I know any expansion without ND is a non-starter, but let's play make believe for a minute or two...

let's say that ESPN decides to open up the checkbook for the ACC, network and all. Let's also say that as part of that deal, they want the ACC to expand their footprint for more subscribers (also assume ND is still independent and all GORs hold, meaning that the 2 additions come from the G5). To do this, they add:

1. Houston: Large public university, lots of cable subscribers for ACCN. Let's be realistic - Texas and aTm rule that state. To bolster Houston's profile, ESPN brokers an annual rivalry with aTm (i.e. ride aTm coattails to elevate Houston's profile/status). Since Texas and aTm no longer play, this offers an in-state rivalry that could/should attract a great deal of fans given the size of both schools. It's a bit of a geographic outlier, but 2 enormous airports in Houston should ease travel concerns.

2. Memphis: Large public university, >60K stadium. Not as many cable subscribers, but a great new recruiting area for the ACC. Similar to #1, they are overshadowed in their state by Tennessee. ESPN could broker another ACC-SEC rivalry with either Tennessee or Ole Miss to ride SEC coattails to elevate their profile. I assume Memphis has a decent airport to ease travel concerns.

Granted, ESPN already owns the states of Texas and Tennessee, but this would offer more subscribers for the ACCN. What I like about these two is that they both have potential to compete in a P5 conference due to their location, recruiting ground, large enrollment and alumni (i.e. not private schools). It also uses (or at least attempts to use) the popularity of SEC football to help elevate ACC football. Also consider now nicely the North - South divisions shape up:

North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, UVa, VT, UNC, Duke
South: NCSU, WF, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami, Houston, Memphis

9 conference games, no permanent crossover rivalries.

The only sacrifice is the NCSU-UNC game, which could be played OOC since neither has a permanent OOC rivalry. Market it as the rivalry beyond the standings or some other catch phrase. It preserves UNC-UVa (the oldest rivalry in the south) and allows us to play everyone in 4 years.

If you read this far, then I apologize for taking those few minutes of your life that you'll never get back

Take Cincinnati instead of either Houston or Memphis & put them in the north & drop Louisville to the south. Cincinnati could start a rivalry with Tennessee.

(11-18-2015 04:39 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Take Cincinnati instead of either Houston or Memphis & put them in the north & drop Louisville to the south. Cincinnati could start a rivalry with Tennessee.

Chose Houston and Memphis based on a few factors:
1. We already get subscribers in Ohio due to Louisville and ND. Cincy wouldn't move the needle much in that regard. Houston and Memphis are new territory for subscribers.
2. Houston and Memphis are more feasible choices for SEC rivalries. Nobody in the SEC would get excited over playing Cincy. They wouldn't necessarily be giddy over Houston or Memphis, but it would certainly offer more intrigue than Cincy. The idea is for both to ride the coattails of their SEC rival to increased attention, profile, etc.

(11-18-2015 04:52 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 04:39 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Take Cincinnati instead of either Houston or Memphis & put them in the north & drop Louisville to the south. Cincinnati could start a rivalry with Tennessee.

Chose Houston and Memphis based on a few factors:
1. We already get subscribers in Ohio due to Louisville and ND. Cincy wouldn't move the needle much in that regard. Houston and Memphis are new territory for subscribers.
2. Houston and Memphis are more feasible choices for SEC rivalries. Nobody in the SEC would get excited over playing Cincy. They wouldn't necessarily be giddy over Houston or Memphis, but it would certainly offer more intrigue than Cincy. The idea is for both to ride the coattails of their SEC rival to increased attention, profile, etc.

I'm not disputing your points for Memphis & Houston, Cincinnati is more of a personal taste for me. Also I think Louisville being in that northern division would hurt our recruiting & would prefer to be in the southern division. It probably wouldn't be a substantial hit to recruiting but any blow right now wouldn't be good. On the other hand, having Cincinnati would help our recruiting in Ohio.

There's something to be said for a contiguous geographic footprint. For this reason I'd prefer Cincinnati and Memphis (both touch multiple ACC states, and Ohio joins Kentucky with Pennsylvania).

If only one G5 team, I'd take Cincinnati -- they've maintained a high level for, what, about a decade now? Memphis and Houston were both terrible just a few years ago...

If we're throwing geography out the window, BYU is a legitimate candidate.

BYU is a large private university owned by a worldwide Church. 30,000 students from all over the US and the world. Excellent academics - tied with Clemson and Pitt in recent rankings - just behind Syracuse.

