(06-19-2015 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 08:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 07:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 03:10 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Despite the bad rep., the TV money (and booster money) just started to get out of line recently. What I have read, the ACC and SEC have historically been close in money. IF it is not the case now and in the future, it is a variation.

Dasville this is flawed reasoning. Before the rise of cable and the Oklahoma/Georgia lawsuit all conferences were paid very little by today's standards. Comparing those numbers as the norm to say that the increasing difference of the present paradigm is a variation is to bury your head in the sand about how each conference got off to a relatively equal start only because the pay was so low and the variations therefore such a small percentage of the total.

In today's highly competitive cable market your days of little variation is the variation of the new paradigm, not the other way around where the growing differences are the variation of what is now a moot paradigm.

People watch football. It's compelling. Cable provides more of that now than ever and they want better games to display. Football and football content will drive the increasing gaps in revenue. That is the new norm.

The problem with cable markets is that they don't have a season that only runs from Labor Day till the middle of January.
The watch word is Inventory, not just football inventory, but year-round cable inventory.

Xlance the point here is that outside of tourney credits there isn't much difference percentage wise in hoops coverage, baseball coverage, and other ancillary sports coverage. The difference is in football so that is why the rest of the broadcast year is really (percentage wise) a wash.

I think that Skipper has big plans and the SEC and the ACC will play major rolls.

(06-19-2015 09:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 08:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 07:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 03:10 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Despite the bad rep., the TV money (and booster money) just started to get out of line recently. What I have read, the ACC and SEC have historically been close in money. IF it is not the case now and in the future, it is a variation.

Dasville this is flawed reasoning. Before the rise of cable and the Oklahoma/Georgia lawsuit all conferences were paid very little by today's standards. Comparing those numbers as the norm to say that the increasing difference of the present paradigm is a variation is to bury your head in the sand about how each conference got off to a relatively equal start only because the pay was so low and the variations therefore such a small percentage of the total.

In today's highly competitive cable market your days of little variation is the variation of the new paradigm, not the other way around where the growing differences are the variation of what is now a moot paradigm.

People watch football. It's compelling. Cable provides more of that now than ever and they want better games to display. Football and football content will drive the increasing gaps in revenue. That is the new norm.

The problem with cable markets is that they don't have a season that only runs from Labor Day till the middle of January.
The watch word is Inventory, not just football inventory, but year-round cable inventory.

Xlance the point here is that outside of tourney credits there isn't much difference percentage wise in hoops coverage, baseball coverage, and other ancillary sports coverage. The difference is in football so that is why the rest of the broadcast year is really (percentage wise) a wash.

I think that Skipper has big plans and the SEC and the ACC will play major rolls.

Pray, tell! Things are still slow and I love a good yarn. Even better I love a good idea.

(06-19-2015 03:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 02:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 01:36 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 12:32 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  As much as I hate WVU, I would like to see them added. It just makes zero sense for them to not be in the ACC. Solid brand, natural rivals, good football, new market, perfect fit IMO.

Agreed. In a realistic world, the rule change comes about, the ACC adds WVU as #15, the league goes to a 2-6-6 scheduling model, ND goes from a 5 game to 6 game commitment with the extra game being a season ending Miami rivalry game, and an ACCN gets up and running.

I think that is about the best the ACC can expect.

Cheers,
Neil

A lot of positives there with West Virginia, Neil (aside from the couch burning, but that behavior will mesh very nicely with the NC State fans). There is the BackYard Brawl which is a classic rivalry and the fact that West Virginia would make the ACC contiguous again. Location, location, location.
Getting that 6th game with Notre Dame in a 15 team conference would really be a positive step with the Irish.

Yep.

