(05-28-2015 10:23 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:15 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Keep Tobacco Road together....keep FSU and GT together....

Atlantic
Florida State
Louisville
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Syracuse

Coastal
North Carolina
NC State
Duke
Wake Forest
Miami
Boston College
Pitt

And add Houston and Rice

Atlantic
Florida State
Louisville
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Syracuse
Houston

Coastal
North Carolina
NC State
Duke
Wake Forest
Miami
Boston College
Pitt
Rice

Good suggestion. I don't like it, I LOVE it! However can we add two more? Say, Texas and UTEP with the Longhorns going to the Atlantic of course and the Miners to the Coastal.

(05-27-2015 03:12 PM)nole Wrote:  The mindset of the ACC is 'whoever has to give something up to increase the revenue of the conference.....should give something up'.


The ACC doesn't have the luxury to play fair........it is great that Clemson/Ga Tech are willing to 'give something up'.....but that is one of the few solid football matchup games for the ACC in hardcore football territory.....I HIGHLY doubt giving up that game is good for the ACC overall. I would say it is the opposite affect.


This isn't a battle over who gets what....it is a battle for what puts $$$ in the ACC's pocket. That comes down to what is best for football. What moves push certain teams to a level where the are actually competitive in football and allowing for the ACC to profit from that.


There are VERY few interesting TV matchups in the ACC. The few that exists....do not need to be 'given up'...that doesn't advance the ACC.


Frankly......Notre Dame playing Wake doesn't help the ACC......Notre Dame playing say Miami every year does. THAT is the type of logic I am speaking of.

Folks will get angry, but the financial reality of what the ACC is about to encounter demands the conference lose this fairness mindset and do what makes the ACC $$$$.

This is the point that some of you don't seem to get and frankly, it's kind of embarrassing.

If the ACC were to follow that formula, it simply doesn't make financial sense for most of the schools to do that because it would negatively impact those schools at the gate more than it would lead to increased television revenue. Also, it would create a permanent caste system - which would negatively (and probably severely) impact donations.

How much extra money is going to be added to the television contract if we all agree to cut the nuts off of the majority of the league to benefit a select few schools? Let's be honest with ourselves: not nearly enough.

Yeah, that would be great for the three or four schools who would benefit from it but it would be terrible or neutral at best for the rest of the league, which is why it has a snowball's chance in Miami of passing. It simply requires a plurality or even a majority of schools to vote against their own financial interests to do so.

If FSU fans want a better schedule that they have complete control over they should either go someplace else (B12?) or give independence a try. As long as you are members of the ACC this will be your reality.

I am for maintaining the status quo because none of the other suggestions seem to work for the majority of the teams and that is how things work in consortiums like this one.

(05-29-2015 03:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 03:12 PM)nole Wrote:  The mindset of the ACC is 'whoever has to give something up to increase the revenue of the conference.....should give something up'.


The ACC doesn't have the luxury to play fair........it is great that Clemson/Ga Tech are willing to 'give something up'.....but that is one of the few solid football matchup games for the ACC in hardcore football territory.....I HIGHLY doubt giving up that game is good for the ACC overall. I would say it is the opposite affect.


This isn't a battle over who gets what....it is a battle for what puts $$$ in the ACC's pocket. That comes down to what is best for football. What moves push certain teams to a level where the are actually competitive in football and allowing for the ACC to profit from that.


There are VERY few interesting TV matchups in the ACC. The few that exists....do not need to be 'given up'...that doesn't advance the ACC.


Frankly......Notre Dame playing Wake doesn't help the ACC......Notre Dame playing say Miami every year does. THAT is the type of logic I am speaking of.

Folks will get angry, but the financial reality of what the ACC is about to encounter demands the conference lose this fairness mindset and do what makes the ACC $$$$.

This is the point that some of you don't seem to get and frankly, it's kind of embarrassing.

If the ACC were to follow that formula, it simply doesn't make financial sense for most of the schools to do that because it would negatively impact those schools at the gate more than it would lead to increased television revenue. Also, it would create a permanent caste system - which would negatively (and probably severely) impact donations.

How much extra money is going to be added to the television contract if we all agree to cut the nuts off of the majority of the league to benefit a select few schools? Let's be honest with ourselves: not nearly enough.

Yeah, that would be great for the three or four schools who would benefit from it but it would be terrible or neutral at best for the rest of the league, which is why it has a snowball's chance in Miami of passing. It simply requires a plurality or even a majority of schools to vote against their own financial interests to do so.

If FSU fans want a better schedule that they have complete control over they should either go someplace else (B12?) or give independence a try. As long as you are members of the ACC this will be your reality.

I am for maintaining the status quo because none of the other suggestions seem to work for the majority of the teams and that is how things work in consortiums like this one.

While you make several good points, the last one misses the mark to me.

