Just curious....besides just paying the ACC.....do you see ESPN as a good promoter of ACC outside of basketball?

Latest of many snubs from the ACC's business 'partner'....


https://twitter.com/267mims/status/643037395995238400

ESPN is a television network. Their job is not to propagandize on behalf of the ACC. I think the ACC is primarily responsible for its perception problems, not ESPN.

In the attached clip, Joe Tessitore simply misspoke. It is not part of the grand conspiracy, he simply made a mistake.

Calm down.

(09-13-2015 01:28 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  ESPN is a television network. Their job is not to propagandize on behalf of the ACC. I think the ACC is primarily responsible for its perception problems, not ESPN.

In the attached clip, Joe Tessitore simply misspoke. It is not part of the grand conspiracy, he simply made a mistake.

Calm down.

I am calm....you can ask a question and be calm at the same time.

You are right....ESPN doesn't propagandize anything.

ESPN will hype up just about anything it can to build its business. If the ACC took care of business on the field, (and in recent years that's starting to happen), then ESPN will be on board. Right now the money train is the SEC. The ratings agree.

You can do whatever you want. I just don't think that it is neither wise nor honest for the ACC to blame its problems on anyone other than the ACC.

So when Joe Tessitore misspeaks in some innocuous moment of a late night college football wrap up show, or some preseason commercial doesn't have enough ACC mascots in it, I think whining about those things and pointing to them as "proof" of some sort of anti-ACC conspiracy is completely insane.

Like batshitt.

I understand that people complain about ESPN's constant shilling for the SEC and those people of course right. It can be nauseating to hear all of the excuse making that all of the media, not just ESPN, regularly does for the SEC.

However, instead of attacking the symptoms why don't we instead attack the root cause? Let's advocate for a system that is based on actual merit rather than public perception. If an SEC school loses to an FCS program or a low-level FBS program that is embarrassing just as it would be if it happened to school in another league.

I get that and I share and your frustration.

However, if the ACC were to have multiple members combine to win seven straight national championships, I guarantee you our perception would also be significantly better than it is right now.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should seek internal solutions before whining about external barriers or foes. Remember, ESPN is not the only media organization that regularly blasts the ACC. Also, anyone who's being honest with themselves will acknowledge that those attacks are not always without justification.

To answer the original question posed, I think ESPN has been a much better partner for the ACC than the ACC has been for ESPN.

I think complaining about that relationship demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how this whole thing works.

Look, here's the deal. As long as so many aspects of college football are controlled by public perception, we will be on the wrong end of a caste system. We are not in as bad a shape as the American, the Mountain West and some others but we are definitely squarely in the middle class.

The Big Ten is the king of the college athletics mountain. If they win they get the most coverage. That's because they have the largest schools with the most affluent alums. Advertisers want to sell lots of things to affluent people so the Big Ten wins. Incidentally, that is also why Notre Dame is at the top of the mountain amongst individual schools.

The SEC is next in line because they probably have the most fans. Their fans on average don't have as much money as Big Ten fans but they do have large, passionate, loyal fan bases.

On the next tier is the PAC-12. They are a clear step down from both the Big Ten and the SEC because Westerners and general aren't as devoted to sports as those of us who live in the East. However, they are a clear step up from both the ACC and the Big 12 because they control the entire West Coast and their schools are also loaded with wealthy alums.

The bottom tier is occupied by the Big 12 and the ACC. The Big 12 has a bunch of state schools in relatively sparsely populated states. Texas is the obvious exception to that rule which is why it and Oklahoma are Goliaths. The rest of the schools Nutley are really comparable to what we find in the Mountain West.

It's part, the ACC has a lot of private and semi-private schools. However, they are located in heavily populated/affluent states, thus increasing their value to television advertisers. Unfortunately, the very nature of the schools themselves mandates that they will never be anything other than a third tier league both financially and from the perception standpoint. It doesn't matter what ESPN or Fox or the Associated Press or anyone else says about it. They simply don't have as many graduates/fans as schools in the first two tiers, The dynamic will never change.