In this set-up the season-ending rivalry games would be:

FSU-Florida
Miami-ND
Pitt-WVU
Clemson-South Carolina
GT-Georgia
VT-UVa
UNC-NC State
Louisville-Kentucky
SU-BC
Duke-Wake

Right now, ND's season ending game tends to alternate between USC and Stanford and always on the road out in California. They are 4-6 in those games so it hasn't been a big problem, but still, it must be tough to always have your season-ending game on the road.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, If one assumes that the season ending games have permanent rivals (within the conference) how do you see the rest of the permanent games lining up within the ACC based on the 2-6-6 model?
There seem to be some "must have" series that would need to be retained, such as Carolina-UVa and Georgia Tech-Dook, I'm just curious to see how you would divide up the conference keeping as much tradition as possible and providing the best possible match ups for the benefit of TV.

What is being lost here is through the late 90s, basketball made up near 50% of the TV contracts, and the ACC had the biggest or 2nd contract through the 90s.

If you are the country's best basketball conference things were looking rosy. Swofford still had the Forsight to expand by bringing in Miami and Virginia Tech for football. That should have been two perennial top 15 teams.

VT was fine for years, but couldn't beat anyone of note OOC. IF Miami had maintained their status, Clemson and FSU not went in the tank the occasional GT or someone else - that is 5 top 25 tams through the down time of the 2000s.

FSU you aren't off the hook during most of that decade, but neither is any ACC school. The ACC put those early ACCCG games in FLorida for you and Miami's benefit, and at a critical time in college marketing you and Miami failed. To the Noles credit they have returned, but Miami continues to drag the conference down.

That said every ACC schools from Clemson, VT, and Miami to Wake Forest and UVA were part of the ACC's current mess through 2011.

Had the ACC just went 6-9 rather than 2-13 in BCS games things would have been alot different when football tookover.

(06-20-2015 12:46 PM)GTTiger Wrote:  What is being lost here is through the late 90s, basketball made up near 50% of the TV contracts, and the ACC had the biggest or 2nd contract through the 90s.

If you are the country's best basketball conference things were looking rosy. Swofford still had the Forsight to expand by bringing in Miami and Virginia Tech for football. That should have been two perennial top 15 teams.

VT was fine for years, but couldn't beat anyone of note OOC. IF Miami had maintained their status, Clemson and FSU not went in the tank the occasional GT or someone else - that is 5 top 25 tams through the down time of the 2000s.

FSU you aren't off the hook during most of that decade, but neither is any ACC school. The ACC put those early ACCCG games in FLorida for you and Miami's benefit, and at a critical time in college marketing you failed. That said every ACC schools from Clemson, VT, and Miami to Wake Forest and UVA were part of the ACC's current mess through 2011.

Had the ACC just went 6-9 rather than 2-13 in BCS games things would have been alot different when football tookover.

Agree with the overall point that had the ACC done well in football particularly if Miami performed like Miami pre-invite to the ACC and Clemson performed in 00s like they are performing now, the current TV contract would be a lot different.

However I do need to point out for the record, even during the 90s, for most conferences football was the majority of their tv contract. Only in the ACC did their separate bb tv contract equal (actually exceeded until 2005) their football tv contract which as a result along with the fact they were dividing by 9, not 10 or 11 or 12, allowed the ACC to stay slightly ahead of the others in terms of per team conference payouts until around 2008 or so.

The ACC had the most lucrative bb TV contract(s) of it's time. And no conference came close to its $30 million value. The nearest competitors were the Big Ten with a $15 million contract for bb and the Big East with a $12 million tv contract.

http://raycomsports.com/expanded-company-history/

Haines and JP’s Hull in late 1999 worked with ACC Commissioner John Swofford in negotiating a renewal to the prestigious ACC basketball television contract. As a result, Raycom Sports and partner Jefferson-Pilot Sports extended their contract with the ACC for all basketball television and conference marketing rights through the 2010-2011 season.

The new package dissolved a cable exclusivity of ESPN and introduced a unique nationally-televised Sunday night game of the week on FOX Sports Net,(168) while maintaining ACC games on ESPN, ABC, CBS, and the traditional Raycom syndicated package.(169) All scheduling of ACC basketball games on any network was coordinated by Johnson, who worked closely with the ACC. Raycom continued to also handle marketing, sales, and distribution while Jefferson-Pilot oversaw production of the ACC package of games.