There is a better solution that doesn't endanger the other aspects you mention in this post which obviously are or should be part of the equation.

What appears to be happening is that a slight majority don't want any changes to the current format because they simply like it, not that they NEED it to remain so even if it endangers conference stability as a whole.

I will use FSU and UNC for the following example because I still truly believe that if this conference survives beyond 2026 it needs both FSU and UNC to work together to bring it safely through some rough waters the upcoming years will bring.

Neither FSU nor UNC should get everything they want because, as you say, this is how a conference works. But in reality, what has UNC not gotten in the current format that they truly want or need? A match-up with Wake more than twice in 12 years? Somehow I think they will manage just fine without it.

What has FSU not gotten that they truly want or need? Playing GT and VT more than two times each in 12 years? Not having to travel to either Boston or Syracuse every year?

As a neutral observer between the two, I can see why FSU fans are more upset than UNC fans on these boards so I try and take that into consideration. And the reality is, unless the NCAA gives UNC the death penalty (highly unlikely), if this whole ACC thing falls apart UNC will have its choice of the SEC or B1G whereas FSU will likely not. So that only adds to the frustration.

Cheers,
Neil

Let's be real? Where is FSU going to go? Hint: not the SEC...ever.

So FSU's realistic choices are this:
A.) Work with the ACC to improve things. This does not involve threatening and cajoling. It also likely involves compromise even though they are the greatest program in the history of mankind and have carried the ACC for years all the way to the fifth largest television contract among P5 leagues.

B.) Defect to the B12 and try their hand there. However, before doing so they would be wise to ask around about the dynamics of that league and how accommodating Texas would likely be as a partner. If they like dealing with North Carolina, they are going to LOVE dealing with the Longhorns.

C.) Try the independent route ala Notre Dame...and BYU.

I wish them well in their selection.

(05-29-2015 04:25 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Let's be real? Where is FSU going to go? Hint: not the SEC...ever.

So FSU's realistic choices are this:
A.) Work with the ACC to improve things. This does not involve threatening and cajoling. It also likely involves compromise even though they are the greatest program in the history of mankind and have carried the ACC for years all the way to the fifth largest television contract among P5 leagues.

B.) Defect to the B12 and try their hand there. However, before doing so they would be wise to ask around about the dynamics of that league and how accommodating Texas would likely be as a partner. If they like dealing with North Carolina, they are going to LOVE dealing with the Longhorns.

C.) Try the independent route ala Notre Dame...and BYU.

I wish them well in their selection.

Don't disagree with you on this either. And I think it is something that the FSU administrators understand, if not all of their BOT members.

But it doesn't address the overall issues the conference is facing. And while understanding the ACC's limitations each and every member should be doing what it can to make the ACC a better and more attractive conference for both fans and TV.

The current model is not set-up to do this in football. And football is the money driver.

Nice dodge of the main point of my post, btw.

Cheers,
Neil

I just thought addressing the main point of this thread - and many like it - was more important than delving into each post, even one as brilliant as yours.

To me, the bottom line is that while yes, it would be ideal if every school put its best foot forward and thought of ways to help the league, it is wildly unrealistic to expect them to work against their own financial interests to do so; which is exactly what would happen if they voted to implement this caste system model.

The extra television money the league would receive for more Florida State/Virginia Tech games would not come close to making up for the permanent lost gate others would see as a result of more Syracuse/Duke and Pitt/Wake Forest games...the yang to that ying.

I mean is there really any debating that point?

So then why should those schools vote for a change? So that Florida State can make slightly more money?

It's just a ridiculous suggestion on every level and beneath debate.

The bottom line is the sheer construct of the ACC all but ensures that it will never be among the elite of college football. There are too many private schools and non state schools in the league for that to ever happen. Florida State knew that when it joined the ACC back in the late 1980s when it also had an invitation to join the SEC. It also knew it two years ago when the B12 tried to flirt with it but FSU decided to remain in the ACC.

To me, this is pretty clearly a case of a fan base (or fan bases) who wants to have its cake and eat it too. I'm sorry but reality doesn't work that way for most of us and unfortunately for the Seminoles, they are not powerful enough to game the system in the same way a Notre Dame or a Texas could game it.

That's just how it goes. However, if they want to test that theory, they could always go the independent route and prove me wrong.

(05-29-2015 04:16 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 03:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 03:12 PM)nole Wrote:  The mindset of the ACC is 'whoever has to give something up to increase the revenue of the conference.....should give something up'.


The ACC doesn't have the luxury to play fair........it is great that Clemson/Ga Tech are willing to 'give something up'.....but that is one of the few solid football matchup games for the ACC in hardcore football territory.....I HIGHLY doubt giving up that game is good for the ACC overall. I would say it is the opposite affect.


