(02-23-2016 10:20 AM)nole Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 09:25 AM)nole Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 07:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  We often read about the top 64 teams, but what if ESPN only wants to pay for 40 teams? How could they get them all into one or two conferences? By paying those and starving the rest... just a wild conspiracy theory (and not one I take seriously, mind you! I guess I'm trying to put an insane thought into sane terms).

I have said over and over....VERY few schools are worth anything. People on this board keep talking about adding and adding......there is NO VALUE there 99% of the time.

Few schools have a rabid fan base that reaches critical mass and even fewer have a brand worth anything.

It makes a LOT more sense to see things shrink....hell, that was the move to the Power 5....they cut out the weak Big East.


More cutting is coming....it isn't about more...it's about less, which will bring HUGE revenue for fewer schools.

I'm not sure I agree.

Most of those schools in the Big East were just moved to another conference and are making MORE money. Schools like Utah and TCU and Louisville were moved up to the Big Boy table.

The only schools "relegated out" from a power five conference by the Big East elimination are UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida. Cincinnati and USF only made the cut in 2005, and UConn didn't even have FBS football 15 years ago. And two of those three look likely to land in a Power conference.

There are more schools playing in power conferences today than 20 years ago. And meanwhile, more schools are moving up to the FBS level all the time.

I don't agree that there is any trend toward contraction. Even lightly viewed college football games between non-elite brands put up a couple million viewers or more, which compares favorably to a lot of NBA games.

Besides letting the Big East collapse (and that only after giving them a very solid offer that was rejected), the networks have each time acted to NOT have a conference collapse. Why did they keep the Big 12 whole after trading MU/TAMU for WVU/TCU? Why did they give the Big 12 PAC 12 money to avoid the PAC 16? Why did they ask for and get a GOR from the ACC?

Now if an individual school(s) decides to switch conferences to max out their value better, that's fine. But I don't believe there's any concerted effort to contract the conferences or the number of P5 programs.

Much of that happened due to Cable bundling which is a dying model.

And do you believe the ACC has dead weight right now? How about Big 12?

If no, why do the SEC and B1G make so much more money?

There are simply too many low value schools in the P5 right now.....contracting is needed. They won't be able to compete.

Yes, but not as much dead weight as some people want to make out. More than a third of Big 10 football are piss poor programs like Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland. And they want to add Virginia?

Contracting could happen as a byproduct of schools ditching for greener pastures, but I don't think it needs to happen, and I don't think the networks want it to happen.

Unless ESPN's troubles include them shutting down ESPN2 and ESPNU, they still need content in football and basketball, and I don't think they are interested in rendering more than half of the ACC and Big 12 content to Sun Belt levels of interest.

(02-23-2016 10:35 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  ...Unless ESPN's troubles include them shutting down ESPN2 and ESPNU, they still need content in football and basketball, and I don't think they are interested in rendering more than half of the ACC and Big 12 content to Sun Belt levels of interest.

I wonder how much this fact relates to delays in the ACC cable network? I mean, they've already pulled much of the SEC football content off of these secondary ESPN channels, and now we are talking about pulling ACC football too? What are they going to show on ESPNU? (Answer: lots and lots of G5 games)

(02-23-2016 10:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 10:35 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  ...Unless ESPN's troubles include them shutting down ESPN2 and ESPNU, they still need content in football and basketball, and I don't think they are interested in rendering more than half of the ACC and Big 12 content to Sun Belt levels of interest.

I wonder how much this fact relates to delays in the ACC cable network? I mean, they've already pulled much of the SEC football content off of these secondary ESPN channels, and now we are talking about pulling ACC football too? What are they going to show on ESPNU? (Answer: lots and lots of G5 games)

Good question.

(02-23-2016 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 09:25 AM)nole Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 07:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  We often read about the top 64 teams, but what if ESPN only wants to pay for 40 teams? How could they get them all into one or two conferences? By paying those and starving the rest... just a wild conspiracy theory (and not one I take seriously, mind you! I guess I'm trying to put an insane thought into sane terms).

I have said over and over....VERY few schools are worth anything. People on this board keep talking about adding and adding......there is NO VALUE there 99% of the time.

Few schools have a rabid fan base that reaches critical mass and even fewer have a brand worth anything.

It makes a LOT more sense to see things shrink....hell, that was the move to the Power 5....they cut out the weak Big East.


More cutting is coming....it isn't about more...it's about less, which will bring HUGE revenue for fewer schools.

I'm not sure I agree.

Most of those schools in the Big East were just moved to another conference and are making MORE money. Schools like Utah and TCU and Louisville were moved up to the Big Boy table.

The only schools "relegated out" from a power five conference by the Big East elimination are UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida. Cincinnati and USF only made the cut in 2005, and UConn didn't even have FBS football 15 years ago. And two of those three look likely to land in a Power conference.