The financial package committed more than $300 million to the ACC over a ten-year period(167) and continued the conference’s record of being the most televised college basketball conference in the nation. It gave the ACC the highest rights fee per school of any of the 31 leagues in Division I.(170) The agreement between Raycom and the ACC marked 30 years that Raycom had been a television partner with the ACC. It also signified 30 years of a successful business relationship with Jefferson Pilot.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-18-2015 02:18 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  ...relative to the other conferences, the ACC has never been "up" in football. Never. There is never a decade when the ACC had more top 10 teams than another major conference. The ACC has always been cumulatively the worst major football conference out of any period you look. It's been either weak or abysmal.

There's no cycle, there's no "stay the course and it will work out."

You could make an argument that the last three years are actually the best three year period in ACC history. Did anyone credibly believe the ACC climbed any higher than MAYBE fourth in football power in the last three years?

TECHNICALLY, Lou is correct. At no time has the ACC - as it was configured at that time - been the best conference. However, if you look at things in terms of current configurations of conferences, that's not true:


- LINK

1990-1992 and 1998-2000 were two periods when the ACC (in its current configuration) would've been the best football conference. For this reason I'm comfortable with the phrase "getting [the ACC] back to the top of the college football world" - LINK.

P.S. I was on vacation, but now I'm ba-a-ack!

(06-20-2015 01:02 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 12:46 PM)GTTiger Wrote:  What is being lost here is through the late 90s, basketball made up near 50% of the TV contracts, and the ACC had the biggest or 2nd contract through the 90s.

If you are the country's best basketball conference things were looking rosy. Swofford still had the Forsight to expand by bringing in Miami and Virginia Tech for football. That should have been two perennial top 15 teams.

VT was fine for years, but couldn't beat anyone of note OOC. IF Miami had maintained their status, Clemson and FSU not went in the tank the occasional GT or someone else - that is 5 top 25 tams through the down time of the 2000s.

FSU you aren't off the hook during most of that decade, but neither is any ACC school. The ACC put those early ACCCG games in FLorida for you and Miami's benefit, and at a critical time in college marketing you failed. That said every ACC schools from Clemson, VT, and Miami to Wake Forest and UVA were part of the ACC's current mess through 2011.

Had the ACC just went 6-9 rather than 2-13 in BCS games things would have been alot different when football tookover.

Agree with the overall point that had the ACC done well in football particularly if Miami performed like Miami pre-invite to the ACC and Clemson performed in 00s like they are performing now, the current TV contract would be a lot different.

However I do need to point out for the record, even during the 90s, for most conferences football was the majority of their tv contract. Only in the ACC did their separate bb tv contract equal (actually exceeded until 2005) their football tv contract which as a result along with the fact they were dividing by 9, not 10 or 11 or 12, allowed the ACC to stay slightly ahead of the others in terms of per team conference payouts until around 2008 or so.

The ACC had the most lucrative bb TV contract(s) of it's time. And no conference came close to its $30 million value. The nearest competitors were the Big Ten with a $15 million contract for bb and the Big East with a $12 million tv contract.

http://raycomsports.com/expanded-company-history/

Haines and JP’s Hull in late 1999 worked with ACC Commissioner John Swofford in negotiating a renewal to the prestigious ACC basketball television contract. As a result, Raycom Sports and partner Jefferson-Pilot Sports extended their contract with the ACC for all basketball television and conference marketing rights through the 2010-2011 season.

The new package dissolved a cable exclusivity of ESPN and introduced a unique nationally-televised Sunday night game of the week on FOX Sports Net,(168) while maintaining ACC games on ESPN, ABC, CBS, and the traditional Raycom syndicated package.(169) All scheduling of ACC basketball games on any network was coordinated by Johnson, who worked closely with the ACC. Raycom continued to also handle marketing, sales, and distribution while Jefferson-Pilot oversaw production of the ACC package of games.