This isn't a battle over who gets what....it is a battle for what puts $$$ in the ACC's pocket. That comes down to what is best for football. What moves push certain teams to a level where the are actually competitive in football and allowing for the ACC to profit from that.


There are VERY few interesting TV matchups in the ACC. The few that exists....do not need to be 'given up'...that doesn't advance the ACC.


Frankly......Notre Dame playing Wake doesn't help the ACC......Notre Dame playing say Miami every year does. THAT is the type of logic I am speaking of.

Folks will get angry, but the financial reality of what the ACC is about to encounter demands the conference lose this fairness mindset and do what makes the ACC $$$$.

This is the point that some of you don't seem to get and frankly, it's kind of embarrassing.

If the ACC were to follow that formula, it simply doesn't make financial sense for most of the schools to do that because it would negatively impact those schools at the gate more than it would lead to increased television revenue. Also, it would create a permanent caste system - which would negatively (and probably severely) impact donations.

How much extra money is going to be added to the television contract if we all agree to cut the nuts off of the majority of the league to benefit a select few schools? Let's be honest with ourselves: not nearly enough.

Yeah, that would be great for the three or four schools who would benefit from it but it would be terrible or neutral at best for the rest of the league, which is why it has a snowball's chance in Miami of passing. It simply requires a plurality or even a majority of schools to vote against their own financial interests to do so.

If FSU fans want a better schedule that they have complete control over they should either go someplace else (B12?) or give independence a try. As long as you are members of the ACC this will be your reality.

I am for maintaining the status quo because none of the other suggestions seem to work for the majority of the teams and that is how things work in consortiums like this one.

While you make several good points, the last one misses the mark to me.

There is a better solution that doesn't endanger the other aspects you mention in this post which obviously are or should be part of the equation.

What appears to be happening is that a slight majority don't want any changes to the current format because they simply like it, not that they NEED it to remain so even if it endangers conference stability as a whole.

I will use FSU and UNC for the following example because I still truly believe that if this conference survives beyond 2026 it needs both FSU and UNC to work together to bring it safely through some rough waters the upcoming years will bring.

Neither FSU nor UNC should get everything they want because, as you say, this is how a conference works. But in reality, what has UNC not gotten in the current format that they truly want or need? A match-up with Wake more than twice in 12 years? Somehow I think they will manage just fine without it.

What has FSU not gotten that they truly want or need? Playing GT and VT more than two times each in 12 years? Not having to travel to either Boston or Syracuse every year?

As a neutral observer between the two, I can see why FSU fans are more upset than UNC fans on these boards so I try and take that into consideration. And the reality is, unless the NCAA gives UNC the death penalty (highly unlikely), if this whole ACC thing falls apart UNC will have its choice of the SEC or B1G whereas FSU will likely not. So that only adds to the frustration.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil,
The good news is that Carolina didn't turn tail, run, and take UVa, Dook and Georgia Tech with them.
The ACC's challenge is to raise revenue. Our problem is that we are completely at the mercy of ESPN.
When ESPN changes their minds about how the ACC should be configured it will happen, they (ESPN) actually have more broadcast data than you do Neil and they are making decisions to maximize revenue for ESPN whether or not is makes all of the ACC happy.

(05-29-2015 05:18 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I just thought addressing the main point of this thread - and many like it - was more important than delving into each post, even one as brilliant as yours.

To me, the bottom line is that while yes, it would be ideal if every school put its best foot forward and thought of ways to help the league, it is wildly unrealistic to expect them to work against their own financial interests to do so; which is exactly what would happen if they voted to implement this caste system model.

The extra television money the league would receive for more Florida State/Virginia Tech games would not come close to making up for the permanent lost gate others would see as a result of more Syracuse/Duke and Pitt/Wake Forest games...the yang to that ying.

I mean is there really any debating that point?

So then why should those schools vote for a change? So that Florida State can make slightly more money?

It's just a ridiculous suggestion on every level and beneath debate.

The bottom line is the sheer construct of the ACC all but ensures that it will never be among the elite of college football. There are too many private schools and non state schools in the league for that to ever happen. Florida State knew that when it joined the ACC back in the late 1980s when it also had an invitation to join the SEC. It also knew it two years ago when the B12 tried to flirt with it but FSU decided to remain in the ACC.

To me, this is pretty clearly a case of a fan base (or fan bases) who wants to have its cake and eat it too. I'm sorry but reality doesn't work that way for most of us and unfortunately for the Seminoles, they are not powerful enough to game the system in the same way a Notre Dame or a Texas could game it.

That's just how it goes. However, if they want to test that theory, they could always go the independent route and prove me wrong.

Doc, I worked this out for a 14-team ACC with Maryland (not Louisville), and there most certainly IS a way to get more quality match-ups AND simultaneously improve the gate at every single school. It boils down to geographic (and some historic) rivalries. For example, take UNC: if you replaced Miami with Wake Forest, the Tar Heels would not lose (and might gain) gate receipts. I'm guessing the same could be said for Pitt if you replace UNC with Louisville and replace Duke with BC - those are better rivalries.