There are more schools playing in power conferences today than 20 years ago. And meanwhile, more schools are moving up to the FBS level all the time.

I don't agree that there is any trend toward contraction. Even lightly viewed college football games between non-elite brands put up a couple million viewers or more, which compares favorably to a lot of NBA games.

Besides letting the Big East collapse (and that only after giving them a very solid offer that was rejected), the networks have each time acted to NOT have a conference collapse. Why did they keep the Big 12 whole after trading MU/TAMU for WVU/TCU? Why did they give the Big 12 PAC 12 money to avoid the PAC 16? Why did they ask for and get a GOR from the ACC?

Now if an individual school(s) decides to switch conferences to max out their value better, that's fine. But I don't believe there's any concerted effort to contract the conferences or the number of P5 programs.

I believe the future will be largely decided based on the viewing public's appetite for live sports programming. I don't see that decreasing yet, and until it does there won't be major contraction within the FBS. Fans, especially internet fans, may have an interest in realignment that leads to a symmetrical playoff model a la the NFL. But the media doesn't really care about that. If anything, they benefit from whatever controversy accompanies a model that has fewer playoff spots than worthy conference champions.

You know, I don't think FSU is interested in the Big 12, and I don't think it's an optimal move. And there's tens of millions of obstacles.

But here's another mainstream outlet that thinks it's reasonable to at least float out there.

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...rida-state

(02-23-2016 10:35 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  Unless ESPN's troubles include them shutting down ESPN2 and ESPNU, they still need content in football and basketball, and I don't think they are interested in rendering more than half of the ACC and Big 12 content to Sun Belt levels of interest.

Have you seen home attendance at some of our member schools? Some of them are already at Sun Belt levels of interest.

(02-23-2016 10:35 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 10:20 AM)nole Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 09:25 AM)nole Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 07:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  We often read about the top 64 teams, but what if ESPN only wants to pay for 40 teams? How could they get them all into one or two conferences? By paying those and starving the rest... just a wild conspiracy theory (and not one I take seriously, mind you! I guess I'm trying to put an insane thought into sane terms).

I have said over and over....VERY few schools are worth anything. People on this board keep talking about adding and adding......there is NO VALUE there 99% of the time.

Few schools have a rabid fan base that reaches critical mass and even fewer have a brand worth anything.

It makes a LOT more sense to see things shrink....hell, that was the move to the Power 5....they cut out the weak Big East.


More cutting is coming....it isn't about more...it's about less, which will bring HUGE revenue for fewer schools.

I'm not sure I agree.

Most of those schools in the Big East were just moved to another conference and are making MORE money. Schools like Utah and TCU and Louisville were moved up to the Big Boy table.

The only schools "relegated out" from a power five conference by the Big East elimination are UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida. Cincinnati and USF only made the cut in 2005, and UConn didn't even have FBS football 15 years ago. And two of those three look likely to land in a Power conference.

There are more schools playing in power conferences today than 20 years ago. And meanwhile, more schools are moving up to the FBS level all the time.

I don't agree that there is any trend toward contraction. Even lightly viewed college football games between non-elite brands put up a couple million viewers or more, which compares favorably to a lot of NBA games.

Besides letting the Big East collapse (and that only after giving them a very solid offer that was rejected), the networks have each time acted to NOT have a conference collapse. Why did they keep the Big 12 whole after trading MU/TAMU for WVU/TCU? Why did they give the Big 12 PAC 12 money to avoid the PAC 16? Why did they ask for and get a GOR from the ACC?

Now if an individual school(s) decides to switch conferences to max out their value better, that's fine. But I don't believe there's any concerted effort to contract the conferences or the number of P5 programs.

Much of that happened due to Cable bundling which is a dying model.

And do you believe the ACC has dead weight right now? How about Big 12?

If no, why do the SEC and B1G make so much more money?

There are simply too many low value schools in the P5 right now.....contracting is needed. They won't be able to compete.

Yes, but not as much dead weight as some people want to make out. More than a third of Big 10 football are piss poor programs like Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland. And they want to add Virginia?

Contracting could happen as a byproduct of schools ditching for greener pastures, but I don't think it needs to happen, and I don't think the networks want it to happen.

Unless ESPN's troubles include them shutting down ESPN2 and ESPNU, they still need content in football and basketball, and I don't think they are interested in rendering more than half of the ACC and Big 12 content to Sun Belt levels of interest.

Compare the 'piss poor' B1G programs like "Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland" to the ACC's bottom half Lou.....the ACC loses in a big way.

That said, it really isn't about how much the bottom sucks or doesn't....it is about how many elite brands you have. The ACC doesn't have enough.

(02-26-2016 12:54 PM)nole Wrote:  That said, it really isn't about how much the bottom sucks or doesn't....it is about how many elite brands you have. The ACC doesn't have enough.

Exactly. Neither does the PAC12 nor the B12. Which is why there is a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3 amongst the P5.

