(02-17-2016 03:18 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 03:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 02:08 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  If you make your annual athletic budget off football as does Clemson, VT, FSU, GT, NC State, Miami, what incentive do you have to add schools that:

1. Aren't located where you recruit
2. Aren't located where there are lots of recruits
3. Will not increase attendance or ticket prices for a home game
4. Are not located in a desirable destination
5. Are located in a climate that is not really compatible with some sports such as baseball

Before you go with UConn, Cincy, or Temple, the ACC probably gets more out adding Tulane and Houston because those destination are good, they are located where many recruits are located, the climate is good, and even though they are really small sisters to LSU, or Texas and TAMU, the cultural fit is probably better.

All that said. I don't seem them adding more net money to the other 15 schools and all 5 programs are located within the media footprint of professional markets - the same issue that Maryland, BC, Pitt, Miami, and GT face.

Cincy meets the recruiting threshold. Loads of recruits in Ohio. They also have shown that they aren't just a one year wonder by having nine winning seasons out of the past ten. I wouldn't object to Cincy as they bring a lot to the table.

Tulane is a no-go. There simply isn't a commitment to football there. Houston would be on an island since there are no legitimate options between them and us.


As for adding Temple because they offer a geographic bridge......that's about as dumb of an idea as the TV market fallacy.

Kap, I agree that Tulane has no commitment to football as evidenced by three scale backs in the last 50 years, however not every school needs to be a winner. I like Tulane for the location alone and potential recruiting exposure in Miss and Louisiana.

How many kids are you going to get to Clemson from Ohio that are not already Big 10 kids? What exposure to you get in Cincy that you do not already get via nearby Louisville? I agree that Cincy is the program closest to being ready now (except for that shoebox stadium), but long term I like the Gulf Coast.

No everybody doesn't have to win but they at least have to try. As I said concerning UConn we already have enough football deadweight in Wake, NC State, and Syracuse....we don't need to add any more.

And if you think it's going to be hard to get recruits out of Ohio then the last thing you want is to try and recruit Louisiana. 18 out of the top 20 recruits in Louisiana in 2016 on 24/7 went to SEC schools, 13 of them to LSU alone. 8 of 20 Ohio recruits went to conferences other than the Big 10. You aren't going to make much headway in recruiting Louisiana by playing a team in Tulane that the majority of Louisiana's residents don't identify with and certainly don't follow outside a few blocks in New Orleans.

And I'm not worried about Clemson's exposure because as long as we keep winning we aren't going to be relegated to Raycom for anything but one of the two lesser OOC games, but for the rest of you Raycom isn't carried in Cincy and is only carried in two Ohio markets.

With UConn being in ESPN's backyard and the amount of eyeballs they bring in the New York area if they were key to getting the ACC Network up and running then I say add them. If no network then no to UConn.

(02-17-2016 12:53 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I would take Cincinnati as #15 in New York minute, but no no no to Connecticut. We should raid the Big 12 for West Virginia as @16. This would cause the Big 12 major problems.

I think a lot of Big 12 fans might actually pay the ACC to take West Virginia off of their hands.

If it gets us an ACCN then add Cincinnati & UCONN/Houston & let them split a share. They all add huge markets & quality athletics & academics.

(02-17-2016 04:17 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 03:57 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. Right. And the price that they got for subscribers in those states was largely because of schools in Ohio and Michigan. If common theory as to what the B1G got (and who knows what they actually got?) is correct, then it's a weighted average of interest (or call it whatever you want - ability to extract money from people) across the B1G footprint. Do you care to wager why people are paying what they're paying? Or more accurately, why they're willing to pay for the extra content?

I don't think that adding RU and UMD had anything to do with it. My guess is that the B1G would make more per team without them (assuming that everything else stayed the same).

2. Well, those games would necessitate adding extra teams, so they go hand-in-hand. Unless the added content (i.e. the extra games) is worth the cost (i.e. feeding two extra mouths), then does it not lose money?

3. Fair enough, but without looking at their roster now vs. when they played RU every year in the BIG EAST, I doubt that WVU is going to start pulling in a ton more NJ/east PA talent than they do now. Also, good point about Temple, but I still don't see them making enough of a splash to matter. How many more good recruits are they realistically going to get because those recruits would have the honor of having their face kicked in by OU, Texas, TCU, Baylor, or OSU once every year/other year? And perhaps more importantly, who is going to lose those recruits - us or the B1G (PSU, UMD, or RU)?