For FSU, the biggest bang would come from adding Ga Tech and Va Tech to the schedule. For Clemson, it's Miami and Va Tech. Ironically there's nothing you can do to improve gate at VT much because the stadium is so close to max. capacity already.

So much of the current division/schedule setup is done to divide FL and NC equally, but I'm not sure that's the BEST strategy. NC teams like to play other NC teams; Southern teams like to play FL teams.

The thing the Southern teams need to recognize is this: if they want more FSU and Miami then they have to concede more Notre Dame to the Northern teams. To some extent this is already happening - Pitt, BC and Syracuse are all getting a 2nd game with the Irish before any other ACC teams. But if the league decides to go North/South, Notre Dame needs to be the oil that greases it for the Northern teams, IMO.

(05-29-2015 05:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 04:16 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 03:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 03:12 PM)nole Wrote:  The mindset of the ACC is 'whoever has to give something up to increase the revenue of the conference.....should give something up'.


The ACC doesn't have the luxury to play fair........it is great that Clemson/Ga Tech are willing to 'give something up'.....but that is one of the few solid football matchup games for the ACC in hardcore football territory.....I HIGHLY doubt giving up that game is good for the ACC overall. I would say it is the opposite affect.


This isn't a battle over who gets what....it is a battle for what puts $$$ in the ACC's pocket. That comes down to what is best for football. What moves push certain teams to a level where the are actually competitive in football and allowing for the ACC to profit from that.


There are VERY few interesting TV matchups in the ACC. The few that exists....do not need to be 'given up'...that doesn't advance the ACC.


Frankly......Notre Dame playing Wake doesn't help the ACC......Notre Dame playing say Miami every year does. THAT is the type of logic I am speaking of.

Folks will get angry, but the financial reality of what the ACC is about to encounter demands the conference lose this fairness mindset and do what makes the ACC $$$$.

This is the point that some of you don't seem to get and frankly, it's kind of embarrassing.

If the ACC were to follow that formula, it simply doesn't make financial sense for most of the schools to do that because it would negatively impact those schools at the gate more than it would lead to increased television revenue. Also, it would create a permanent caste system - which would negatively (and probably severely) impact donations.

How much extra money is going to be added to the television contract if we all agree to cut the nuts off of the majority of the league to benefit a select few schools? Let's be honest with ourselves: not nearly enough.

Yeah, that would be great for the three or four schools who would benefit from it but it would be terrible or neutral at best for the rest of the league, which is why it has a snowball's chance in Miami of passing. It simply requires a plurality or even a majority of schools to vote against their own financial interests to do so.

If FSU fans want a better schedule that they have complete control over they should either go someplace else (B12?) or give independence a try. As long as you are members of the ACC this will be your reality.

I am for maintaining the status quo because none of the other suggestions seem to work for the majority of the teams and that is how things work in consortiums like this one.

While you make several good points, the last one misses the mark to me.

There is a better solution that doesn't endanger the other aspects you mention in this post which obviously are or should be part of the equation.

What appears to be happening is that a slight majority don't want any changes to the current format because they simply like it, not that they NEED it to remain so even if it endangers conference stability as a whole.

I will use FSU and UNC for the following example because I still truly believe that if this conference survives beyond 2026 it needs both FSU and UNC to work together to bring it safely through some rough waters the upcoming years will bring.

Neither FSU nor UNC should get everything they want because, as you say, this is how a conference works. But in reality, what has UNC not gotten in the current format that they truly want or need? A match-up with Wake more than twice in 12 years? Somehow I think they will manage just fine without it.

What has FSU not gotten that they truly want or need? Playing GT and VT more than two times each in 12 years? Not having to travel to either Boston or Syracuse every year?

As a neutral observer between the two, I can see why FSU fans are more upset than UNC fans on these boards so I try and take that into consideration. And the reality is, unless the NCAA gives UNC the death penalty (highly unlikely), if this whole ACC thing falls apart UNC will have its choice of the SEC or B1G whereas FSU will likely not. So that only adds to the frustration.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil,
The good news is that Carolina didn't turn tail, run, and take UVa, Dook and Georgia Tech with them.
The ACC's challenge is to raise revenue. Our problem is that we are completely at the mercy of ESPN.
When ESPN changes their minds about how the ACC should be configured it will happen, they (ESPN) actually have more broadcast data than you do Neil and they are making decisions to maximize revenue for ESPN whether or not is makes all of the ACC happy.

You may have actually hit upon something without even realizing it.

