(09-13-2015 05:55 PM)nole Wrote:  ken,
Interesting thoughts, they are appreciated. Thanks.

"I doubt the ACC was ever truly earning more from its football than other conferences. "

Just to clarify, I never claimed that. I claimed the ACC was the top per team payout of any conference when FSU joined the ACC (not just football, but total payout). Of course, that is no longer the case.

I can relate to NC States position, FSU has a similar one.

Honestly, not to go down a rabbit hole....it is why I think NC State could be pulled out of the ACC. Look at A&M and Texas and A&Ms move to the SEC. It was a HUGE move to get out of Texas shadow.

With revenue gaps and that dynamic, NC State would have to be tempted to bolt out of UNC's shadow and the ACC....AND get more $$$$ (a LOT more).


I respect your thoughts on doing more with less.....FSU does that as well as anyone (on multiple levels, academic, etc). And to an extent, it is a healthy perspective.

I also believe it is healthy to reevaluate your strategies, ask yourself if you are TRULY on the right path, doing all you can, and are open to change? If yes, then great.....forge ahead with the perspective we are doing all we can and do more with less and enjoy the fight.

I would argue the ACC has been extremely weak in doing all it can and is more likely to embrace status quo due to the human propensity to avoid change at all cost than truly reevaluate and embrace change. Often those who fight for change are shot down for stirring the pot or self flagellation........it is the innate human default to not wanting too much change. I think the ACC could have a strong future with strong football moves, I see a refusal to even see an issue more than anything.....often just a refusal to discuss IF there is a position. That concerns me most. it is only one mans opinion, but it is how I see it.

Two points regarding your comments that I have bolded above.

As Ken as already pointed out, and have I and many others in the past, the slight monetary advantage the ACC had over other conferences was its bb contract that paid basically almost twice as much as any other conference received (thanks to JP/Raycom). The institutions in the ACC may have failed to grasp that college fb $$$ would soon be driving the bus, but it appears they probably did understand that but wanted their cake (good academics, well rounded athletic programs, etc.) and to eat it as well. We can certainly debate that back in 2003 that expansion for football reasons only should have been Miami, VT, and WVU. But that is now spilt milk.

As to your second point, as others have pointed out, this is more of an individual institution thing than an ACC conference thing although not wholly - the conference could be doing a better job balancing schedules, having more $$$ incentives for accomplishments in football (since the contracts now are 75-80% fb related), etc. Still all of these things require support from the majority of the institutions involved.

Also, as for the individual institutions, considering the scandals that have plagued UNC and Miami in terms of athletics/football (I'd include SU but that was way more bb related than fb/overall athletics related) it seems that something was motivating these things behind the scenes. So what do you think that was if it wasn't recognizing the fact that to do better in football (and overall academics) corners might need to be cut and hope they aren't caught?

Cheers,
Neil

No, they are a bad partner. I'd prefer Fox. The above hand wringing over the ACC on the field performance ignores how the SEC's own foibles are generously overlooked and how teams of no merit are hyped to the point they start the season in the Top 10 thanks to ESPN.

Bobby Bowden himself has admitted that the primary reason Florida State chose the ACC over the SEC when given the opportunity to join each was because they knew they would be one of the best teams in the ACC and they would be just another school in the SEC. Or so that was their fear – according to their former longtime head coach.

This is all phony nonsense. This is not an honest discussion. Florida State joined the ACC precisely BECAUSE it had a financial advantage over most of its schools. Now, many of its fans are complaining because that is no longer enough? I'm sorry but that's bogus.

I am not angry or upset with anyone over this issue and I am certainly not taking any of this personally. However, I sincerely don't understand the problem here? What is the suggestion, that Duke starts to spend money like Tennessee? That Wake Forest tries to compete financially with South Carolina?