The financial package committed more than $300 million to the ACC over a ten-year period(167) and continued the conference’s record of being the most televised college basketball conference in the nation. It gave the ACC the highest rights fee per school of any of the 31 leagues in Division I.(170) The agreement between Raycom and the ACC marked 30 years that Raycom had been a television partner with the ACC. It also signified 30 years of a successful business relationship with Jefferson Pilot.

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks for the clarification, I couldn't remember the exact details, but the point is that basketball for the ACC was very lucrative and it put the ACC at or near the top of the TV revenues in the 90s. Swofford tried to stay ahead of the game with the football additions but a total collapse of ACC football for nearly a decade is a hole the conference is just now coming out of.

While the conference wasn't the best even during the 80s or 90s, they fielded several very good teams. UNC, GT in the late 90s. GT national title in the 90s. Clemson in the 80s through early 90s. Obviously FSU. Maryland had some good teams in the 80s. 2003-2011 was a collective complete disaster.

(06-20-2015 05:42 PM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 01:02 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 12:46 PM)GTTiger Wrote:  What is being lost here is through the late 90s, basketball made up near 50% of the TV contracts, and the ACC had the biggest or 2nd contract through the 90s.

If you are the country's best basketball conference things were looking rosy. Swofford still had the Forsight to expand by bringing in Miami and Virginia Tech for football. That should have been two perennial top 15 teams.

VT was fine for years, but couldn't beat anyone of note OOC. IF Miami had maintained their status, Clemson and FSU not went in the tank the occasional GT or someone else - that is 5 top 25 tams through the down time of the 2000s.

FSU you aren't off the hook during most of that decade, but neither is any ACC school. The ACC put those early ACCCG games in FLorida for you and Miami's benefit, and at a critical time in college marketing you failed. That said every ACC schools from Clemson, VT, and Miami to Wake Forest and UVA were part of the ACC's current mess through 2011.

Had the ACC just went 6-9 rather than 2-13 in BCS games things would have been alot different when football tookover.

Agree with the overall point that had the ACC done well in football particularly if Miami performed like Miami pre-invite to the ACC and Clemson performed in 00s like they are performing now, the current TV contract would be a lot different.

However I do need to point out for the record, even during the 90s, for most conferences football was the majority of their tv contract. Only in the ACC did their separate bb tv contract equal (actually exceeded until 2005) their football tv contract which as a result along with the fact they were dividing by 9, not 10 or 11 or 12, allowed the ACC to stay slightly ahead of the others in terms of per team conference payouts until around 2008 or so.

The ACC had the most lucrative bb TV contract(s) of it's time. And no conference came close to its $30 million value. The nearest competitors were the Big Ten with a $15 million contract for bb and the Big East with a $12 million tv contract.

http://raycomsports.com/expanded-company-history/

Haines and JP’s Hull in late 1999 worked with ACC Commissioner John Swofford in negotiating a renewal to the prestigious ACC basketball television contract. As a result, Raycom Sports and partner Jefferson-Pilot Sports extended their contract with the ACC for all basketball television and conference marketing rights through the 2010-2011 season.

The new package dissolved a cable exclusivity of ESPN and introduced a unique nationally-televised Sunday night game of the week on FOX Sports Net,(168) while maintaining ACC games on ESPN, ABC, CBS, and the traditional Raycom syndicated package.(169) All scheduling of ACC basketball games on any network was coordinated by Johnson, who worked closely with the ACC. Raycom continued to also handle marketing, sales, and distribution while Jefferson-Pilot oversaw production of the ACC package of games.

The financial package committed more than $300 million to the ACC over a ten-year period(167) and continued the conference’s record of being the most televised college basketball conference in the nation. It gave the ACC the highest rights fee per school of any of the 31 leagues in Division I.(170) The agreement between Raycom and the ACC marked 30 years that Raycom had been a television partner with the ACC. It also signified 30 years of a successful business relationship with Jefferson Pilot.

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks for the clarification, I couldn't remember the exact details, but the point is that basketball for the ACC was very lucrative and it put the ACC at or near the top of the TV revenues in the 90s. Swofford tried to stay ahead of the game with the football additions but a total collapse of ACC football for nearly a decade is a hole the conference is just now coming out of.