I don't see how ESPN can possibly get involved "now" to telling the ACC how to set up each and every conference match-up. I think we all know what match-ups they would like to see more often but the main thing that they do have major input in now is which game will be on which of their networks or ESPN3 and tell the conference that if this match-up is going to be on one of the networks it will be at this time on this day or they will go to a different conference for that time and day slot.

If they secretly want to tell the ACC the conference needs more "X vs Y" match-ups it likely would have to wait until after the rules are modified, assuming they get modified. But until such time, asking for more FSU vs GT or VT vs Clemson isn't likely to happen because of how the ACC set up their divisions back in 2005.

I have questioned in the past if the ACC wants to keep divisions, why advocate so strongly for the rules change? I couldn't understand why they want the change while at the same time saying the change won't change anything for the ACC, but you may have hit upon one hidden agenda.

Maybe as part of the first 5-year "look-in" the ACC will offer up the divisional set-up and getting ESPN more of the match-ups they want more frequently (if not annually) in exchange for getting more $$$ from ESPN? Will be interesting to follow this if the change gets done.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-29-2015 06:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 05:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 04:16 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 03:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 03:12 PM)nole Wrote:  The mindset of the ACC is 'whoever has to give something up to increase the revenue of the conference.....should give something up'.


The ACC doesn't have the luxury to play fair........it is great that Clemson/Ga Tech are willing to 'give something up'.....but that is one of the few solid football matchup games for the ACC in hardcore football territory.....I HIGHLY doubt giving up that game is good for the ACC overall. I would say it is the opposite affect.


This isn't a battle over who gets what....it is a battle for what puts $$$ in the ACC's pocket. That comes down to what is best for football. What moves push certain teams to a level where the are actually competitive in football and allowing for the ACC to profit from that.


There are VERY few interesting TV matchups in the ACC. The few that exists....do not need to be 'given up'...that doesn't advance the ACC.


Frankly......Notre Dame playing Wake doesn't help the ACC......Notre Dame playing say Miami every year does. THAT is the type of logic I am speaking of.

Folks will get angry, but the financial reality of what the ACC is about to encounter demands the conference lose this fairness mindset and do what makes the ACC $$$$.

This is the point that some of you don't seem to get and frankly, it's kind of embarrassing.

If the ACC were to follow that formula, it simply doesn't make financial sense for most of the schools to do that because it would negatively impact those schools at the gate more than it would lead to increased television revenue. Also, it would create a permanent caste system - which would negatively (and probably severely) impact donations.

How much extra money is going to be added to the television contract if we all agree to cut the nuts off of the majority of the league to benefit a select few schools? Let's be honest with ourselves: not nearly enough.

Yeah, that would be great for the three or four schools who would benefit from it but it would be terrible or neutral at best for the rest of the league, which is why it has a snowball's chance in Miami of passing. It simply requires a plurality or even a majority of schools to vote against their own financial interests to do so.

If FSU fans want a better schedule that they have complete control over they should either go someplace else (B12?) or give independence a try. As long as you are members of the ACC this will be your reality.

I am for maintaining the status quo because none of the other suggestions seem to work for the majority of the teams and that is how things work in consortiums like this one.

While you make several good points, the last one misses the mark to me.

There is a better solution that doesn't endanger the other aspects you mention in this post which obviously are or should be part of the equation.

What appears to be happening is that a slight majority don't want any changes to the current format because they simply like it, not that they NEED it to remain so even if it endangers conference stability as a whole.

I will use FSU and UNC for the following example because I still truly believe that if this conference survives beyond 2026 it needs both FSU and UNC to work together to bring it safely through some rough waters the upcoming years will bring.

Neither FSU nor UNC should get everything they want because, as you say, this is how a conference works. But in reality, what has UNC not gotten in the current format that they truly want or need? A match-up with Wake more than twice in 12 years? Somehow I think they will manage just fine without it.

What has FSU not gotten that they truly want or need? Playing GT and VT more than two times each in 12 years? Not having to travel to either Boston or Syracuse every year?

As a neutral observer between the two, I can see why FSU fans are more upset than UNC fans on these boards so I try and take that into consideration. And the reality is, unless the NCAA gives UNC the death penalty (highly unlikely), if this whole ACC thing falls apart UNC will have its choice of the SEC or B1G whereas FSU will likely not. So that only adds to the frustration.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil,
The good news is that Carolina didn't turn tail, run, and take UVa, Dook and Georgia Tech with them.
The ACC's challenge is to raise revenue. Our problem is that we are completely at the mercy of ESPN.
When ESPN changes their minds about how the ACC should be configured it will happen, they (ESPN) actually have more broadcast data than you do Neil and they are making decisions to maximize revenue for ESPN whether or not is makes all of the ACC happy.

You may have actually hit upon something without even realizing it.

