3 years ago, but is the ACC at it's peak potential? Is this the value you want to lock in at?

That's not to say that an ACC Network isn't appropriate, but it's a big freaking decision...and throwing an extra $3-4M per team...probably isn't worth it. The SEC (and potentially ACC) don't own a shred of their networks...while the PAC and BTN have a 100% and 50% stake respectively.

If you're giving up the option to do that, you better be damn sure you're getting plenty back in return.

We've seen how quickly good deals look terrible in this area. When you're talking about locking up your future for twenty years, I don't see the rush to get something done this year versus 1-2 years from now.

I'm sure that ESPN would be VERY happy to lock the ACC up for twenty years at it's still-undervalued rates. Every year that ticks by, and puts the ACC a year closer to free agency, works to the ACC's favor.

I just don't get the rush.

It's a craps shoot at best. Is the paradigm of cable shifting? How is the macro economy going forward? Will people be able to afford high cost maintenance for all of their electronic devices going forward? Will people be able to afford the elevated ticket and contribution levels going forward? How does the interplay between these factors impact viewership, attendance, and dedication to sports from fans in general? How do lawsuits, brain injuries, and liability issues factor in? What about paying players? Can you cap that? Do they get to unionize at private schools? What about interest in football and basketball in general? As baby boomers die out what happens to these sports as a vast number of children who never played organized sports enter the majority demographic as consumers?

Lou I raise these points yet again to say that just as it is risky to rush into a deal presently, it is equally risky not to capitalize on a larger contract just as the market value for all of this may be peaking.

The SEC is not locked into everything. We can choose to purchase back %'s of our network until we own 49 or 50% of it. The ceiling is unclear between those two numbers as to whether we can be equal partners in that as well or will be relegated to a minor partner position, but still we can buy a share of our own network. So if things continue to be rosy we can up our value through exercising that option. And we can always bypass all of that and expand and renegotiate. The ACC could have the same options if they opt for a network. But until then they first need to clear the way for one. That step alone will tell everyone that the eventuality is being realized. Until progress is made and discussed publicly with setting the table for a network all talk about one remains just talk.

That's it in a nutshell. What's the world going to look like in the future? The $64 question in any financial decision.

It boils down to whether you think we have already peaked in terms of what the Mouse and its competitors are willing to pay for more content, or whether we are undervalued. It would be great if we could figure out some way to hedge that bet. Put yourself in the shoes of the guys trying in 1995 to figure out what the sports media markets would look like in 2015. Do you think any of them imagined today's world?

ESPN will care about ACC football when the ACC shows it cares about football by getting better coaches (up to the individual schools) and better/smarter conference scheduling (up to the conference to get buy in from the individual schools).

As a result of the above, college football fans will care about the ACC, which will then make ESPN care.

Until then, all ESPN will care about is ACC basketball. In that regard, they have no problem over-hyping the conference.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-14-2015 12:23 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I know we all have a rush to have an ACC Network deal.

But I don't think people think about one key point...the SEC's network deal required them to sign through 2034. They had to add TEN YEARS to their 2008 deal.

Remember, that 2008 deal, don't you? The one that tripled what they had been making, reset all expectations of what college rights were worth, an promised to set them out in front of all other conferences in perpetuity?

That's right, that contract paid $17M per school, or less than what any other conference was making in TV rights five years later.

Five years after that blockbuster deal, the SEC's deal was putrid. Worse than even the ACC's 2010 deal, when you factor in the value of the product.

The SEC deal is fantastic (by all accounts...we don't have actual numbers)...but they are under contract 20 years now to ESPN.

But how is that deal going to look in 2023, when other conference rights are up, and the SEC has another ten years on their deal?

The point is...when the ACC makes a deal for it's network, it is going to end up marrying ESPN for twenty years. No matter what change in the broadcast world, no matter how well the PAC network eventually does, no matter how rights values continue to grow. The ACC Network deal seals the ACC's options for two decades.

Now, I get why the SEC did it...they were stuck in a ridiculously low deal...what would have been potentially the lowest of all TV deals, for arguably the best conference. And more importantly...the SEC was never going to be of higher value than it was after it's string of national titles. They virtually had to capitalize on it, and they did it the only way they could.