What can change is the ACC can field better, more competitive programs. With the number of players this conference is regularly sending to the NFL, there is no reason why the ACC cannot be more successful in intersectional match ups. Also, no conference would benefit more from an 8-team playoff with an automatic qualifying bid to the ACC champion. I see that issue as being essential to the league's long term future.

(09-13-2015 01:59 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  To answer the original question posed, I think ESPN has been a much better partner for the ACC than the ACC has been for ESPN.

I actually disagree with this. Even with it's ineptitude, the ACC has performed well in ratings compared to the other conferences not named the B1G and SEC. In addition, ESPN has been able to take additional games and sell them to Fox or Raycom for more $$$.

Let's not forget basketball is included in that as well, and the ACC has more than made up there.

Dr....thank you for that follow up response.



Jam and Dr.

So IF I understand, you both suggest it is the ACC fault for not competing well enough in football.

IF I have that right...and if it is correct. What if ANYTHING should the ACC do?

Has the ACC done anything other than HOPE this changes? Is HOPE a strategy?

These are loaded questions.....I want the ACC to have an ACTIONABLE strategy to try and fix things.

I do happen to believe ESPN is starting to be a propaganda machine for the SEC.....but let's table that and address your point.


the ACC has to be better at football.


OK...how? What incentive is there? I have watched for over 2 decades and seen schools in the ACC with ENDLESS $$$$, brand recongnition, great location, etc just not give a damn and do nothing.


Are we just stuck on hope as a strategy?

(09-13-2015 02:07 PM)nole Wrote:  Dr....thank you for that follow up response.



Jam and Dr.

So IF I understand, you both suggest it is the ACC fault for not competing well enough in football.

IF I have that right...and if it is correct. What if ANYTHING should the ACC do?

Has the ACC done anything other than HOPE this changes? Is HOPE a strategy?

These are loaded questions.....I want the ACC to have an ACTIONABLE strategy to try and fix things.

I do happen to believe ESPN is starting to be a propaganda machine for the SEC.....but let's table that and address your point.


the ACC has to be better at football.


OK...how? What incentive is there? I have watched for over 2 decades and seen schools in the ACC with ENDLESS $$$$, brand recongnition, great location, etc just not give a damn and do nothing.


Are we just stuck on hope as a strategy?

The strategy is already underway....GET BETTER AT FOOTBALL.

When FSU and Clemson hired Jimbo Fisher and Dabo Swinney both conference heavyweights took off. Duke hired David Cutcliffe now look at how good they've become. Louisville is still an upgrade over Maryland. Paul Johnson has GT rolling now. All the ACC needs is to have Miami and VA Tech return to greatness. Sprinkle in good years from teams like UNC, NC State, and Pitt you have yourself a darn good conference.

I don't see the ACC 'blaming' anything on Espn or anyone else. But it is not lost on anyone who has watched the channel to notice how much it goes out of it's way to pump up the Sec at practically any given opportunity. I understand why, they have a big stake in their Network.

But to do it for one, and really not do the same for another 'property they own' is ridiculous and I've never understood it. They did this kind of backhanding to the Big east, and ask any Aac fan and they will tell you they do the same to them? Why>?

I don't really know, but they do and it is a real thing when people see it in action, yet cannot explain the phenomenon fully. Perhaps they feel it somehow makes up for the way they promote the Sec 24/7? If so, it is one of the most cockeyed, let's-beat-the-whipping-boy-some-more policies I've ever seen.

Of course the conference has to get better at football. Who in their right mind would argue otherwise?

Too many schools, including my own, consistently let down the conference. I won't take responsibility for letting down the ACC as we have not been here for more than two minutes. However, no program let down the Big East more than Pitt. We were supposed to be one of the programs they relied on for credibility and we fell down on that responsibility.

Hopefully, we can do better in our new home. However, we spend a lot more money than we have in recent years. That appears to be changing but time will tell.

OK, so now that I have honestly answered your question, can I ask the same of you? What did you think you were signing up for when you first joined the ACC? What are you are honest and realistic aspirations for the league?