I don't see how ESPN can possibly get involved "now" to telling the ACC how to set up each and every conference match-up. I think we all know what match-ups they would like to see more often but the main thing that they do have major input in now is which game will be on which of their networks or ESPN3 and tell the conference that if this match-up is going to be on one of the networks it will be at this time on this day or they will go to a different conference for that time and day slot.

If they secretly want to tell the ACC the conference needs more "X vs Y" match-ups it likely would have to wait until after the rules are modified, assuming they get modified. But until such time, asking for more FSU vs GT or VT vs Clemson isn't likely to happen because of how the ACC set up their divisions back in 2005.

I have questioned in the past if the ACC wants to keep divisions, why advocate so strongly for the rules change? I couldn't understand why they want the change while at the same time saying the change won't change anything for the ACC, but you may have hit upon one hidden agenda.

Maybe as part of the first 5-year "look-in" the ACC will offer up the divisional set-up and getting ESPN more of the match-ups they want more frequently (if not annually) in exchange for getting more $$$ from ESPN? Will be interesting to follow this if the change gets done.

Cheers,
Neil

This is EXACTLY what I've been telling people [LINK]:

Quote:...what if the ACC could change the way they schedule games so that ESPN would get match-ups like these more often - wouldn't that be worth something?

...if ESPN sees value in eliminating divisions to get better football match-ups, but some ACC teams are hesitant, the solution is probably more TV revenue in the form of... an ACC cable network!

(05-29-2015 06:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 06:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 05:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 04:16 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 03:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  This is the point that some of you don't seem to get and frankly, it's kind of embarrassing.

If the ACC were to follow that formula, it simply doesn't make financial sense for most of the schools to do that because it would negatively impact those schools at the gate more than it would lead to increased television revenue. Also, it would create a permanent caste system - which would negatively (and probably severely) impact donations.

How much extra money is going to be added to the television contract if we all agree to cut the nuts off of the majority of the league to benefit a select few schools? Let's be honest with ourselves: not nearly enough.

Yeah, that would be great for the three or four schools who would benefit from it but it would be terrible or neutral at best for the rest of the league, which is why it has a snowball's chance in Miami of passing. It simply requires a plurality or even a majority of schools to vote against their own financial interests to do so.

If FSU fans want a better schedule that they have complete control over they should either go someplace else (B12?) or give independence a try. As long as you are members of the ACC this will be your reality.

I am for maintaining the status quo because none of the other suggestions seem to work for the majority of the teams and that is how things work in consortiums like this one.

While you make several good points, the last one misses the mark to me.

There is a better solution that doesn't endanger the other aspects you mention in this post which obviously are or should be part of the equation.

What appears to be happening is that a slight majority don't want any changes to the current format because they simply like it, not that they NEED it to remain so even if it endangers conference stability as a whole.

I will use FSU and UNC for the following example because I still truly believe that if this conference survives beyond 2026 it needs both FSU and UNC to work together to bring it safely through some rough waters the upcoming years will bring.

Neither FSU nor UNC should get everything they want because, as you say, this is how a conference works. But in reality, what has UNC not gotten in the current format that they truly want or need? A match-up with Wake more than twice in 12 years? Somehow I think they will manage just fine without it.

What has FSU not gotten that they truly want or need? Playing GT and VT more than two times each in 12 years? Not having to travel to either Boston or Syracuse every year?

As a neutral observer between the two, I can see why FSU fans are more upset than UNC fans on these boards so I try and take that into consideration. And the reality is, unless the NCAA gives UNC the death penalty (highly unlikely), if this whole ACC thing falls apart UNC will have its choice of the SEC or B1G whereas FSU will likely not. So that only adds to the frustration.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil,
The good news is that Carolina didn't turn tail, run, and take UVa, Dook and Georgia Tech with them.
The ACC's challenge is to raise revenue. Our problem is that we are completely at the mercy of ESPN.
When ESPN changes their minds about how the ACC should be configured it will happen, they (ESPN) actually have more broadcast data than you do Neil and they are making decisions to maximize revenue for ESPN whether or not is makes all of the ACC happy.

You may have actually hit upon something without even realizing it.

I don't see how ESPN can possibly get involved "now" to telling the ACC how to set up each and every conference match-up. I think we all know what match-ups they would like to see more often but the main thing that they do have major input in now is which game will be on which of their networks or ESPN3 and tell the conference that if this match-up is going to be on one of the networks it will be at this time on this day or they will go to a different conference for that time and day slot.

If they secretly want to tell the ACC the conference needs more "X vs Y" match-ups it likely would have to wait until after the rules are modified, assuming they get modified. But until such time, asking for more FSU vs GT or VT vs Clemson isn't likely to happen because of how the ACC set up their divisions back in 2005.

I have questioned in the past if the ACC wants to keep divisions, why advocate so strongly for the rules change? I couldn't understand why they want the change while at the same time saying the change won't change anything for the ACC, but you may have hit upon one hidden agenda.