Does that make sense for the ACC? Does it make sense for the ACC to lock in it's pay and all it's options for the next 20 years based on it's value today? It's definitely a more valuable property than it was 2-3 years ago, but is the ACC at it's peak potential? Is this the value you want to lock in at?

That's not to say that an ACC Network isn't appropriate, but it's a big freaking decision...and throwing an extra $3-4M per team...probably isn't worth it. The SEC (and potentially ACC) don't own a shred of their networks...while the PAC and BTN have a 100% and 50% stake respectively.

If you're giving up the option to do that, you better be damn sure you're getting plenty back in return.

We've seen how quickly good deals look terrible in this area. When you're talking about locking up your future for twenty years, I don't see the rush to get something done this year versus 1-2 years from now.

I'm sure that ESPN would be VERY happy to lock the ACC up for twenty years at it's still-undervalued rates. Every year that ticks by, and puts the ACC a year closer to free agency, works to the ACC's favor.

I just don't get the rush.

These are some valid points, but the ACC may not be able to wait 6 or 7 years if ESPN gives them opportunity to start a network.

But along your lines, the ACC might be smart to wait until the Big 10's deal is announced, which should be coming within the year.

(05-16-2015 02:18 PM)omniorange Wrote:  ESPN will care about ACC football when the ACC shows it cares about football by getting better coaches (up to the individual schools) and better/smarter conference scheduling (up to the conference to get buy in from the individual schools).

As a result of the above, college football fans will care about the ACC, which will then make ESPN care.

Until then, all ESPN will care about is ACC basketball. In that regard, they have no problem over-hyping the conference.

Cheers,
Neil

So are you asserting that the ACC has something to do with Syracuse's performance in football over the last dozen or so years? Since 2002 Syracuse is 61-98 with just three winning seasons. The adage "orangeman heal thyself" comes to mind. That's an average of 4.7 wins a year.

Admittedly NC State has not performed much over that same time period, averaging just 6.5 wins and enjoying just 7 winning seasons.

Obvioulsy the goal is to be more like Clemson who was 110-55 over the same time frame with just one losing season and averaging 8.5 wins a season, however it should be noted that from Dabo's first full season he is 59-22 a .721% winning percentage or an average of 9.5 wins a year.

Clemson "did not care about football" when they hired Tommy Bowden. He just couldn't do the job. NC State "did not care about football" when it hired Tom O'Brien (although some have accused the old Athletic Director of just that). But the facts are TOB could not recruit in the South and could not do the job.

How many extra millions would have made Pasquiloni a better coach? I don't think FSU "did not care about football" when Bobby B got too old and his staff too old to keep up with the competition. No amount of money was going to make Bobby younger. The same issue may be plaguing VT.

How many top head coaches are out there? How many can do it all - recruit, raise money, coach the game, coach in the actual game with a feel for the game, and not become a control freak and find a couple of guys he trusts to handled the minutia? If there were so many of these guys the NFL would have then all an not need to fire coaches.

Omni - what you are essentially saying is that you want to have a top 20 head coach. There aren't that many - there may be a dozen in their prime, with some aging out (Beemer for instance), some going to the NFL, and some on the rise.

Where is that top guy going to go? To a basketball school? No. To a school in the rust belt - not unless they have a grand tradition like ND, OSU, Michigan, or MSU. How many West Coast guys are really willing to come east and stay?

Since no one can agree on this so-called better smarter scheduling what do you suggest? The root of the scheduling problem is that no one south of Pittsburg wants to play Syracuse or BC.

When you dissect the FSU and Clemson ***** and moan, it's not just the North Carolina schools, it's really as much about having to travel to Syracuse or Boston which they consider to be a waste of resources. NC State doesn't get much out of those two trips as well.

(05-18-2015 08:57 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:18 PM)omniorange Wrote:  ESPN will care about ACC football when the ACC shows it cares about football by getting better coaches (up to the individual schools) and better/smarter conference scheduling (up to the conference to get buy in from the individual schools).

As a result of the above, college football fans will care about the ACC, which will then make ESPN care.

Until then, all ESPN will care about is ACC basketball. In that regard, they have no problem over-hyping the conference.

Cheers,
Neil

So are you asserting that the ACC has something to do with Syracuse's performance in football over the last dozen or so years? Since 2002 Syracuse is 61-98 with just three winning seasons. The adage "orangeman heal thyself" comes to mind. That's an average of 4.7 wins a year.