It seems to me that this is exactly what you signed up for way back in the early 90s and now you're complaining about it.

Duke and Wake Forest didn't suddenly become private schools. Virginia, Georgia Tech and North Carolina didn't suddenly become selective schools. Florida State voted for the addition of Boston College, Syracuse and Pitt. They knew exactly what they were signing up for at the time. However, they wanted their money so they did it anyway. It rings hollow to do all those things and then turn around and complain about them.

So I guess my core question is are you angry with everyone else or your own school's administration? If the answer is the former, then I suggest that you be a bit more honest with yourself about who you are and how you arrived here.

B1G Pac 12 & Big 12 ***** the same way. The SEC is the 800 pound gorilla and the ACC needs to start whooping them like we did on rivalry saturday last season.

(09-13-2015 02:31 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Of course the conference has to get better at football. Who in their right mind would argue otherwise?

Too many schools, including my own, consistently let down the conference. I won't take responsibility for letting down the ACC as we have not been here for more than two minutes. However, no program let down the Big East more than Pitt. We were supposed to be one of the programs they relied on for credibility and we fell down on that responsibility.

Hopefully, we can do better in our new home. However, we spend a lot more money than we have in recent years. That appears to be changing but time will tell.

OK, so now that I have honestly answered your question, can I ask the same of you? What did you think you were signing up for when you first joined the ACC? What are you are honest and realistic aspirations for the league?

It seems to me that this is exactly what you signed up for way back in the early 90s and now you're complaining about it.

Duke and Wake Forest didn't suddenly become private schools. Virginia, Georgia Tech and North Carolina didn't suddenly become selective schools. Florida State voted for the addition of Boston College, Syracuse and Pitt. They knew exactly what they were signing up for at the time. However, they wanted their money so they did it anyway. It rings hollow to do all those things and then turn around and complain about them.

So I guess my core question is are you angry with everyone else or your own school's administration? If the answer is the former, then I suggest that you be a bit more honest with yourself about who you are and how you arrived here.

I'm extremely honest....it is why folks get so upset....like yourself in this post.

It is ironic you asked me to be calm.

I would like to respond to some of your question (even though most are far off topic from the original post), but it seems you are emotional about this topic and it won't result in a rational discussion, just anger, on your side, due to my honest response.....again ironic. You ask for honestly, but you can't handle it

(09-13-2015 02:47 PM)milerock Wrote:  B1G Pac 12 & Big 12 ***** the same way. The SEC is the 800 pound gorilla and the ACC needs to start whooping them like we did on rivalry saturday last season.

Beating SEC opponents on a consistent basis will certainly improve perception, but it only addresses part of the issues the good doctor has brought up.

For now, I'd settle for that, but even when FSU and Clemson were beating Florida and South Carolina on a regular basis (10-5-1 FSU over FLA from 90-03; 10-4 CU over USCe same time frame) it wasn't as though ACC football was a media darling back then.

Cheers,
Neil

(09-13-2015 02:49 PM)nole Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 02:31 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Of course the conference has to get better at football. Who in their right mind would argue otherwise?

Too many schools, including my own, consistently let down the conference. I won't take responsibility for letting down the ACC as we have not been here for more than two minutes. However, no program let down the Big East more than Pitt. We were supposed to be one of the programs they relied on for credibility and we fell down on that responsibility.

Hopefully, we can do better in our new home. However, we spend a lot more money than we have in recent years. That appears to be changing but time will tell.

OK, so now that I have honestly answered your question, can I ask the same of you? What did you think you were signing up for when you first joined the ACC? What are you are honest and realistic aspirations for the league?

It seems to me that this is exactly what you signed up for way back in the early 90s and now you're complaining about it.

Duke and Wake Forest didn't suddenly become private schools. Virginia, Georgia Tech and North Carolina didn't suddenly become selective schools. Florida State voted for the addition of Boston College, Syracuse and Pitt. They knew exactly what they were signing up for at the time. However, they wanted their money so they did it anyway. It rings hollow to do all those things and then turn around and complain about them.