From where I sit, you probably should have joined the SEC back in the late 80s when you have the chance. Now, that ship has sailed and you will never again have that opportunity. Also, while I definitely agree the ACC can improve, it is roughly now what it will always be and I for one am perfectly fine with that.

Bottom line is the ACC network is coming either via ESPN/FOX or NBC! ESPN will get the first shot, if they pass then FOX or NBC will get the ACC, however I think ESPN will not let FOX/NBC get a crack at the ACC!

Did you expect an honest answer on this board?

Dr. Yinzer has completely derailed this from the OP which simply asked if Espn was a good partner for the conference.

Then he proceeds to spill a lot of nonsense about how bad the conference was/is and how valueless TV-wise (both untrue), has basically written the conference off while throwing out an insincere mea culpa that his own school is partly responsible while suggesting FSU should have joined the SEC when they 'supposedly' had the chance (b/c this place is DOOMED)---- and adopted an attitude that what he just spewed all over this thread was the Gospel Truth and every one else should just accept it with his, 'now that i've answered your questions'... malarky.

He's done nothing of the sort & most of what he said was irrelevant, and OT OPINION, and nothing more.

Thanks to those who answered the original question.

Is ESPN a bad partner, no. Could/should ESPN be doing more for the ACC, yes. There should be more Primetime Saturday night ACC games for one. Example, Clemson v Louisville looked like a preseason quality matchup & yet it's a Thursday night game. Why? The Big 12 has their own ESPN show, why doesn't the ACC?

I think their experts have been more fair this season with their analysis. For instance they talked about how the SEC didn't deserve to have 10 teams ranked last week.

ESPN should promote the ACC more but it's the ACC responsibility to give them something to promote. The ACC is still recovering from a down period & it takes time to sway perception.

Maybe instead of waiting for the commish to demand respect from ESPN maybe ACC fans should contact ESPN with their concerns & show ESPN just how strong the ACC support is.

Lenville,
Tiny example FSU had this week......it had it's starting RB rush for 266 yards....led the nation in rushing and was the 2nd highest total FSU ever had in a single game.

The headline on ESPN webpage?.......it was about a Safety you never heard of who was ejected (and then over turned after review) on the last play of the game (FSU had a 20 point lead at the time). Totally had no impact on the game....but that was the ESPN headline.

Another similar was last year when FSU was vying to get into the playoffs and FSU beat Wake by 30.....the ESPN headline was 'FSU escapes Wake'.


All minor in a vacuum.....but on a regular basis.....ESPN trivializes ACC....and it adds up.


Again, I know most won't agree or see it......but just a different perspective to consider.

(09-14-2015 09:13 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Is ESPN a bad partner, no. Could/should ESPN be doing more for the ACC, yes. There should be more Primetime Saturday night ACC games for one. Example, Clemson v Louisville looked like a preseason quality matchup & yet it's a Thursday night game. Why? The Big 12 has their own ESPN show, why doesn't the ACC?

I think their experts have been more fair this season with their analysis. For instance they talked about how the SEC didn't deserve to have 10 teams ranked last week.

ESPN should promote the ACC more but it's the ACC responsibility to give them something to promote. The ACC is still recovering from a down period & it takes time to sway perception.

Maybe instead of waiting for the commish to demand respect from ESPN maybe ACC fans should contact ESPN with their concerns & show ESPN just how strong the ACC support is.

^^^ THIS ^^^.
Customer complaints work. Here is the email link:
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/mailbag/_/id/16564

no need to register, but you will need to give a return email address.

(09-14-2015 07:25 AM)nole Wrote:  Thanks to those who answered the original question.

You cannot discount this:

(09-14-2015 10:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 09:13 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Is ESPN a bad partner, no. Could/should ESPN be doing more for the ACC, yes. There should be more Primetime Saturday night ACC games for one. Example, Clemson v Louisville looked like a preseason quality matchup & yet it's a Thursday night game. Why? The Big 12 has their own ESPN show, why doesn't the ACC?