Admittedly NC State has not performed much over that same time period, averaging just 6.5 wins and enjoying just 7 winning seasons.

Obvioulsy the goal is to be more like Clemson who was 110-55 over the same time frame with just one losing season and averaging 8.5 wins a season, however it should be noted that from Dabo's first full season he is 59-22 a .721% winning percentage or an average of 9.5 wins a year.

Clemson "did not care about football" when they hired Tommy Bowden. He just couldn't do the job. NC State "did not care about football" when it hired Tom O'Brien (although some have accused the old Athletic Director of just that). But the facts are TOB could not recruit in the South and could not do the job.

How many extra millions would have made Pasquiloni a better coach? I don't think FSU "did not care about football" when Bobby B got too old and his staff too old to keep up with the competition. No amount of money was going to make Bobby younger. The same issue may be plaguing VT.

How many top head coaches are out there? How many can do it all - recruit, raise money, coach the game, coach in the actual game with a feel for the game, and not become a control freak and find a couple of guys he trusts to handled the minutia? If there were so many of these guys the NFL would have then all an not need to fire coaches.

Omni - what you are essentially saying is that you want to have a top 20 head coach. There aren't that many - there may be a dozen in their prime, with some aging out (Beemer for instance), some going to the NFL, and some on the rise.

Where is that top guy going to go? To a basketball school? No. To a school in the rust belt - not unless they have a grand tradition like ND, OSU, Michigan, or MSU. How many West Coast guys are really willing to come east and stay?

Since no one can agree on this so-called better smarter scheduling what do you suggest? The root of the scheduling problem is that no one south of Pittsburg wants to play Syracuse or BC.

When you dissect the FSU and Clemson ***** and moan, it's not just the North Carolina schools, it's really as much about having to travel to Syracuse or Boston which they consider to be a waste of resources. NC State doesn't get much out of those two trips as well.

I think you have fair points, you can't just say "Get better coaches." That's not how it works. Nobody gets it right every time, including Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, etc.

However, it IS fair to say that ACC schools have to be more willing and able to turn over their coaches, both staff and head coaches.

Mike London wouldn't have a job anywhere in the SEC. Al Golden would have been out after last year. It's very debatable whether guys like Larry Fedora and Frank Beamer would still have their jobs. BC's dealings with coaches have been ridiculous.

And you can't let Clemson or FSU off the hook either...SEC schools wouldn't have hung around with either Bowden as long as they did.

I don't personally LIKE that quick trigger necessarily...it's ludicrous that Cutcliff was sent packing at Ole Miss one season removed from a SEC title game appearance (their only?). But unfortunately...it does get results.

I have to imagine now that Clemson and FSU have tasted modern success again, they know they can't go back...there's just too much at stake. We saw Wake do the "SEC thing" with Grobe. We've seen some ADs getting shown the door.

But you still have London and Golden, with guys like Shafer, Fedora, maybe Beamer on deck, and that will tell the tale.

So you can't just say "The ACC has to get better coaches", but you can say that they have to give themselves an opportunity to get better coaches more often.

And money does play a part in that, and therefore, by extension the ACC revenue does play a factor. That said...$5M or so more dollars from the TV revenue being the difference in being able to pay coaches buyouts is a bit of a dubious excuse. You either prioritize that as a necessary expense, or you don't. It's still mostly a philosophical stance.

(05-18-2015 08:57 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:18 PM)omniorange Wrote:  ESPN will care about ACC football when the ACC shows it cares about football by getting better coaches (up to the individual schools) and better/smarter conference scheduling (up to the conference to get buy in from the individual schools).

As a result of the above, college football fans will care about the ACC, which will then make ESPN care.

Until then, all ESPN will care about is ACC basketball. In that regard, they have no problem over-hyping the conference.

Cheers,
Neil

Since no one can agree on this so-called better smarter scheduling what do you suggest? The root of the scheduling problem is that no one south of Pittsburg wants to play Syracuse or BC.

When you dissect the FSU and Clemson ***** and moan, it's not just the North Carolina schools, it's really as much about having to travel to Syracuse or Boston which they consider to be a waste of resources. NC State doesn't get much out of those two trips as well.

Didn't BC join the ACC over a decade ago? Why did the ACC expand into the North at all, then?