While the conference wasn't the best even during the 80s or 90s, they fielded several very good teams. UNC, GT in the late 90s. GT national title in the 90s. Clemson in the 80s through early 90s. Obviously FSU. Maryland had some good teams in the 80s. 2003-2011 was a collective complete disaster.

I think you may be missing my point of how vastly superior the ACC's bb tv contract was in comparison with other conferences. While that did allow for the ACC to equal (really slightly exceed) other conferences payouts, what that means is that the ACC football tv contract would have been quite inferior.

It sort of backs up Lou's point that the ACC was never considered a great football conference. I still believe it has the potential to be a better one (at least the third best on a consistent basis while challenging for second best overall from time to time) but until they actually prove it on the field (which they have started to do somewhat these past three years) the tv money just won't be there.

Meanwhile, it's no longer the 80s or early 90s when ACC basketball drew crazy rating numbers. And Raycom no longer can afford to invest in college sports like they once did. So it can't rely solely on its basketball to pull it out of the whole. It can do it partially, but not wholly. The turnaround in football needs to happen and that will rely largely on 1) FSU, Clemson, GT and UL doing what they have been doing; 2) Miami becoming Miami again and VT getting back; 3) one of UNC or NC State (or perhaps they alternate) being a consistent Top 30 football program; and 4) at least one of the northeast programs to be in the Top 25 to make the northeastern strategy truly pay off. Although four is probably the least important.

Anyway, that is how I see it.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-20-2015 12:46 PM)GTTiger Wrote:  FSU you aren't off the hook

Yea. Yea we are.

(06-20-2015 02:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 02:18 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  ...relative to the other conferences, the ACC has never been "up" in football. Never. There is never a decade when the ACC had more top 10 teams than another major conference. The ACC has always been cumulatively the worst major football conference out of any period you look. It's been either weak or abysmal.

There's no cycle, there's no "stay the course and it will work out."

You could make an argument that the last three years are actually the best three year period in ACC history. Did anyone credibly believe the ACC climbed any higher than MAYBE fourth in football power in the last three years?

TECHNICALLY, Lou is correct. At no time has the ACC - as it was configured at that time - been the best conference. However, if you look at things in terms of current configurations of conferences, that's not true:


- LINK

1990-1992 and 1998-2000 were two periods when the ACC (in its current configuration) would've been the best football conference. For this reason I'm comfortable with the phrase "getting [the ACC] back to the top of the college football world" - LINK.

P.S. I was on vacation, but now I'm ba-a-ack!

Don't overlook 87-89.

In '87, Miami, Florida St., Syracuse and Clemson were 1-2-4-12 in the final AP.

In '88, Miami, Florida St., Clemson and Syracuse were 2-3-9-13.

In '89, Miami, Florida St., Clemson, Pitt and UVA were 1-3-12-17-18.

That's seven top 4 finishes in just 3 years. Extend that from '87 to '92, and it's 14 top 4 finishes in 6 years (also 15 top 6 finishes).

Also, you haven't highlighted Louisville's 6 top 20 finishes from 1990-2011.

(06-22-2015 12:32 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 02:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 02:18 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  ...relative to the other conferences, the ACC has never been "up" in football. Never. There is never a decade when the ACC had more top 10 teams than another major conference. The ACC has always been cumulatively the worst major football conference out of any period you look. It's been either weak or abysmal.

There's no cycle, there's no "stay the course and it will work out."

You could make an argument that the last three years are actually the best three year period in ACC history. Did anyone credibly believe the ACC climbed any higher than MAYBE fourth in football power in the last three years?

TECHNICALLY, Lou is correct. At no time has the ACC - as it was configured at that time - been the best conference. However, if you look at things in terms of current configurations of conferences, that's not true:


- LINK

1990-1992 and 1998-2000 were two periods when the ACC (in its current configuration) would've been the best football conference. For this reason I'm comfortable with the phrase "getting [the ACC] back to the top of the college football world" - LINK.