Brands take decades to build. There simply is no quick fix to the issue.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-26-2016 01:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 12:54 PM)nole Wrote:  That said, it really isn't about how much the bottom sucks or doesn't....it is about how many elite brands you have. The ACC doesn't have enough.

Exactly. Neither does the PAC12 nor the B12. Which is why there is a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3 amongst the P5.

Brands take decades to build. There simply is no quick fix to the issue.

Cheers,
Neil

I would stretch that to say there is a Greater 1 and a Lesser 4 among the P5. The ACC's problem is that it is more in direct competition with that 1 than any other conference because of its geographical overlap.

The problem for all the P5s except the SEC is the fact that there are no more elite brands available to be added. What we have is what we are going to get.

(02-26-2016 01:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 01:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 12:54 PM)nole Wrote:  That said, it really isn't about how much the bottom sucks or doesn't....it is about how many elite brands you have. The ACC doesn't have enough.

Exactly. Neither does the PAC12 nor the B12. Which is why there is a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3 amongst the P5.

Brands take decades to build. There simply is no quick fix to the issue.

Cheers,
Neil

I would stretch that to say there is a Greater 1 and a Lesser 4 among the P5. The ACC's problem is that it is more in direct competition with that 1 than any other conference because of its geographical overlap.

The problem for all the P5s except the SEC is the fact that there are no more elite brands available to be added. What we have is what we are going to get.

In terms of both $$$ and perception it is indeed a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3.

Also, I have never bought into the notion that the ACC's "problem" is that it is more in direct competition with the SEC. That is an excuse. FSU and Florida are basically even in terms of results on the field, Clemson has outperformed South Carolina historically except for the Spurrier period, and Louisville has accomplished more than Kentucky on the football field. Obviously the ACC programs are "competing" just fine.

If anything it appears that the flagship attribute of the SEC institutions may be what is winning out in the fans' minds of those states giving them better fan support, donor $$$, etc., rather than on the field performance where the direct athletic competition is happening.

Nor is the ACC's problem strictly a "private school" one per se as some others have suggested over the years. Now, do both contribute to the issues? Sure. But it goes deeper than this as mentioned ad nauseum. For too long too many programs in the ACC have not taken football as seriously as it should have been and these are programs that operate in states in which there is no true in-state competition from either the SEC or the B1G - North Carolina, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland (when they were in the league). This seems to be changing, at least the recent coaching hires appear to be a step in the right direction. But it still needs to be proven on the field.

While acknowledging that the B1G is behind the SEC in terms of total number of brand names in football I also think you may be underestimating the B1G in terms of that number because 3 have been inconsistent lately (Michigan, PSU and Nebraska) much like the ACC's Miami - although each of the three have performed better than the Hurricanes since 2008.

But you echo a point I have been saying for a while now. Since it is unlikely that the ACC will add an elite brand in football, the conference will need to get the next level down brands to rise up.

This is something the B1G has gotten with three next level down brands that have stepped up to the plate in MSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

The ACC has had similar results since 2008 with VT, GT, and now Clemson but not as good as the B1G trio, imho. The league can, and must, get better or it won't survive - at least in terms of still being a power conference.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-26-2016 03:28 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 01:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 01:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 12:54 PM)nole Wrote:  That said, it really isn't about how much the bottom sucks or doesn't....it is about how many elite brands you have. The ACC doesn't have enough.

Exactly. Neither does the PAC12 nor the B12. Which is why there is a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3 amongst the P5.

Brands take decades to build. There simply is no quick fix to the issue.

Cheers,
Neil

I would stretch that to say there is a Greater 1 and a Lesser 4 among the P5. The ACC's problem is that it is more in direct competition with that 1 than any other conference because of its geographical overlap.

The problem for all the P5s except the SEC is the fact that there are no more elite brands available to be added. What we have is what we are going to get.

In terms of both $$$ and perception it is indeed a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3.

Also, I have never bought into the notion that the ACC's "problem" is that it is more in direct competition with the SEC. That is an excuse. FSU and Florida are basically even in terms of results on the field, Clemson has outperformed South Carolina historically except for the Spurrier period, and Louisville has accomplished more than Kentucky on the football field. Obviously the ACC programs are "competing" just fine.

If anything it appears that the flagship attribute of the SEC institutions may be what is winning out in the fans' minds of those states giving them better fan support, donor $$$, etc., rather than on the field performance where the direct athletic competition is happening.

Nor is the ACC's problem strictly a "private school" one per se as some others have suggested over the years. Now, do both contribute to the issues? Sure. But it goes deeper than this as mentioned ad nauseum. For too long too many programs in the ACC have not taken football as seriously as it should have been and these are programs that operate in states in which there is no true in-state competition from either the SEC or the B1G - North Carolina, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland (when they were in the league). This seems to be changing, at least the recent coaching hires appear to be a step in the right direction. But it still needs to be proven on the field.