About 10% of BYU alumni live in the current ACC footprint. There about 1 million LDS Church members in the ACC footprint. You find good concentrations of BYU alumni and LDS members in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and New York.

BYU delivers the #34 SLC market (884K TV households - peers with Greenville, SC, Cincinnati, and San Antonio) a consistent top-25 market for college football. You find about 35% of BYU alumni out West (not including Utah). There are about 800K LDS Church members in California, close to 1 million in the Northwest (WA, OR, ID), 400K+ in Arizona, and about 350K in Texas.

Lots of cable subscribers for ACCN.

BYU intentionally travels all over the country to play football games. Here's a map of BYU's opponents since going independent 5 years ago:

BYU Opponents

Especially if the ACC added Texas or Houston, BYU would love to travel 4 times per year across ACC territory - we're already doing it! In just the next three years, BYU already has road games scheduled in Texas, Maryland, Ohio, North Carolina, and Massachusetts. We recently played at Virginia and at Georgia Tech. In 2014, we played a game in New England and in Florida twice!

Plus, BYU plays a nice portion of PAC 12 opponents (3-4 per year most years through the 2020's). That's some nice inventory for later ACCN timeslots.

With CCG deregulation and to offset the perceived travel burden on some ACC members, have BYU rotate among ACC opponents so that no one travels to Provo more than once in every 3-5 years.

well, if we're "throwing geography out the window", I say add Hawaii... that way every team which plays on the road there get's an extra game! FSU and Clemson could play 9 conference games and STILL have 7 home games every year (if you schedule it just right - when the SEC rival is away, make one of the away ACC games @ Hawaii)

Lets keep geography in the window please. Although road trips to Hawaii would be fun!

(11-18-2015 03:51 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  I know any expansion without ND is a non-starter, but let's play make believe for a minute or two...

let's say that ESPN decides to open up the checkbook for the ACC, network and all. Let's also say that as part of that deal, they want the ACC to expand their footprint for more subscribers (also assume ND is still independent and all GORs hold, meaning that the 2 additions come from the G5). To do this, they add:

1. Houston: Large public university, lots of cable subscribers for ACCN. Let's be realistic - Texas and aTm rule that state. To bolster Houston's profile, ESPN brokers an annual rivalry with aTm (i.e. ride aTm coattails to elevate Houston's profile/status). Since Texas and aTm no longer play, this offers an in-state rivalry that could/should attract a great deal of fans given the size of both schools. It's a bit of a geographic outlier, but 2 enormous airports in Houston should ease travel concerns.

2. Memphis: Large public university, >60K stadium. Not as many cable subscribers, but a great new recruiting area for the ACC. Similar to #1, they are overshadowed in their state by Tennessee. ESPN could broker another ACC-SEC rivalry with either Tennessee or Ole Miss to ride SEC coattails to elevate their profile. I assume Memphis has a decent airport to ease travel concerns.

Granted, ESPN already owns the states of Texas and Tennessee, but this would offer more subscribers for the ACCN. What I like about these two is that they both have potential to compete in a P5 conference due to their location, recruiting ground, large enrollment and alumni (i.e. not private schools). It also uses (or at least attempts to use) the popularity of SEC football to help elevate ACC football. Also consider now nicely the North - South divisions shape up:

North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, UVa, VT, UNC, Duke
South: NCSU, WF, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami, Houston, Memphis

9 conference games, no permanent crossover rivalries.

The only sacrifice is the NCSU-UNC game, which could be played OOC since neither has a permanent OOC rivalry. Market it as the rivalry beyond the standings or some other catch phrase. It preserves UNC-UVa (the oldest rivalry in the south) and allows us to play everyone in 4 years.

If you read this far, then I apologize for taking those few minutes of your life that you'll never get back

I want to go on record for the 10 billionth time and say:

*"Markets don't make money/add TV value. Fans do." All other factors aside (i.e. recruiting), unless schools like UH have more fans/interest than the average ACC school, their addition would destroy value - random location in a big city or not.

*It's also worth noting that the University of Memphis (i.e. a "not private school") is about a thousand students smaller than Syracuse University (i.e. a private school), not counting either SUNY Upstate or SUNY ESF.

*Finally, short of instances in totalitarian countries, *nobody* owns *any* market.

(11-18-2015 04:52 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 04:39 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Take Cincinnati instead of either Houston or Memphis & put them in the north & drop Louisville to the south. Cincinnati could start a rivalry with Tennessee.