I think their experts have been more fair this season with their analysis. For instance they talked about how the SEC didn't deserve to have 10 teams ranked last week.

ESPN should promote the ACC more but it's the ACC responsibility to give them something to promote. The ACC is still recovering from a down period & it takes time to sway perception.

Maybe instead of waiting for the commish to demand respect from ESPN maybe ACC fans should contact ESPN with their concerns & show ESPN just how strong the ACC support is.

^^^ THIS ^^^.
Customer complaints work. Here is the email link:
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/mailbag/_/id/16564

no need to register, but you will need to give a return email address.

This is absurd. It will get nothing done. You might as well be saying "I'm going to write a strongly worded letter to the editor!"

(09-14-2015 11:15 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 10:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 09:13 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Is ESPN a bad partner, no. Could/should ESPN be doing more for the ACC, yes. There should be more Primetime Saturday night ACC games for one. Example, Clemson v Louisville looked like a preseason quality matchup & yet it's a Thursday night game. Why? The Big 12 has their own ESPN show, why doesn't the ACC?

I think their experts have been more fair this season with their analysis. For instance they talked about how the SEC didn't deserve to have 10 teams ranked last week.

ESPN should promote the ACC more but it's the ACC responsibility to give them something to promote. The ACC is still recovering from a down period & it takes time to sway perception.

Maybe instead of waiting for the commish to demand respect from ESPN maybe ACC fans should contact ESPN with their concerns & show ESPN just how strong the ACC support is.

^^^ THIS ^^^.
Customer complaints work. Here is the email link:
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/mailbag/_/id/16564

no need to register, but you will need to give a return email address.

This is absurd. It will get nothing done. You might as well be saying "I'm going to write a strongly worded letter to the editor!"

concur. espn pays attention to $. game, set, match.

(09-14-2015 11:24 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 11:15 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 10:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Customer complaints work. Here is the email link:
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/mailbag/_/id/16564

no need to register, but you will need to give a return email address.

This is absurd. It will get nothing done. You might as well be saying "I'm going to write a strongly worded letter to the editor!"

concur. espn pays attention to $. game, set, match.

Well, seeing as how they HAVE RESPONDED to me in the past, I'd have to say neither of you has any idea what you are talking about... sorry. See, customers = $$$.

Companies DO listen to customer feedback. They DON'T care about non-customers, but in this day of cord-cutting you better believe the threat of losing a bunch more subscribers WILL get their attention.

Well, those companies, who are paying for their commercial air time, will sure as hell be interesting on watching. ESPN makes more money this way. So they go hand in hand the number of TV sets in a market and who actually is watch those games. Both are big factors.

(09-14-2015 12:14 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Well, those companies, who are paying for their commercial air time, will sure as hell be interesting on watching. ESPN makes more money this way. So they go hand in hand the number of TV sets in a market and who actually is watch those games. Both are big factors.

Yes. Ratings tell them who IS watching. Customer feedback tells them who ISN'T watching.

(09-14-2015 10:40 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 07:25 AM)nole Wrote:  Thanks to those who answered the original question.

You cannot discount this:

What is being discounted? Don't tell me you think the ACC can just partner with NBC. It can't. It can't partner with Fox, either.

Is ESPN a "good" partner? Not just no but heck no.

(09-14-2015 11:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 11:24 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 11:15 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 10:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Customer complaints work. Here is the email link:
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/mailbag/_/id/16564

no need to register, but you will need to give a return email address.

This is absurd. It will get nothing done. You might as well be saying "I'm going to write a strongly worded letter to the editor!"

concur. espn pays attention to $. game, set, match.

Well, seeing as how they HAVE RESPONDED to me in the past, I'd have to say neither of you has any idea what you are talking about... sorry. See, customers = $$$.