While acknowledging that the B1G is behind the SEC in terms of total number of brand names in football I also think you may be underestimating the B1G in terms of that number because 3 have been inconsistent lately (Michigan, PSU and Nebraska) much like the ACC's Miami - although each of the three have performed better than the Hurricanes since 2008.

But you echo a point I have been saying for a while now. Since it is unlikely that the ACC will add an elite brand in football, the conference will need to get the next level down brands to rise up.

This is something the B1G has gotten with three next level down brands that have stepped up to the plate in MSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

The ACC has had similar results since 2008 with VT, GT, and now Clemson but not as good as the B1G trio, imho. The league can, and must, get better or it won't survive - at least in terms of still being a power conference.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't know that I'd put Iowa into an "elite" category just because they had a great year in 2015. In the ten years before that they only won 73 games, including bowls, and were ranked twice. That's kinda pedestrian.

There can only be so many "elite" teams. At the top - legitimate perennial NC contenders - there are only a few. Some jump into the conversation sporadically, some even hang around for more than just a few years. I think VT and Kansas State are examples of the latter. The ACC surely hopes that Clemson will hang around for a while. But they've only been in the rarefied air for a few years, and I doubt the national perception of the Tigers is an "elite program" yet.

As you said - brands take decades to develop, and perceptions are slow to change. And, there are still only 25 spots in the Top 25, so if some programs move in, others have to move out. It's a zero sum game in that respect.

(02-26-2016 04:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:28 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 01:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 01:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 12:54 PM)nole Wrote:  That said, it really isn't about how much the bottom sucks or doesn't....it is about how many elite brands you have. The ACC doesn't have enough.

Exactly. Neither does the PAC12 nor the B12. Which is why there is a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3 amongst the P5.

Brands take decades to build. There simply is no quick fix to the issue.

Cheers,
Neil

I would stretch that to say there is a Greater 1 and a Lesser 4 among the P5. The ACC's problem is that it is more in direct competition with that 1 than any other conference because of its geographical overlap.

The problem for all the P5s except the SEC is the fact that there are no more elite brands available to be added. What we have is what we are going to get.

In terms of both $$$ and perception it is indeed a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3.

Also, I have never bought into the notion that the ACC's "problem" is that it is more in direct competition with the SEC. That is an excuse. FSU and Florida are basically even in terms of results on the field, Clemson has outperformed South Carolina historically except for the Spurrier period, and Louisville has accomplished more than Kentucky on the football field. Obviously the ACC programs are "competing" just fine.

If anything it appears that the flagship attribute of the SEC institutions may be what is winning out in the fans' minds of those states giving them better fan support, donor $$$, etc., rather than on the field performance where the direct athletic competition is happening.

Nor is the ACC's problem strictly a "private school" one per se as some others have suggested over the years. Now, do both contribute to the issues? Sure. But it goes deeper than this as mentioned ad nauseum. For too long too many programs in the ACC have not taken football as seriously as it should have been and these are programs that operate in states in which there is no true in-state competition from either the SEC or the B1G - North Carolina, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland (when they were in the league). This seems to be changing, at least the recent coaching hires appear to be a step in the right direction. But it still needs to be proven on the field.

While acknowledging that the B1G is behind the SEC in terms of total number of brand names in football I also think you may be underestimating the B1G in terms of that number because 3 have been inconsistent lately (Michigan, PSU and Nebraska) much like the ACC's Miami - although each of the three have performed better than the Hurricanes since 2008.

But you echo a point I have been saying for a while now. Since it is unlikely that the ACC will add an elite brand in football, the conference will need to get the next level down brands to rise up.

This is something the B1G has gotten with three next level down brands that have stepped up to the plate in MSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

The ACC has had similar results since 2008 with VT, GT, and now Clemson but not as good as the B1G trio, imho. The league can, and must, get better or it won't survive - at least in terms of still being a power conference.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't know that I'd put Iowa into an "elite" category just because they had a great year in 2015. In the ten years before that they only won 73 games, including bowls, and were ranked twice. That's kinda pedestrian.

There can only be so many "elite" teams. At the top - legitimate perennial NC contenders - there are only a few. Some jump into the conversation sporadically, some even hang around for more than just a few years. I think VT and Kansas State are examples of the latter. The ACC surely hopes that Clemson will hang around for a while. But they've only been in the rarefied air for a few years, and I doubt the national perception of the Tigers is an "elite program" yet.

As you said - brands take decades to develop, and perceptions are slow to change. And, there are still only 25 spots in the Top 25, so if some programs move in, others have to move out. It's a zero sum game in that respect.

I didn't put Iowa in the "elite brand" category. I put them in the next level down category who along with MSU and Wisconsin stepped up when Michigan, PSU, and relative newcomer Nebraska didn't perform as elite brand programs. I thought you might have caught this since I basically compared the B1G three to Clemson, VT, and GT, none of which are elite brands, imho, but next level down.