Maybe as part of the first 5-year "look-in" the ACC will offer up the divisional set-up and getting ESPN more of the match-ups they want more frequently (if not annually) in exchange for getting more $$$ from ESPN? Will be interesting to follow this if the change gets done.

Cheers,
Neil

This is EXACTLY what I've been telling people [LINK]:

Quote:...what if the ACC could change the way they schedule games so that ESPN would get match-ups like these more often - wouldn't that be worth something?

...if ESPN sees value in eliminating divisions to get better football match-ups, but some ACC teams are hesitant, the solution is probably more TV revenue in the form of... an ACC cable network!

Great call on your part. I wish I had read this article a month ago when it came out. I usually read all of your stuff, so I'm not sure how I missed it.

Cheers,
Neil

This Pitt fan blaming fsu for the acc having the worst TV deal and reputation and money is hilarious. Without fsu and Clemson you guys would be out of the power 5. It would be a power 4 with the acc out

Of course Pitt fan is happy. Got their ideal division and got rescued from the big east

Once Pitt does something for acc football the attitude would make more sense.

As for options in the splitup who knows on the sec. I know the big 10 would never take Pitt. Fsu has actually been talked about there.

Fsu would be in a power conference for sure though. Pitt could end up in a G5. Don't think you guys are in position to belittle fsu on value for revenue and sports. You guys are way further down the totem pole

(05-29-2015 06:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 05:18 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I just thought addressing the main point of this thread - and many like it - was more important than delving into each post, even one as brilliant as yours.

To me, the bottom line is that while yes, it would be ideal if every school put its best foot forward and thought of ways to help the league, it is wildly unrealistic to expect them to work against their own financial interests to do so; which is exactly what would happen if they voted to implement this caste system model.

The extra television money the league would receive for more Florida State/Virginia Tech games would not come close to making up for the permanent lost gate others would see as a result of more Syracuse/Duke and Pitt/Wake Forest games...the yang to that ying.

I mean is there really any debating that point?

So then why should those schools vote for a change? So that Florida State can make slightly more money?

It's just a ridiculous suggestion on every level and beneath debate.

The bottom line is the sheer construct of the ACC all but ensures that it will never be among the elite of college football. There are too many private schools and non state schools in the league for that to ever happen. Florida State knew that when it joined the ACC back in the late 1980s when it also had an invitation to join the SEC. It also knew it two years ago when the B12 tried to flirt with it but FSU decided to remain in the ACC.

To me, this is pretty clearly a case of a fan base (or fan bases) who wants to have its cake and eat it too. I'm sorry but reality doesn't work that way for most of us and unfortunately for the Seminoles, they are not powerful enough to game the system in the same way a Notre Dame or a Texas could game it.

That's just how it goes. However, if they want to test that theory, they could always go the independent route and prove me wrong.

Doc, I worked this out for a 14-team ACC with Maryland (not Louisville), and there most certainly IS a way to get more quality match-ups AND simultaneously improve the gate at every single school. It boils down to geographic (and some historic) rivalries. For example, take UNC: if you replaced Miami with Wake Forest, the Tar Heels would not lose (and might gain) gate receipts. I'm guessing the same could be said for Pitt if you replace UNC with Louisville and replace Duke with BC - those are better rivalries.

For FSU, the biggest bang would come from adding Ga Tech and Va Tech to the schedule. For Clemson, it's Miami and Va Tech. Ironically there's nothing you can do to improve gate at VT much because the stadium is so close to max. capacity already.

So much of the current division/schedule setup is done to divide FL and NC equally, but I'm not sure that's the BEST strategy. NC teams like to play other NC teams; Southern teams like to play FL teams.

The thing the Southern teams need to recognize is this: if they want more FSU and Miami then they have to concede more Notre Dame to the Northern teams. To some extent this is already happening - Pitt, BC and Syracuse are all getting a 2nd game with the Irish before any other ACC teams. But if the league decides to go North/South, Notre Dame needs to be the oil that greases it for the Northern teams, IMO.

That's one of the allures of Texas as a partial to the ACC.
Instead of having Notre Dame and Texas play every team in the conference they would be assigned to a division (or two pods) and not cross to the other division.
For instance Notre Dame would only play teams in the northern division (Miami would be in the north), and Texas would only play teams in the southern division. But Texas and Notre Dame would play each other (their 6th ACC game).
The rub for ESPN in this scenario: do they want to forgo the Notre Dame/FSU matchup which has proven to be very marketable.

(05-30-2015 08:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 06:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 05:18 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I just thought addressing the main point of this thread - and many like it - was more important than delving into each post, even one as brilliant as yours.

To me, the bottom line is that while yes, it would be ideal if every school put its best foot forward and thought of ways to help the league, it is wildly unrealistic to expect them to work against their own financial interests to do so; which is exactly what would happen if they voted to implement this caste system model.