So I guess my core question is are you angry with everyone else or your own school's administration? If the answer is the former, then I suggest that you be a bit more honest with yourself about who you are and how you arrived here.

I'm extremely honest....it is why folks get so upset....like yourself in this post.

It is ironic you asked me to be calm.

I would like to respond to some of your question (even though most are far off topic from the original post), but it seems you are emotional about this topic and it won't result in a rational discussion, just anger, on your side, due to my honest response.....again ironic. You ask for honestly, but you can't handle it

LOL! WTF are you talking about?! You're reading way too much into my response. I wasn't at all bothered by your posts and I'm definitely not upset with you.

In fact, I thought we were having a nice cordial discussion where we would address some root issues. I thought I would show you respect by being honest with you and you would respond in kind.

It looks as though I overrated you. My bad. It won't happen again.

Why do Florida State fans continue to expect schools like Duke, Boston College and Wake Forest to suddenly start spending like LSU, Auburn and Georgia?

That is weird and disingenuous. But I suspect we're not going to go to the part, are we? That would require a real discussion, not a phony pseudo lecture about how once again everyone else is to blame for Florida State's problems.

My point is the ACC with which so many FSU fans have so many problems is the same league you signed up for and helped to shape. Therefore, your qualms should not be with Duke or Boston College or Pitt or North Carolina, et al. Your issue should be with your own administration choosing this path in the first place and then continuing down it for decades (plural) thereafter.

OK, I've lost my mind (and will ignore the backhanded slights you pretend aren't there) and I'll try and play this game of you put words in my mouth and I try to explain them.

I'll quote you and respond:

"What did you think you were signing up for when you first joined the ACC? What are you are honest and realistic aspirations for the league?"

It seems to me that this is exactly what you signed up for way back in the early 90s and now you're complaining about it.

When FSU joined the league, it had a few things:

*Highest conference payout. I didn't expect it to remain the highest....I did expect it to be at least competitive. It might be....but future projections are scary.

*It had a national title winner in 90 (Ga Tech) and early 80s (Clemson). That was 2 non FSU national title winners in the previous 10ish years. How many non FSU national title winners has the ACC had since the 25 years in has been in the league ....0?

What did I think FSU signed up for? A weaker football league that wanted to improve football.....it seems to have almost gotten weaker...didn't sign up. A revenue competitive conference.

These are rational and reasonable points/concerns. The emotional response towards FSU is often anger....but these are real.


"So I guess my core question is are you angry with everyone else or your own school's administration? If the answer is the former, then I suggest that you be a bit more honest with yourself about who you are and how you arrived here."


I am not angry.....again, your words......

I am disappointed that FSU's leadership hasn't shown leadership and just gone along for the ride. I felt FSU"s leadership has been weak from beginning to end.

I am disappointed the ACC doesn't have football school contingent that carries more weight.

I am disappointed the ACC has no plan other than HOPE to improve football. Hope is not a strategy.

The belief on the FSU side.....and it was one I shared.....was that the ACC was going to grow into a true power football conference with more balance than it has, maintain it's past revenue position (or close to it), and be more than just a basketball conference.

FSU was wrong, I was wrong, it did not grow into that. It maintained what it was and by some measures, lost ground.


I heard your suggestions and gave you honest answers, here are some of mine, I suggest if you want conversation, you don't insert slights and then pretend you are being civil, I suggest you look at the ACC honestly and not just emotionally.....it is deeply flawed and has major issues.....ones I see no real plan to fix.

I suggest you don't take it personally when people question the conference.....the overly simple argument that nobody has any legit issues with the ACC is just plain silly. Anybody that looks at it honestly can see though that........the ACC's #1 issue is like any addict....it just won't admit it's flaws. Until it does, it will never fix a thing.

Simply saying 'what do you expect from BC, etc' is weak logic to avoid honest discussions.

Is it reasonable to think UNC and/or UVA could grow to a top 25 football team? I do. Or Miami should still be one? I do. Or Va Tech? I do.