P.S. I was on vacation, but now I'm ba-a-ack!

Don't overlook 87-89.

In '87, Miami, Florida St., Syracuse and Clemson were 1-2-4-12 in the final AP.

In '88, Miami, Florida St., Clemson and Syracuse were 2-3-9-13.

In '89, Miami, Florida St., Clemson, Pitt and UVA were 1-3-12-17-18.

That's seven top 4 finishes in just 3 years. Extend that from '87 to '92, and it's 14 top 4 finishes in 6 years (also 15 top 6 finishes).

Also, you haven't highlighted Louisville's 6 top 20 finishes from 1990-2011.

3 to 4 teams i the top 15 is the stuff of excellence, so yes, 1987-1989 was a very good period for current ACC teams!

I created this infographic when Maryland was still in the league, hence no mention of Louisville.

The current ACC looks nothing like the OLD ACC back n 1990.... SO glad the new ACC gets to start in the new CFP era.....

Will be fun to see how the ACC looks after the CFP era... I am guessing while the ACC struggled in the BCS, the ACC will do better in the CFP.

(06-24-2015 03:43 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  The current ACC looks nothing like the OLD ACC back n 1990.... SO glad the new ACC gets to start in the new CFP era.....

Will be fun to see how the ACC looks after the CFP era... I am guessing while the ACC struggled in the BCS, the ACC will do better in the CFP.

Having twice as many playoff slots certainly helps. There's also an element of simply the end of the SEC run, IMO.

BACK TO NORMALCY!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2012/0...tball.html

2000 Top 25
1. Oklahoma
2. Miami (FL)
3. Washington
4. Oregon St
5. FSU
6. Va Tech
7. Oregon
8. Nebraska
9. Kansas St
10. Florida
11. Michigan
12. Texas
13. Purdue
14. Colorado St
15. Notre Dame
16. Clemson
17. Georgia Tech
18. Auburn
19. South Carolina
20. Georgia
21. TCU
22. LSU
23. Wisconsin
24. Mississippi St
25. Iowa St.

2002 Top 25
1. Ohio St
2. Miami (FL)
3. Georgia
4. USC
5. Oklahoma
6. Texas
7. Kansas St
8. Iowa
9. Michigan
10. Wash St
11. Alabama
12. NC St
13. Maryland
14. Auburn
15. Boise St
16. Penn St
17. Notre Dame
18. Va Tech
19. Pittsburgh
20. Colorado
21. FSU
22. Virginia
23. TCU
24. Marshall
25. WVU

(06-24-2015 04:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 03:43 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  The current ACC looks nothing like the OLD ACC back n 1990.... SO glad the new ACC gets to start in the new CFP era.....

Will be fun to see how the ACC looks after the CFP era... I am guessing while the ACC struggled in the BCS, the ACC will do better in the CFP.

Having twice as many playoff slots certainly helps. There's also an element of simply the end of the SEC run, IMO.

BACK TO NORMALCY!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2012/0...tball.html

2000 Top 25
1. Oklahoma
2. Miami (FL)
3. Washington
4. Oregon St
5. FSU
6. Va Tech
7. Oregon
8. Nebraska
9. Kansas St
10. Florida
11. Michigan
12. Texas
13. Purdue
14. Colorado St
15. Notre Dame
16. Clemson
17. Georgia Tech
18. Auburn
19. South Carolina
20. Georgia
21. TCU
22. LSU
23. Wisconsin
24. Mississippi St
25. Iowa St.

2002 Top 25
1. Ohio St
2. Miami (FL)
3. Georgia
4. USC
5. Oklahoma
6. Texas
7. Kansas St
8. Iowa
9. Michigan
10. Wash St
11. Alabama
12. NC St
13. Maryland
14. Auburn
15. Boise St
16. Penn St
17. Notre Dame
18. Va Tech
19. Pittsburgh
20. Colorado
21. FSU
22. Virginia
23. TCU
24. Marshall
25. WVU

I like the new ACC!!!!!