Chose Houston and Memphis based on a few factors:
1. We already get subscribers in Ohio due to Louisville and ND. Cincy wouldn't move the needle much in that regard. Houston and Memphis are new territory for subscribers.
2. Houston and Memphis are more feasible choices for SEC rivalries. Nobody in the SEC would get excited over playing Cincy. They wouldn't necessarily be giddy over Houston or Memphis, but it would certainly offer more intrigue than Cincy. The idea is for both to ride the coattails of their SEC rival to increased attention, profile, etc.

1. Who cares if they're new or old? Just increase rates if they're existing. Also, unless a school is adding the equivalent of more subscribers than the ACC average at a rate that is equal to or above the ACC average, it's a net loss. Being located in a big city is meaningless. Fans are what matters.

2. UC at least has a rivalry with UL. I'd rather see an entertaining conference game and winnable OOC games than boring in-conference games and losses to a SEC team ~60% of the time (if we're lucky).

Assuming that no schools defect the conference add UC and force Norte Dame to join as a full member. If they don't start looking for a 16th member and finally end all of this nonsense.

Definitely Cincinnati. If ND won't come on full time, Then either Memphis or Houston to actively stay with the SEC, B1G market areas . ACC over G5 would dramatically increase fan interest in those new market areas. Texas would still control the Big 12 markets but with both the SEC and ACC in Texas it would spur interest in a very large populated state with Houston. Now again, this is for an Expanding ACC Network for increasing potential viewership and or Big 12 staying intact and ND not coming on board full time.

Southern Division
Boston College
Notre Dame
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
Virginia Tech
North Carolina State


Northern Division
Virginia
North Carolina
Duke
Wake Forest
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami
Houston

Just no to Houstan. Too far West for little gain.

If we need to add teams, which I do not believe we do, then add Cincinnati and Navy.

(11-18-2015 09:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I want to go on record for the 10 billionth time and say:

*"Markets don't make money/add TV value. Fans do." All other factors aside (i.e. recruiting), unless schools like UH have more fans/interest than the average ACC school, their addition would destroy value - random location in a big city or not.

TV cares about market size and potential viewers. Why did the Big 10 add Rutgers? Market, Market, Market. The individual school will receive a share of money from any TV contract so a bigger market means more $$$ regardless if only 15K fans show up. So markets do make money and add TV value even if the school sucks at the turnstiles.

Now in terms of the conference profile, I agree with you that we should look for teams that can add something to the ACC. I would take Cincy since they have a decent sized fanbase and a solid hoops program. The benefits of the ACC profile would raise the level of their recruiting in all sports.

Cincy, Memphis, Navy. WVU would also work but I dont know if they would leave the B12.

One or two teams at MOST.

Prefer: staying put, waiting on Big XII to implode.

None of those aforementioned schools besides ND add any money, so no thanks.

(11-19-2015 08:58 AM)dbacard Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 09:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I want to go on record for the 10 billionth time and say:

*"Markets don't make money/add TV value. Fans do." All other factors aside (i.e. recruiting), unless schools like UH have more fans/interest than the average ACC school, their addition would destroy value - random location in a big city or not.

TV cares about market size and potential viewers. Why did the Big 10 add Rutgers? Market, Market, Market. The individual school will receive a share of money from any TV contract so a bigger market means more $$$ regardless if only 15K fans show up. So markets do make money and add TV value even if the school sucks at the turnstiles.

Now in terms of the conference profile, I agree with you that we should look for teams that can add something to the ACC. I would take Cincy since they have a decent sized fanbase and a solid hoops program. The benefits of the ACC profile would raise the level of their recruiting in all sports.

Cincy, Memphis, Navy. WVU would also work but I dont know if they would leave the B12.

"TV cares about market size and potential viewers."
No. TV cares about probable viewers relative to the next best option and the price of that option. That has nothing to do with market size. It's really easy to show content in any market - even national ones. It's just hard to get people to watch content above the next best option. That requires interest, which is, at the very least, very well approximated by fans support - if not actually and directly driven by fan support.

"Why did the Big 10 add Rutgers? Market, Market, Market."
The B1G added Ru to keep PSU. The B1G cares about PSU because PSU has a ton of fan and fan interest (even amongst casual fans and/or fans that hate the Nittany Lions). PSU cares about RU for a number of reasons. PSU's presence in the B1G (i.e. a Midwestern conference), conference scheduling requirements, and the loss of NE independents was pushing PSU away from their NYC/DC donors/alumni and historic recruiting grounds (academic and athletic). PSU was in danger of jumping because almost every one of their historic/natural rivals was in the ACC and the ACC matched their geographic footprint much better AND had a presence in better recruiting areas (i.e. New York, Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas vs. Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois) with better economies (i.e. rust best vs. Midwest).