The extra television money the league would receive for more Florida State/Virginia Tech games would not come close to making up for the permanent lost gate others would see as a result of more Syracuse/Duke and Pitt/Wake Forest games...the yang to that ying.

I mean is there really any debating that point?

So then why should those schools vote for a change? So that Florida State can make slightly more money?

It's just a ridiculous suggestion on every level and beneath debate.

The bottom line is the sheer construct of the ACC all but ensures that it will never be among the elite of college football. There are too many private schools and non state schools in the league for that to ever happen. Florida State knew that when it joined the ACC back in the late 1980s when it also had an invitation to join the SEC. It also knew it two years ago when the B12 tried to flirt with it but FSU decided to remain in the ACC.

To me, this is pretty clearly a case of a fan base (or fan bases) who wants to have its cake and eat it too. I'm sorry but reality doesn't work that way for most of us and unfortunately for the Seminoles, they are not powerful enough to game the system in the same way a Notre Dame or a Texas could game it.

That's just how it goes. However, if they want to test that theory, they could always go the independent route and prove me wrong.

Doc, I worked this out for a 14-team ACC with Maryland (not Louisville), and there most certainly IS a way to get more quality match-ups AND simultaneously improve the gate at every single school. It boils down to geographic (and some historic) rivalries. For example, take UNC: if you replaced Miami with Wake Forest, the Tar Heels would not lose (and might gain) gate receipts. I'm guessing the same could be said for Pitt if you replace UNC with Louisville and replace Duke with BC - those are better rivalries.

For FSU, the biggest bang would come from adding Ga Tech and Va Tech to the schedule. For Clemson, it's Miami and Va Tech. Ironically there's nothing you can do to improve gate at VT much because the stadium is so close to max. capacity already.

So much of the current division/schedule setup is done to divide FL and NC equally, but I'm not sure that's the BEST strategy. NC teams like to play other NC teams; Southern teams like to play FL teams.

The thing the Southern teams need to recognize is this: if they want more FSU and Miami then they have to concede more Notre Dame to the Northern teams. To some extent this is already happening - Pitt, BC and Syracuse are all getting a 2nd game with the Irish before any other ACC teams. But if the league decides to go North/South, Notre Dame needs to be the oil that greases it for the Northern teams, IMO.

That's on of the allures of Texas as a partial to the ACC.
Instead of having Notre Dame and Texas play every team in the conference they would be assigned to a division (or two pods) and not cross to the other division.
For instance Notre Dame would only play teams in the northern division (Miami would be in the north), and Texas would only play teams in the southern division. But Texas and Notre Dame would play each other (their 6th ACC game).
The rub for ESPN in this scenario: do they want to forgo the Notre Dame/FSU matchup which has proven to be very marketable.

Will Notre Dame go for this? ND wants exposure in Atlanta as well as Florida. Heck, I'm not even sure Texas will go for this. They may want some northeastern exposure.

If the league ever gets Texas in an ND type deal it will be the same as it is now, where they both cycle through all ACC teams, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

In the case of Notre Dame I would envision 5 games/year split like this:
1 game per year alternates between Pitt and BC
4 games to rotate between the other 12 teams
(Syracuse gets their reward in basketball)
That allows for a Northern pod consisting of:
BC, Pitt, Syracuse

Which would be paired with a pod of 4, and leaving a pod of 3 for crossover games.

(05-30-2015 06:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In the case of Notre Dame I would envision 5 games/year split like this:
1 game per year alternates between Pitt and BC
4 games to rotate between the other 12 teams
(Syracuse gets their reward in basketball)
That allows for a Northern pod consisting of:
BC, Pitt, Syracuse

Which would be paired with a pod of 4, and leaving a pod of 3 for crossover games.

Wait. What reward do we get in basketball?

(05-30-2015 07:14 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 06:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In the case of Notre Dame I would envision 5 games/year split like this:
1 game per year alternates between Pitt and BC
4 games to rotate between the other 12 teams
(Syracuse gets their reward in basketball)
That allows for a Northern pod consisting of:
BC, Pitt, Syracuse

Which would be paired with a pod of 4, and leaving a pod of 3 for crossover games.

Wait. What reward do we get in basketball?

I dunno, what would you like... a presidential pardon?

(05-30-2015 08:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 07:14 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 06:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In the case of Notre Dame I would envision 5 games/year split like this:
1 game per year alternates between Pitt and BC
4 games to rotate between the other 12 teams
(Syracuse gets their reward in basketball)
That allows for a Northern pod consisting of:
BC, Pitt, Syracuse

Which would be paired with a pod of 4, and leaving a pod of 3 for crossover games.

Wait. What reward do we get in basketball?

I dunno, what would you like... a presidential pardon?

If that's on the table, then yes. That would work.