Edit: I should probably add my demarcation point for football brands is an arbitrary one of 1980 and onward.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-26-2016 04:53 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 04:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:28 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 01:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 01:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Exactly. Neither does the PAC12 nor the B12. Which is why there is a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3 amongst the P5.

Brands take decades to build. There simply is no quick fix to the issue.

Cheers,
Neil

I would stretch that to say there is a Greater 1 and a Lesser 4 among the P5. The ACC's problem is that it is more in direct competition with that 1 than any other conference because of its geographical overlap.

The problem for all the P5s except the SEC is the fact that there are no more elite brands available to be added. What we have is what we are going to get.

In terms of both $$$ and perception it is indeed a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3.

Also, I have never bought into the notion that the ACC's "problem" is that it is more in direct competition with the SEC. That is an excuse. FSU and Florida are basically even in terms of results on the field, Clemson has outperformed South Carolina historically except for the Spurrier period, and Louisville has accomplished more than Kentucky on the football field. Obviously the ACC programs are "competing" just fine.

If anything it appears that the flagship attribute of the SEC institutions may be what is winning out in the fans' minds of those states giving them better fan support, donor $$$, etc., rather than on the field performance where the direct athletic competition is happening.

Nor is the ACC's problem strictly a "private school" one per se as some others have suggested over the years. Now, do both contribute to the issues? Sure. But it goes deeper than this as mentioned ad nauseum. For too long too many programs in the ACC have not taken football as seriously as it should have been and these are programs that operate in states in which there is no true in-state competition from either the SEC or the B1G - North Carolina, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland (when they were in the league). This seems to be changing, at least the recent coaching hires appear to be a step in the right direction. But it still needs to be proven on the field.

While acknowledging that the B1G is behind the SEC in terms of total number of brand names in football I also think you may be underestimating the B1G in terms of that number because 3 have been inconsistent lately (Michigan, PSU and Nebraska) much like the ACC's Miami - although each of the three have performed better than the Hurricanes since 2008.

But you echo a point I have been saying for a while now. Since it is unlikely that the ACC will add an elite brand in football, the conference will need to get the next level down brands to rise up.

This is something the B1G has gotten with three next level down brands that have stepped up to the plate in MSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

The ACC has had similar results since 2008 with VT, GT, and now Clemson but not as good as the B1G trio, imho. The league can, and must, get better or it won't survive - at least in terms of still being a power conference.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't know that I'd put Iowa into an "elite" category just because they had a great year in 2015. In the ten years before that they only won 73 games, including bowls, and were ranked twice. That's kinda pedestrian.

There can only be so many "elite" teams. At the top - legitimate perennial NC contenders - there are only a few. Some jump into the conversation sporadically, some even hang around for more than just a few years. I think VT and Kansas State are examples of the latter. The ACC surely hopes that Clemson will hang around for a while. But they've only been in the rarefied air for a few years, and I doubt the national perception of the Tigers is an "elite program" yet.

As you said - brands take decades to develop, and perceptions are slow to change. And, there are still only 25 spots in the Top 25, so if some programs move in, others have to move out. It's a zero sum game in that respect.

I didn't put Iowa in the "elite brand" category. I put them in the next level down category who along with MSU and Wisconsin stepped up when Michigan, PSU, and relative newcomer Nebraska didn't perform as elite brand programs. I thought you might have caught this since I basically compared the B1G three to Clemson, VT, and GT, none of which are elite brands, imho, but next level down.

Edit: I should probably add my demarcation point for football brands is an arbitrary one of 1980 and onward.

Cheers,
Neil

Sorry. I interpreted your characterizing them as "next level down brands that have stepped up" to mean that they stepped up to become elite brands. IMO, the B1G has one elite brand, and that is Ohio State. The ACC also has one - Florida State. Clemson is a "wannabe elite" and they have a chance over time to get there, while Miami is a "used to be elite" that has the potential to get there again. But the "potential" label is a tough one to carry around. It evokes in me images of "I coulda been a contendah".

We will have gotten where we need to be when non-ACC fans no longer assume our champion didn't have to face enough serious challenges to earn that title. We're not that far away, and we are a lot closer than we were 5-10 years ago.

(02-26-2016 05:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 04:53 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 04:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:28 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 01:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  I would stretch that to say there is a Greater 1 and a Lesser 4 among the P5. The ACC's problem is that it is more in direct competition with that 1 than any other conference because of its geographical overlap.

The problem for all the P5s except the SEC is the fact that there are no more elite brands available to be added. What we have is what we are going to get.

In terms of both $$$ and perception it is indeed a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3.

Also, I have never bought into the notion that the ACC's "problem" is that it is more in direct competition with the SEC. That is an excuse. FSU and Florida are basically even in terms of results on the field, Clemson has outperformed South Carolina historically except for the Spurrier period, and Louisville has accomplished more than Kentucky on the football field. Obviously the ACC programs are "competing" just fine.