"The individual school will receive a share of money from any TV contract so a bigger market means more $$$ regardless if only 15K fans show up. So markets do make money and add TV value even if the school sucks at the turnstiles."
No. the individual schools receive a (usually equal) cut of the TV payout. So, if a school with no fans is added, there is a very, very high probability that said school won't attract many viewers/people willing to pay for access to their content. In such a situation, the school would dilute the TV payout (i.e. makes a below average contribution but takes an above average cut), and *all* the other schools in the conference suffer (i.e. every school that decides to add the new school or not).

"I would take Cincy since they have a decent sized fanbase and a solid hoops program."
No. That's the problem. UC doesn't have that many fans. Look at the athletic budget. It's not a perfect comparison because schools account for revenue differently (i.e. some schools attribute some revenues streams to other departments, whereas other schools might attribute it to the AD), but it creates a rough ballpark figure. UC is WAY low, and has always been that way - even when they were in a power conference.

"The benefits of the ACC profile would raise the level of their recruiting in all sports."
You are probably overstating this. UC's upside from where it has spent most of the lsat decade would be the prestige difference between being in the ACC and being in the BIG EAST. I don't think that there has been a tangible impact on SU/Pitt/ND recruiting since joining the ACC.

"WVU would also work but I dont know if they would leave the B12."
They would in a heartbeat. They just can't get an invite. They've been trying for 50-60 years.

(11-19-2015 09:56 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-19-2015 08:58 AM)dbacard Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 09:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I want to go on record for the 10 billionth time and say:

*"Markets don't make money/add TV value. Fans do." All other factors aside (i.e. recruiting), unless schools like UH have more fans/interest than the average ACC school, their addition would destroy value - random location in a big city or not.

TV cares about market size and potential viewers. Why did the Big 10 add Rutgers? Market, Market, Market. The individual school will receive a share of money from any TV contract so a bigger market means more $$$ regardless if only 15K fans show up. So markets do make money and add TV value even if the school sucks at the turnstiles.

Now in terms of the conference profile, I agree with you that we should look for teams that can add something to the ACC. I would take Cincy since they have a decent sized fanbase and a solid hoops program. The benefits of the ACC profile would raise the level of their recruiting in all sports.

Cincy, Memphis, Navy. WVU would also work but I dont know if they would leave the B12.

"TV cares about market size and potential viewers."
No. TV cares about probable viewers relative to the next best option and the price of that option. That has nothing to do with market size. It's really easy to show content in any market - even national ones. It's just hard to get people to watch content above the next best option. That requires interest, which is, at the very least, very well approximated by fans support - if not actually and directly driven by fan support.

"Why did the Big 10 add Rutgers? Market, Market, Market."
The B1G added Ru to keep PSU. The B1G cares about PSU because PSU has a ton of fan and fan interest (even amongst casual fans and/or fans that hate the Nittany Lions). PSU cares about RU for a number of reasons. PSU's presence in the B1G (i.e. a Midwestern conference), conference scheduling requirements, and the loss of NE independents was pushing PSU away from their NYC/DC donors/alumni and historic recruiting grounds (academic and athletic). PSU was in danger of jumping because almost every one of their historic/natural rivals was in the ACC and the ACC matched their geographic footprint much better AND had a presence in better recruiting areas (i.e. New York, Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas vs. Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois) with better economies (i.e. rust best vs. Midwest).

"The individual school will receive a share of money from any TV contract so a bigger market means more $$$ regardless if only 15K fans show up. So markets do make money and add TV value even if the school sucks at the turnstiles."
No. the individual schools receive a (usually equal) cut of the TV payout. So, if a school with no fans is added, there is a very, very high probability that said school won't attract many viewers/people willing to pay for access to their content. In such a situation, the school would dilute the TV payout (i.e. makes a below average contribution but takes an above average cut), and *all* the other schools in the conference suffer (i.e. every school that decides to add the new school or not).

"I would take Cincy since they have a decent sized fanbase and a solid hoops program."
No. That's the problem. UC doesn't have that many fans. Look at the athletic budget. It's not a perfect comparison because schools account for revenue differently (i.e. some schools attribute some revenues streams to other departments, whereas other schools might attribute it to the AD), but it creates a rough ballpark figure. UC is WAY low, and has always been that way - even when they were in a power conference.