Companies DO listen to customer feedback. They DON'T care about non-customers, but in this day of cord-cutting you better believe the threat of losing a bunch more subscribers WILL get their attention.

until espn starts losing money, they will not care. they may have responded, but I doubt they intend to change anything. call me cynical, but that's my gut feeling. they probably figure that acc fans cannot cut the cord, otherwise they would miss out on a lot of coverage of acc teams.

Are they a good partner? Yes, in the sense that if you sell widgets over the internet, FedEx is a good "partner" because they are getting stuff there on time. The viewers and visibility the ACC gets for games on ESPN/ABC kicks the crap out of what they'd get on Fox. Fox could have their Fox Sports Live (or whatever it's called) giving Frank Beamer a back rub every morning, but with their 30,000 viewers it doesn't matter. If I caught it correctly, Fox is now in an ad campaign just to try to make people aware they have college football.

From a visibility and relevance point, the ACC on anywhere but ESPN would be a disaster. They ACC absolutely needs the exposure of ESPN.

Now, are they a good partner the way we want them to be? Like mutually working together to improve the conference? Not really. Especially on the little things...that have been mentioned...I think those are the things that could and should be better.

But as far as "hyping" the ACC? Come one...the ACC has done precious little to warrant it. Did anyone notice that the ACC doesn't have a win over a P5 team yet? That we're 0 for the P5? That our arguably #4 team lost (and was in a deep hole at one point) on a neutral field to a team that just escaped an FCS foe at home in OT?

Why on earth would ESPN be showcasing Louisville-Clemson, knowing that Louisville scheduled itself tough, and ACC history shows that what transpired this year is by far the most usual ACC historical scenario.

We've had two good years. GOOD years. The SEC won seven straight titles. What ESPN personality is going to put their neck out on the limb repping the ACC, when history shows that 95% of the time they will be shown to be on the wrong side, and 70% it will be embarrassing. Kentucky and Jacksonville state just made the ACC's opening week a total joke...what do you want ESPN to do about it?

You've got a monster in the SEC...the most rabid fans that consume all of ESPN's various media in a way that ACC fans will never approach. There's probably 10 SEC teams with more fans subscribing to "ESPN Insider" than the highest ACC team.

This idea that ESPN should shill the ACC, and that's somehow going to make the ACC better is just another way of saying "It's not our fault...we're good enough, we're just not getting the publicity."

The ACC is NOT good enough yet. We don't have the fan bases that will REQUIRE ESPN to cater to it, and never will. But you can FORCE ESPN to play along if the ACC can ever advance beyond "Not as bad as many people think!"

Send someone to the playoffs this year besides FSU. That would be a start.

Again, I agree with some of the smaller slights in coverage as mentioned...but as far as the bigger partnership people want, with ESPN carrying the ACC's water...this conference has to prove it. The ACC is almost universally expected to be the conference out of the playoffs. Most likely, that expectation, and all the decisions that are based on it, is going to be rewarded when the ACC champion has 2-3 losses.

This conference is better than it was a few years ago (I think), but it hasn't arrived. It's barely started the car.

(09-14-2015 01:08 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  Dr. Yinzer has completely derailed this from the OP which simply asked if Espn was a good partner for the conference.

Then he proceeds to spill a lot of nonsense about how bad the conference was/is and how valueless TV-wise (both untrue), has basically written the conference off while throwing out an insincere mea culpa that his own school is partly responsible while suggesting FSU should have joined the SEC when they 'supposedly' had the chance (b/c this place is DOOMED)---- and adopted an attitude that what he just spewed all over this thread was the Gospel Truth and every one else should just accept it with his, 'now that i've answered your questions'... malarky.

He's done nothing of the sort & most of what he said was irrelevant, and OT OPINION, and nothing more.

Oh, horseshitt! I didn't derail anything. I just provided full context to a very complex question. Just because you didn't like my answer doesn't mean it's invalid.

If I need to make it simpler and play by these moronic rules, my answer is yes, ESPN is CLEARLY the best media partner the ACC has ever had.