If anything it appears that the flagship attribute of the SEC institutions may be what is winning out in the fans' minds of those states giving them better fan support, donor $$$, etc., rather than on the field performance where the direct athletic competition is happening.

Nor is the ACC's problem strictly a "private school" one per se as some others have suggested over the years. Now, do both contribute to the issues? Sure. But it goes deeper than this as mentioned ad nauseum. For too long too many programs in the ACC have not taken football as seriously as it should have been and these are programs that operate in states in which there is no true in-state competition from either the SEC or the B1G - North Carolina, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland (when they were in the league). This seems to be changing, at least the recent coaching hires appear to be a step in the right direction. But it still needs to be proven on the field.

While acknowledging that the B1G is behind the SEC in terms of total number of brand names in football I also think you may be underestimating the B1G in terms of that number because 3 have been inconsistent lately (Michigan, PSU and Nebraska) much like the ACC's Miami - although each of the three have performed better than the Hurricanes since 2008.

But you echo a point I have been saying for a while now. Since it is unlikely that the ACC will add an elite brand in football, the conference will need to get the next level down brands to rise up.

This is something the B1G has gotten with three next level down brands that have stepped up to the plate in MSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

The ACC has had similar results since 2008 with VT, GT, and now Clemson but not as good as the B1G trio, imho. The league can, and must, get better or it won't survive - at least in terms of still being a power conference.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't know that I'd put Iowa into an "elite" category just because they had a great year in 2015. In the ten years before that they only won 73 games, including bowls, and were ranked twice. That's kinda pedestrian.

There can only be so many "elite" teams. At the top - legitimate perennial NC contenders - there are only a few. Some jump into the conversation sporadically, some even hang around for more than just a few years. I think VT and Kansas State are examples of the latter. The ACC surely hopes that Clemson will hang around for a while. But they've only been in the rarefied air for a few years, and I doubt the national perception of the Tigers is an "elite program" yet.

As you said - brands take decades to develop, and perceptions are slow to change. And, there are still only 25 spots in the Top 25, so if some programs move in, others have to move out. It's a zero sum game in that respect.

I didn't put Iowa in the "elite brand" category. I put them in the next level down category who along with MSU and Wisconsin stepped up when Michigan, PSU, and relative newcomer Nebraska didn't perform as elite brand programs. I thought you might have caught this since I basically compared the B1G three to Clemson, VT, and GT, none of which are elite brands, imho, but next level down.

Edit: I should probably add my demarcation point for football brands is an arbitrary one of 1980 and onward.

Cheers,
Neil

Sorry. I interpreted your characterizing them as "next level down brands that have stepped up" to mean that they stepped up to become elite brands. IMO, the B1G has one elite brand, and that is Ohio State. The ACC also has one - Florida State. Clemson is a "wannabe elite" and they have a chance over time to get there, while Miami is a "used to be elite" that has the potential to get there again. But the "potential" label is a tough one to carry around. It evokes in me images of "I coulda been a contendah".

We will have gotten where we need to be when non-ACC fans no longer assume our champion didn't have to face enough serious challenges to earn that title. We're not that far away, and we are a lot closer than we were 5-10 years ago.

Understood. Interpretation of "elite brands" is extremely varied among posters. I, myself, consider 15 such programs as elite (in alpha order) - Alabama, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Georgia, LSU, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Texas, and Southern Cal.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-27-2016 07:46 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 05:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 04:53 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 04:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:28 PM)omniorange Wrote:  In terms of both $$$ and perception it is indeed a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3.

Also, I have never bought into the notion that the ACC's "problem" is that it is more in direct competition with the SEC. That is an excuse. FSU and Florida are basically even in terms of results on the field, Clemson has outperformed South Carolina historically except for the Spurrier period, and Louisville has accomplished more than Kentucky on the football field. Obviously the ACC programs are "competing" just fine.

If anything it appears that the flagship attribute of the SEC institutions may be what is winning out in the fans' minds of those states giving them better fan support, donor $$$, etc., rather than on the field performance where the direct athletic competition is happening.

Nor is the ACC's problem strictly a "private school" one per se as some others have suggested over the years. Now, do both contribute to the issues? Sure. But it goes deeper than this as mentioned ad nauseum. For too long too many programs in the ACC have not taken football as seriously as it should have been and these are programs that operate in states in which there is no true in-state competition from either the SEC or the B1G - North Carolina, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland (when they were in the league). This seems to be changing, at least the recent coaching hires appear to be a step in the right direction. But it still needs to be proven on the field.

While acknowledging that the B1G is behind the SEC in terms of total number of brand names in football I also think you may be underestimating the B1G in terms of that number because 3 have been inconsistent lately (Michigan, PSU and Nebraska) much like the ACC's Miami - although each of the three have performed better than the Hurricanes since 2008.