"The benefits of the ACC profile would raise the level of their recruiting in all sports."
You are probably overstating this. UC's upside from where it has spent most of the lsat decade would be the prestige difference between being in the ACC and being in the BIG EAST. I don't think that there has been a tangible impact on SU/Pitt/ND recruiting since joining the ACC.

"WVU would also work but I dont know if they would leave the B12."
They would in a heartbeat. They just can't get an invite. They've been trying for 50-60 years.

Good post about why Rutgers was added to the Big 10. It is not factual at all but a nice story.

(11-19-2015 11:33 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(11-19-2015 09:56 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-19-2015 08:58 AM)dbacard Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 09:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I want to go on record for the 10 billionth time and say:

*"Markets don't make money/add TV value. Fans do." All other factors aside (i.e. recruiting), unless schools like UH have more fans/interest than the average ACC school, their addition would destroy value - random location in a big city or not.

TV cares about market size and potential viewers. Why did the Big 10 add Rutgers? Market, Market, Market. The individual school will receive a share of money from any TV contract so a bigger market means more $$$ regardless if only 15K fans show up. So markets do make money and add TV value even if the school sucks at the turnstiles.

Now in terms of the conference profile, I agree with you that we should look for teams that can add something to the ACC. I would take Cincy since they have a decent sized fanbase and a solid hoops program. The benefits of the ACC profile would raise the level of their recruiting in all sports.

Cincy, Memphis, Navy. WVU would also work but I dont know if they would leave the B12.

"TV cares about market size and potential viewers."
No. TV cares about probable viewers relative to the next best option and the price of that option. That has nothing to do with market size. It's really easy to show content in any market - even national ones. It's just hard to get people to watch content above the next best option. That requires interest, which is, at the very least, very well approximated by fans support - if not actually and directly driven by fan support.

"Why did the Big 10 add Rutgers? Market, Market, Market."
The B1G added Ru to keep PSU. The B1G cares about PSU because PSU has a ton of fan and fan interest (even amongst casual fans and/or fans that hate the Nittany Lions). PSU cares about RU for a number of reasons. PSU's presence in the B1G (i.e. a Midwestern conference), conference scheduling requirements, and the loss of NE independents was pushing PSU away from their NYC/DC donors/alumni and historic recruiting grounds (academic and athletic). PSU was in danger of jumping because almost every one of their historic/natural rivals was in the ACC and the ACC matched their geographic footprint much better AND had a presence in better recruiting areas (i.e. New York, Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas vs. Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois) with better economies (i.e. rust best vs. Midwest).

"The individual school will receive a share of money from any TV contract so a bigger market means more $$$ regardless if only 15K fans show up. So markets do make money and add TV value even if the school sucks at the turnstiles."
No. the individual schools receive a (usually equal) cut of the TV payout. So, if a school with no fans is added, there is a very, very high probability that said school won't attract many viewers/people willing to pay for access to their content. In such a situation, the school would dilute the TV payout (i.e. makes a below average contribution but takes an above average cut), and *all* the other schools in the conference suffer (i.e. every school that decides to add the new school or not).

"I would take Cincy since they have a decent sized fanbase and a solid hoops program."
No. That's the problem. UC doesn't have that many fans. Look at the athletic budget. It's not a perfect comparison because schools account for revenue differently (i.e. some schools attribute some revenues streams to other departments, whereas other schools might attribute it to the AD), but it creates a rough ballpark figure. UC is WAY low, and has always been that way - even when they were in a power conference.

"The benefits of the ACC profile would raise the level of their recruiting in all sports."
You are probably overstating this. UC's upside from where it has spent most of the lsat decade would be the prestige difference between being in the ACC and being in the BIG EAST. I don't think that there has been a tangible impact on SU/Pitt/ND recruiting since joining the ACC.

"WVU would also work but I dont know if they would leave the B12."
They would in a heartbeat. They just can't get an invite. They've been trying for 50-60 years.

Good post about why Rutgers was added to the Big 10. It is not factual at all but a nice story.

gotta go with markets on Rutgers. I just don't believe any PSU fan (or any other B1G fan) gets excited about playing Rutgers. They were added for BTN subscribers in NJ, plain and simple. Their revenue sports all stink and people make fun of the state of NJ for a reason (many reasons, actually)