(05-16-2015 02:18 PM)omniorange Wrote:  ESPN will care about ACC football when the ACC shows it cares about football by getting better coaches (up to the individual schools) and better/smarter conference scheduling (up to the conference to get buy in from the individual schools).

As a result of the above, college football fans will care about the ACC, which will then make ESPN care.

Until then, all ESPN will care about is ACC basketball. In that regard, they have no problem over-hyping the conference.

Cheers,
Neil

FWIW, four of the ten highest rated regular season college football games (including CCGs) were ACC games. I think ESPN likes ACC football just fine. Could it be better? Of course.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...014-121114

(05-18-2015 08:57 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  So are you asserting that the ACC has something to do with Syracuse's performance in football over the last dozen or so years? Since 2002 Syracuse is 61-98 with just three winning seasons. The adage "orangeman heal thyself" comes to mind. That's an average of 4.7 wins a year.
-----
How many extra millions would have made Pasquiloni a better coach? I don't think FSU "did not care about football" when Bobby B got too old and his staff too old to keep up with the competition. No amount of money was going to make Bobby younger. The same issue may be plaguing VT.

To be fair, when Syracuse fired Pasqualoni, they made what was intended to be a big time hire in Greg Robinson. Robinson had been the Defensive Coordinator for the Broncos when they won the Super Bowl and for Texas when they won the Rose Bowl. Unfortunately, he turned out to be a crappy head coach. We wasted four years giving him a chance to build a program, and instead he set the program back thirty years.

Doug Marrone turned out to be a great hire. Despite the deep hole that Robinson had dug, he rebuilt the program into a winner in just two years. But, he did such a good job, he got an offer from the NFL.

Marrone's departure on short notice left SU looking to fill the spot quickly, which they did from within with Shafer. Shafer is obviously not a big name hire, and it remains to be seen how much patience he's going to receive. In the meantime, Syracuse has spent $14 million on a new indoor practice facility that should pay dividends for many years.

Finally, keep in mind that Syracuse is probably third overall in the ACC in athletic revenues, behind only FSU and UL. At some point, with good leadership at AD, this program is going to be competitive.

(05-18-2015 11:38 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 02:18 PM)omniorange Wrote:  ESPN will care about ACC football when the ACC shows it cares about football by getting better coaches (up to the individual schools) and better/smarter conference scheduling (up to the conference to get buy in from the individual schools).

As a result of the above, college football fans will care about the ACC, which will then make ESPN care.

Until then, all ESPN will care about is ACC basketball. In that regard, they have no problem over-hyping the conference.

Cheers,
Neil

FWIW, four of the ten highest rated regular season college football games (including CCGs) were ACC games. I think ESPN likes ACC football just fine. Could it be better? Of course.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...014-121114

(05-18-2015 08:57 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  So are you asserting that the ACC has something to do with Syracuse's performance in football over the last dozen or so years? Since 2002 Syracuse is 61-98 with just three winning seasons. The adage "orangeman heal thyself" comes to mind. That's an average of 4.7 wins a year.
-----
How many extra millions would have made Pasquiloni a better coach? I don't think FSU "did not care about football" when Bobby B got too old and his staff too old to keep up with the competition. No amount of money was going to make Bobby younger. The same issue may be plaguing VT.

To be fair, when Syracuse fired Pasqualoni, they made what was intended to be a big time hire in Greg Robinson. Robinson had been the Defensive Coordinator for the Broncos when they won the Super Bowl and for Texas when they won the Rose Bowl. Unfortunately, he turned out to be a crappy head coach. We wasted four years giving him a chance to build a program, and instead he set the program back thirty years.

Doug Marrone turned out to be a great hire. Despite the deep hole that Robinson had dug, he rebuilt the program into a winner in just two years. But, he did such a good job, he got an offer from the NFL.

Marrone's departure on short notice left SU looking to fill the spot quickly, which they did from within with Shafer. Shafer is obviously not a big name hire, and it remains to be seen how much patience he's going to receive. In the meantime, Syracuse has spent $14 million on a new indoor practice facility that should pay dividends for many years.

Finally, keep in mind that Syracuse is probably third overall in the ACC in athletic revenues, behind only FSU and UL. At some point, with good leadership at AD, this program is going to be competitive.

Texas has more money than God. How is their football and basketball?

Money while important, is not everything.