Do I think the ACC should take pride in the last 2 years of football? Yes.....to the point it should go to the ACC....it's business partner and say "hey start giving us credit....we get you love the SEC, but we are your parnters also.....start treating us like it or the very least, stop taking cheap shots". That is reasonable. Why WOULDN"T you? Seems unreasonable to not see it that way.

I fully see the potential of the ACC.....I just don't see the game plans willing to make it work.

*Perhaps add financial incentives for football production. The SEC has them....why can't the ACC? Nothing extreme....but something.

*Don't demand Raycom has to be part of the TV deal. I get it....Tobacco Road has friends in Charlotte.....but don't anchor the ACC because we want our friends to have jobs.

*Have our commish push ESPN for better coverage in how it is portrayed....maybe even some propaganda......Swofford himself said the ACC needs better marketing.....OK, go ask for it from our partner. Fight harder.

etc, etc.

Before Florida State joined, football in the ACC was an afterthought on the national stage.
While the champions of the other major conferences were hosting their own major bowls (big 8 had the Orange, SWC had the Cotton, SEC had the Sugar and the B1G and PAC had the Rose), the ACC was sending their champion to the Florida Citrus. That's exactly the conference that Florida State joined, but with their help the ACC has come a long way.
When you start in a hole, it's hard to get yourself up on level ground to get ready to start to climb. The ACC's progress has been slow, but steady. The ACC has pushed themselves into the major bowl picture and established themselves as one of the top 5 conferences while other leagues have faded away. Even now the ACC is in position to be one of the final four major conferences in the last decade of realignment and the league is still standing which is evidence of good management.

To say the ACC has done nothing - is doing nothing - to improve the stature of its football in the public perception ignores history.

The ACC has no plan? What do you call adding Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Pitt? Who else that was/is reasonably available to them could they have added to do more to improve its football product?

I doubt the ACC was ever truly earning more from its football than other conferences. I suspect that 20-30 years ago a lot of its appeal, and financial compensation, even if nominally for football, was a product of the name recognition it had from basketball. Competitively, in its first 30 years as a football conference, the ACC was, IMO, barely above the level of today's G5 conferences. We have come a very long way since then.

At the end of the day, we can't expect some administrative entity - the "Conference" - to do anything its individual members aren't motivated to do. Do schools like Duke, Wake, Miami, BC, Syracuse et al, want to place the kind of emphasis on football success that most SEC schools do? Not that I can see. Is that a failing? Not that I can see. I think those schools are happy with their overall athletic programs, and with the dramatic improvement in the financial resources needed to sustain them.

And if they are happy, why should they change, if that means changing who they are at their core? Why should they change because some members of their conference want different things?

Are there other things individual members who want those different things can do to improve their own situation? Well, one thing they can do is to stop complaining about the advantages other schools/conferences have. I came to North Carolina as an adult more than 40 years ago, and didn't bring the baggage of 20-30 years of perceived slights that someone who grew up here might have. One thing I observed was a recurring theme - the league and the state was dominated by UNC.

That theme was voiced throughout the league, and widely so. But never as much as it was voiced by NC State and its fans. I can't tell you how many times I have been told by State fans that I just don't understand the lengths UNC will go to in order to insure that State won't ever surpass Carolina in anything - not just sports. "The BOT will never let us (fill in the blank)" was/is the mantra.

Clearly, State bristles at being what they perceive is being treated as a second class citizen. If that is true, imagine how ECU must feel. That's what they get not only from UNC but from State as well. But there's a difference. ECU fans don't embrace victimhood as their self-image the way State fans do. They just bow their necks and do more with less, and take enormous pride in that. They over-achieve as much as State under-achieves.

I believe I saw that same attitude on the part of FSU and its fans years ago. They would take on all comers, and played with a chip on their shoulder. They were ultra successful because they didn't dwell on whatever limitations or handicaps they may have had. They won in spite of them. Today, I don't see that as much.

You may not think my advice is worth much. Maybe you think it is totally worthless. In all my life, I have never seen an enterprise improve by either public or private self-flagellation, but I have seen some crumble because of it.

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.