But you echo a point I have been saying for a while now. Since it is unlikely that the ACC will add an elite brand in football, the conference will need to get the next level down brands to rise up.

This is something the B1G has gotten with three next level down brands that have stepped up to the plate in MSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

The ACC has had similar results since 2008 with VT, GT, and now Clemson but not as good as the B1G trio, imho. The league can, and must, get better or it won't survive - at least in terms of still being a power conference.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't know that I'd put Iowa into an "elite" category just because they had a great year in 2015. In the ten years before that they only won 73 games, including bowls, and were ranked twice. That's kinda pedestrian.

There can only be so many "elite" teams. At the top - legitimate perennial NC contenders - there are only a few. Some jump into the conversation sporadically, some even hang around for more than just a few years. I think VT and Kansas State are examples of the latter. The ACC surely hopes that Clemson will hang around for a while. But they've only been in the rarefied air for a few years, and I doubt the national perception of the Tigers is an "elite program" yet.

As you said - brands take decades to develop, and perceptions are slow to change. And, there are still only 25 spots in the Top 25, so if some programs move in, others have to move out. It's a zero sum game in that respect.

I didn't put Iowa in the "elite brand" category. I put them in the next level down category who along with MSU and Wisconsin stepped up when Michigan, PSU, and relative newcomer Nebraska didn't perform as elite brand programs. I thought you might have caught this since I basically compared the B1G three to Clemson, VT, and GT, none of which are elite brands, imho, but next level down.

Edit: I should probably add my demarcation point for football brands is an arbitrary one of 1980 and onward.

Cheers,
Neil

Sorry. I interpreted your characterizing them as "next level down brands that have stepped up" to mean that they stepped up to become elite brands. IMO, the B1G has one elite brand, and that is Ohio State. The ACC also has one - Florida State. Clemson is a "wannabe elite" and they have a chance over time to get there, while Miami is a "used to be elite" that has the potential to get there again. But the "potential" label is a tough one to carry around. It evokes in me images of "I coulda been a contendah".

We will have gotten where we need to be when non-ACC fans no longer assume our champion didn't have to face enough serious challenges to earn that title. We're not that far away, and we are a lot closer than we were 5-10 years ago.

Understood. Interpretation of "elite brands" is extremely varied among posters. I, myself, consider 15 such programs as elite (in alpha order) - Alabama, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Georgia, LSU, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Texas, and Southern Cal.

Cheers,
Neil

I think that's pretty close to what I would say with Tennessee and Oregon, one because of history and one because of recent success on the cusp.

Clemson needs about five more years at this level and they could move into that tier.

(02-27-2016 07:59 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 07:46 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 05:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 04:53 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 04:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  I don't know that I'd put Iowa into an "elite" category just because they had a great year in 2015. In the ten years before that they only won 73 games, including bowls, and were ranked twice. That's kinda pedestrian.

There can only be so many "elite" teams. At the top - legitimate perennial NC contenders - there are only a few. Some jump into the conversation sporadically, some even hang around for more than just a few years. I think VT and Kansas State are examples of the latter. The ACC surely hopes that Clemson will hang around for a while. But they've only been in the rarefied air for a few years, and I doubt the national perception of the Tigers is an "elite program" yet.

As you said - brands take decades to develop, and perceptions are slow to change. And, there are still only 25 spots in the Top 25, so if some programs move in, others have to move out. It's a zero sum game in that respect.

I didn't put Iowa in the "elite brand" category. I put them in the next level down category who along with MSU and Wisconsin stepped up when Michigan, PSU, and relative newcomer Nebraska didn't perform as elite brand programs. I thought you might have caught this since I basically compared the B1G three to Clemson, VT, and GT, none of which are elite brands, imho, but next level down.

Edit: I should probably add my demarcation point for football brands is an arbitrary one of 1980 and onward.

Cheers,
Neil

Sorry. I interpreted your characterizing them as "next level down brands that have stepped up" to mean that they stepped up to become elite brands. IMO, the B1G has one elite brand, and that is Ohio State. The ACC also has one - Florida State. Clemson is a "wannabe elite" and they have a chance over time to get there, while Miami is a "used to be elite" that has the potential to get there again. But the "potential" label is a tough one to carry around. It evokes in me images of "I coulda been a contendah".

We will have gotten where we need to be when non-ACC fans no longer assume our champion didn't have to face enough serious challenges to earn that title. We're not that far away, and we are a lot closer than we were 5-10 years ago.

Understood. Interpretation of "elite brands" is extremely varied among posters. I, myself, consider 15 such programs as elite (in alpha order) - Alabama, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Georgia, LSU, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Texas, and Southern Cal.

Cheers,
Neil

I think that's pretty close to what I would say with Tennessee and Oregon, one because of history and one because of recent success on the cusp.

Clemson needs about five more years at this level and they could move into that tier.