1. The SECN would LOVE to get full carriage rates in the North Carolina and Virginia markets; of course Alabama and LSU influence the equation, but it won't happen until they add schools from North Carolina and Virginia.

The PACN would be thrilled to get full carriage rates in Texas and the Central time zone; of course USC and Oregon carry tremendous value in the analysis; but it's not happening without quality local schools.

The B1GN didn't get full carriage rates in New Jersey or Maryland until after Rutgers and UMaryland joined the conference - Ohio St. and Michigan and the rest of the B1G couldn't get full value without a local presence.

2. Temple and Cincinnati make like $2M per year from the AAC media deal; it wouldn't take much to find a win-win business model that benefits the new members as well as the rest of the ACC.

3. I admittedly don't follow Pennsylvania or Ohio recruiting closely. But, Cincy would see an uptick in recruiting if they do join the Big 12. I would even guess that it would help WVU recruiting to have a proximate conference member.

Fair point on whether that would even hurt ACC recruiting; Louisville? Pitt?.

I'm not guaranteeing that Cincinnati and Temple would be homeruns for the ACC - but could the ACC improve its position with a bigger market-share and better recruiting?

1. You're making a lot of assumptions with no underlying rationale. We don't know how much the B1G is making in NYC. We don't know how much it impacted off market rates. We don't know what it would have looked like sans RU and UMD, plus a strong Michigan. I can say that if cable companies could charge more and increase profitability, they would. I can also say that values don't just increase in a vacuum. It's not like there's speculative investing.

I guess that's my way of saying "where's the beef?" How is value created?

2. They make $2 mm in TV. If you're Clemson/FSU and you have 8 conference games, a fcs game, a SEC rival game and you make a killing off of football attendance (i.e. You really, really want 7 home games), you're trading a H&H with UGA for a H&H with Temple. A Temple add would have to bring enough TV money to cover that difference (for half the applicable ACC schools) + the AAC payout of $2 mm of TV + a couple million of conference payouts to even have a shot at making sense. I don't see that happening.

UCONN & WEST VIRGINIA !!!

(02-17-2016 05:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 12:53 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I would take Cincinnati as #15 in New York minute, but no no no to Connecticut. We should raid the Big 12 for West Virginia as @16. This would cause the Big 12 major problems.

I think a lot of Big 12 fans might actually pay the ACC to take West Virginia off of their hands.

How much?

The ACC has 15 teams. Scheduling 15 (14.5 for football) teams is challenging enough. Scheduling for 17/16.5 would be extremely difficult considering the current NCAA rules. Schools with OOC rivals are already having problems scheduling the games they need/want.

Inventory only matters if you have someone to sell it to. ESPN doesn't have any more air time. They might let one of the other broadcasters have a game or two but noting major (in terms of number of games). Without a ACCN to put the games on, what is the point?

The ACC only has 1.5 openings. Better to wait and see who might be available in the future.

(02-17-2016 02:05 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 01:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Just say no to Temple. They have to string together far more than one good year of football to even begin to get moved off the football deadweight list.

I agree for now...answer the following questions and I think Temple moves up. They sit in an outstanding geographic area and should always be a potential addition.

Temple needs to build that on-campus stadium first. Can they create a safe tailgate environment? Can they average a legit 25-30k with a competitive team? Can a select game once in awhile be moved to the Linc? Will their academic profile be close to the ACC average?

Since some of the other posters here are clueless about Temple, I will respond to you since you are at least reasonable and open minded.

Temple averaged about 45K for their 6 home games this past year (which includes ND and PSU). If you remove PSU and ND, they averaged an 32K for Tulane, UCF, Memphis and UCONN. (35K+ for Tulane, 32K for UCF, 32K for Memphis and 28K for UCONN).

The administration is going all in to build a 35K stadium on campus (with the ability to expand in the event of P5 invite). There are community concerns but the assumption is that once the appropriate politicians get on board, the stadium will be a go. There are parking and tailgating questions but with what I have heard as potential solutions, the tailgating area will be safe. And yes, they will be able to play the occasional game at the Linc if needed.

As far as academics, I am not going to pretend to be an expert on all the different rankings (and there are certainly higher ACC teams) but Temple has a higher academic profile than Cincy and moved up 6 spots this past year to #115 in the US NEWS Academic Rankings. We also just recently moved into the top tier of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Temple is now the fifth Pennsylvania university in the highest category (Doctoral University, Highest Research Activity)—joining Penn, Penn State, Carnegie Mellon, and Pitt.

As far as actual football, I agree Temple needs to continue to win but they have been bowl eligible in 5 of the last 7 seasons (but in typical fashion missed out on bowl games two of those years due to the conferences not having enough tie ins). But we would have been very competitive in the ACC this year and our recent recruiting class was #57 and higher than 5 ACC teams. We also held onto Matt Rhule and are paying him more than some of the ACC teams.

I also do agree with one of the other posters that our endowment needs to improve.

But Temple made major strides in the Philadelphia market this year. And I need to point out the misconception that I see that the ACC is already in Pennsylvania because Pitt is in the ACC so that covers Philadelphia. Pitt is as relevant in the Philadelphia market as Idaho for example. They are not part of the Philadelphia TV market at all.

(02-17-2016 02:13 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Having spent some time in Philly and NJ, off the campus of Bryn Mawr, Penn, and Villanova, I didn't find anything that great other than good fried chicken near the bridge at the PA/NJ line over the Deleware.

http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserRevie...vania.html

(02-17-2016 02:15 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  What on earth does Temple bring to the table for the ACC?

(02-18-2016 06:09 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 02:15 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  What on earth does Temple bring to the table for the ACC?

The date rape capital of Pennsylvania!

As opposed to Penn State.

Thank goodness for Pittsburgh!

(02-18-2016 08:55 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  As opposed to Penn State.

Thank goodness for Pittsburgh!

Roger that!

(02-17-2016 02:57 PM)nole Wrote:  There are VERY few options that make the ACC money.

Sometimes folks confuse expansion adds that are paired with TV renegotiiations as the reason for the increase.


The ACC adds anyone short of Texas, ND, or Penn State (none of which are happening) and you lose money.

Just about the only time nole and I agree on anything.

+1

(02-18-2016 06:09 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 02:15 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  What on earth does Temple bring to the table for the ACC?

We got the sex scandals covered, we don't need any competition there.

The University of Louisville - When founded in 1798, it was the first city-owned public university in the United States and one of the first universities chartered west of the Allegheny Mountains.

(02-17-2016 02:16 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Have you seen Temple's endowment? It's less than $400 million. Now overall endowment is not a measure of sports committment per se, but if you don't have at least three quarters of a billion in your endowment, you are under supported by your graduates.

At the end of the day for college presidents, endowment level is the last true measure of the univeristy's ***** and ego:

In the ACC and if you are not in the Triangle or Va, I could be off:

1. Duke 8 Billiion (even more tucked into the Hospital)
2. ND 8 Billion
3. UVa 6 Billion
4. Pitt 3.5 Billion
5. UNC 3 Billion
6. BC 2.2 Billion
7. GT 2 Billion
8. Syracuse 1.2 B
WF 1.2 B
10. NC State 1 B
11. Louisville .9 B
UM .9 B (both of these could be near or over the 1 mark)
13. VT .8 B
14. Clemson .7 B
15. FSU .65 B

Uva, UNC, Pitt, and BC are all over 200 years old, with UVa pushing 300. ND's direct tie the Catholic Church has been a boost. Duke is built on the Duke Tobacco Fortune the same way Vandy is built on the Commodore's fortune. GT, NC State, and VT are all 100-125 years old and built in part on techincial, engineering, innovations in the last 30-40 years. Louisville and FSU are relatively young schools - they may have an old origin like Duke did in Randolph County NC in the 1840's, but Duke became Duke when old Man Duke bought the college and moved it to Durham in the 1920's. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco did the same with WF in the 1950's.

It takes either a super sugar daddy, something like Union Carbide (UNC), a lot of time, and a lot of graduates to build an endowment.

I can't imagine the ACC allowing anyone into the league without at least an endowment that matched Clemson's and Clemson is a small public university as major flags go.

(02-18-2016 02:56 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The University of Louisville - When founded in 1798, it was the first city-owned public university in the United States and one of the first universities chartered west of the Allegheny Mountains.

(02-17-2016 02:16 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Have you seen Temple's endowment? It's less than $400 million. Now overall endowment is not a measure of sports committment per se, but if you don't have at least three quarters of a billion in your endowment, you are under supported by your graduates.