I agree pretty much. But in that group are a few that are tarnished, and have to work hard to stay there - Nebraska, Miami, Michigan, Penn State and Tennessee. I see Oregon as in largely the same boat as Clemson - getting there, but need to keep winning big for five more years. I know Oregon has won big for longer than Clemson has, but in their case "big" means lots of wins, not "big wins". They have tended to get exposed at the end of the year. Also, they don't put as many butts in the seats.

Miami is the only one in that group that is a product of TV fans. They developed a national reputation that they've been living off for quite a while. If they aren't back in the Top Ten with some consistency, and soon, I would take them off my list.

(02-23-2016 10:35 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 10:20 AM)nole Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 09:25 AM)nole Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 07:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  We often read about the top 64 teams, but what if ESPN only wants to pay for 40 teams? How could they get them all into one or two conferences? By paying those and starving the rest... just a wild conspiracy theory (and not one I take seriously, mind you! I guess I'm trying to put an insane thought into sane terms).

I have said over and over....VERY few schools are worth anything. People on this board keep talking about adding and adding......there is NO VALUE there 99% of the time.

Few schools have a rabid fan base that reaches critical mass and even fewer have a brand worth anything.

It makes a LOT more sense to see things shrink....hell, that was the move to the Power 5....they cut out the weak Big East.


More cutting is coming....it isn't about more...it's about less, which will bring HUGE revenue for fewer schools.

I'm not sure I agree.

Most of those schools in the Big East were just moved to another conference and are making MORE money. Schools like Utah and TCU and Louisville were moved up to the Big Boy table.

The only schools "relegated out" from a power five conference by the Big East elimination are UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida. Cincinnati and USF only made the cut in 2005, and UConn didn't even have FBS football 15 years ago. And two of those three look likely to land in a Power conference.

There are more schools playing in power conferences today than 20 years ago. And meanwhile, more schools are moving up to the FBS level all the time.

I don't agree that there is any trend toward contraction. Even lightly viewed college football games between non-elite brands put up a couple million viewers or more, which compares favorably to a lot of NBA games.

Besides letting the Big East collapse (and that only after giving them a very solid offer that was rejected), the networks have each time acted to NOT have a conference collapse. Why did they keep the Big 12 whole after trading MU/TAMU for WVU/TCU? Why did they give the Big 12 PAC 12 money to avoid the PAC 16? Why did they ask for and get a GOR from the ACC?

Now if an individual school(s) decides to switch conferences to max out their value better, that's fine. But I don't believe there's any concerted effort to contract the conferences or the number of P5 programs.

Much of that happened due to Cable bundling which is a dying model.

And do you believe the ACC has dead weight right now? How about Big 12?

If no, why do the SEC and B1G make so much more money?

There are simply too many low value schools in the P5 right now.....contracting is needed. They won't be able to compete.

Yes, but not as much dead weight as some people want to make out. More than a third of Big 10 football are piss poor programs like Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland. And they want to add Virginia?

Contracting could happen as a byproduct of schools ditching for greener pastures, but I don't think it needs to happen, and I don't think the networks want it to happen.

Unless ESPN's troubles include them shutting down ESPN2 and ESPNU, they still need content in football and basketball, and I don't think they are interested in rendering more than half of the ACC and Big 12 content to Sun Belt levels of interest.

The states of Virginia and North Carolina represent gazillions of cable boxes to the SEC and the B1G. But make no mistake, those two conferences are unashamedly, unapologetically, and unselfconsciously, covetous of UVA and UNC for reasons unrelated to sports.

How much $ did Maryland & Rutgers bring to the B1G? It would seem that they would hurt their TV contract but did they bring enough additional $ to the B1GN to offset it?

(02-28-2016 09:48 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  How much $ did Maryland & Rutgers bring to the B1G? It would seem that they would hurt their TV contract but did they bring enough additional $ to the B1GN to offset it?

I didn't mean to suggest that the motive was money rather than sports activity. My (ineffective) intent was to say that in the B1G and SEC Halls of Academe, the historical significance and academic reputation are the greater attraction of UVA and UNCV; not the added sports content.

(02-26-2016 01:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 01:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 12:54 PM)nole Wrote:  That said, it really isn't about how much the bottom sucks or doesn't....it is about how many elite brands you have. The ACC doesn't have enough.

Exactly. Neither does the PAC12 nor the B12. Which is why there is a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3 amongst the P5.

Brands take decades to build. There simply is no quick fix to the issue.

Cheers,
Neil

I would stretch that to say there is a Greater 1 and a Lesser 4 among the P5. The ACC's problem is that it is more in direct competition with that 1 than any other conference because of its geographical overlap.

The problem for all the P5s except the SEC is the fact that there are no more elite brands available to be added. What we have is what we are going to get.

Maybe. I think the argument could be made that FSU, Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame have the potential to move conferences if the right situation presents itself.