At the end of the day for college presidents, endowment level is the last true measure of the univeristy's ***** and ego:

In the ACC and if you are not in the Triangle or Va, I could be off:

1. Duke 8 Billiion (even more tucked into the Hospital)
2. ND 8 Billion
3. UVa 6 Billion
4. Pitt 3.5 Billion
5. UNC 3 Billion
6. BC 2.2 Billion
7. GT 2 Billion
8. Syracuse 1.2 B
WF 1.2 B
10. NC State 1 B
11. Louisville .9 B
UM .9 B (both of these could be near or over the 1 mark)
13. VT .8 B
14. Clemson .7 B
15. FSU .65 B

Uva, UNC, Pitt, and BC are all over 200 years old, with UVa pushing 300. ND's direct tie the Catholic Church has been a boost. Duke is built on the Duke Tobacco Fortune the same way Vandy is built on the Commodore's fortune. GT, NC State, and VT are all 100-125 years old and built in part on techincial, engineering, innovations in the last 30-40 years. Louisville and FSU are relatively young schools - they may have an old origin like Duke did in Randolph County NC in the 1840's, but Duke became Duke when old Man Duke bought the college and moved it to Durham in the 1920's. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco did the same with WF in the 1950's.

It takes either a super sugar daddy, something like Union Carbide (UNC), a lot of time, and a lot of graduates to build an endowment.

I can't imagine the ACC allowing anyone into the league without at least an endowment that matched Clemson's and Clemson is a small public university as major flags go.

IIRC, Louisville was just a City College for a long time. Just like FSU was the girls school in Florida, same as UNC-G used to be Womens College in NC. It's sort of like Duke. Yes there is a Trinity College that existed between Asheboro and Lexington NC in the 19th Century, but it wasn't what you know today as Duke. That did not happen until 1920's. You and FSU are relatively new on the scene with new being related to big money donors who tended to be males who had made a lot of money. Age matters when it's tied to rich male graduates.

Miami is also very young and once started, took a ten year setback due to an economic bust and hurricane, but they were in a fertile donor area and were able to cultivate an international appeal.

Even UNC didn't really have classes for years after they were chartered.

You can be young and great. You can be old an stink. But my point is that the older you are (the point from which you really started building and endowment), the better.

Perhaps a UL fan can shed more light, but higher education in the State of Kentucky seems to have been an afterthought for decades and I wonder if UK attempted to hold you back the way Bama is gutting UAB and other schools stab at weaker schools in a system.

UofL was a private university up until the late 1960's. One thing that has been a hindrance to the University in progressing academically is the schools Urban Mission which was mandated by the state, which requires the school to meet the needs of certain demographic groups. Here's part of the school's old (and partially current) mandate:

"Located in the Commonwealth's largest metropolitan area, it shall serve the specific educational, intellectual, cultural, service, and research needs of the greater Louisville region. It has a special obligation to serve the needs of a diverse population, including many ethnic minorities and placebound, part-time, nontraditional students."

Because of this, for many years, Louisville had to lower admissions standards and ACT requirements. This is slowly changing over time, since we are now mandated to "become a premier, nationally-recognized metropolitan research university".

The University of Kentucky, on the other hand, has been the land grant, state-funded University since 1865. What's their state mandated mission? To be "one of the nation's 20 best public research universities". Which basically means they are top of the list when it comes to state funding.

Even though UofL was established 1st, we've only been a state funded University for about 50 years.

(02-18-2016 05:44 PM)TopperCard Wrote:  UofL was a private university up until the late 1960's. One thing that has been a hindrance to the University in progressing academically is the schools Urban Mission which was mandated by the state, which requires the school to meet the needs of certain demographic groups. Here's part of the school's old (and partially current) mandate:

"Located in the Commonwealth's largest metropolitan area, it shall serve the specific educational, intellectual, cultural, service, and research needs of the greater Louisville region. It has a special obligation to serve the needs of a diverse population, including many ethnic minorities and placebound, part-time, nontraditional students."

Because of this, for many years, Louisville had to lower admissions standards and ACT requirements. This is slowly changing over time, since we are now mandated to "become a premier, nationally-recognized metropolitan research university".

The University of Kentucky, on the other hand, has been the land grant, state-funded University since 1865. What's their state mandated mission? To be "one of the nation's 20 best public research universities". Which basically means they are top of the list when it comes to state funding.

Even though UofL was established 1st, we've only been a state funded University for about 50 years.

I don't think that you were ever private. At least UL's Wikipedia page doesn't make it sound like you were. I think that you were owned by the city and then state.