End of the day, I really like the ACC, but if the ACC were becoming unstable, Louisville would go where its best interests lies. Of course the same could be said for every school in the ACC.

"The cost of competition in-conference for football is the lowest of the P-5."


This is a bizarre statement. For schools competing for national titles in football (ie the ones bringing in the revenue)....the cost is comparable to the elite schools.

For schools that are sitting back while others carry their weight....sure their is a low cost.


This is THE problem in the ACC. Too much dead weight.

(02-29-2016 06:49 AM)nole Wrote:  "The cost of competition in-conference for football is the lowest of the P-5."


This is a bizarre statement. For schools competing for national titles in football (ie the ones bringing in the revenue)....the cost is comparable to the elite schools.

For schools that are sitting back while others carry their weight....sure their is a low cost.


This is THE problem in the ACC. Too much dead weight.

OK, be clear, who is the dead weight?

(02-29-2016 06:49 AM)nole Wrote:  "The cost of competition in-conference for football is the lowest of the P-5."


This is a bizarre statement. For schools competing for national titles in football (ie the ones bringing in the revenue)....the cost is comparable to the elite schools.

For schools that are sitting back while others carry their weight....sure their is a low cost.


This is THE problem in the ACC. Too much dead weight.

I don't know that I would agree with that statement either. But neither do I agree with your statement that it is just the football schools like FSU and Clemson that are "bringing in the revenue" to the ACC. If those schools were independent, they probably wouldn't command much more money than they get from being in the ACC.

If ESPN is paying the league $280 million a year, how much do you think they would pay FSU and Clemson on their own? Do you think they would get more than what Notre Dame gets? The value of the conference is greater than the sum of its parts. There is a lot less dead weight than you seem to think there is.

And, I understand that you want an ACC network. Would Florida State or Clemson fans pay a significant amount to subscribe to that network? Why would they? Not to get Clemson and FSU football games games that aren't currently on TV. The inventory on such a network would consist mostly of what your fans call "crap games between crap teams". Who would pay extra for that?

The SEC and B1G have successful networks because they each have qualities that no other conference possesses. The Bi2 12 will never have those qualities, and neither will the ACC. Together, they might be able to combine for a marginally profitable network. But separately, what they have is what they are going to get. So the only thing that is ever going to make Clemson and FSU fans happier with their lot in life is an invitation from the SEC.

(02-29-2016 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 06:49 AM)nole Wrote:  "The cost of competition in-conference for football is the lowest of the P-5."


This is a bizarre statement. For schools competing for national titles in football (ie the ones bringing in the revenue)....the cost is comparable to the elite schools.

For schools that are sitting back while others carry their weight....sure their is a low cost.


This is THE problem in the ACC. Too much dead weight.

I don't know that I would agree with that statement either. But neither do I agree with your statement that it is just the football schools like FSU and Clemson that are "bringing in the revenue" to the ACC. If those schools were independent, they probably wouldn't command much more money than they get from being in the ACC.

If ESPN is paying the league $280 million a year, how much do you think they would pay FSU and Clemson on their own? Do you think they would get more than what Notre Dame gets? The value of the conference is greater than the sum of its parts. There is a lot less dead weight than you seem to think there is.

And, I understand that you want an ACC network. Would Florida State or Clemson fans pay a significant amount to subscribe to that network? Why would they? Not to get Clemson and FSU football games games that aren't currently on TV. The inventory on such a network would consist mostly of what your fans call "crap games between crap teams". Who would pay extra for that?

The SEC and B1G have successful networks because they each have qualities that no other conference possesses. The Bi2 12 will never have those qualities, and neither will the ACC. Together, they might be able to combine for a marginally profitable network. But separately, what they have is what they are going to get. So the only thing that is ever going to make Clemson and FSU fans happier with their lot in life is an invitation from the SEC.

I would pay extra for it. Whenever there's an ACC game on I watch it, Louisville getting top billing of course. I want an ACCN not just for the extra football games but for the extra basketball games as well. To be able to see ACC baseball, women's basketball & the Olympic sports as well. Before Louisville got into the ACC we had several baseball games, women's basketball & volleyball games aired several times a year. Now there aren't any. If Louisville was playing a road game in basketball or football it was on tv, not anymore. It's a small price to pay to be in the ACC but an ACCN that covered all of this would be great.

(02-29-2016 10:44 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 06:49 AM)nole Wrote:  "The cost of competition in-conference for football is the lowest of the P-5."


This is a bizarre statement. For schools competing for national titles in football (ie the ones bringing in the revenue)....the cost is comparable to the elite schools.

For schools that are sitting back while others carry their weight....sure their is a low cost.


This is THE problem in the ACC. Too much dead weight.

I don't know that I would agree with that statement either. But neither do I agree with your statement that it is just the football schools like FSU and Clemson that are "bringing in the revenue" to the ACC. If those schools were independent, they probably wouldn't command much more money than they get from being in the ACC.

If ESPN is paying the league $280 million a year, how much do you think they would pay FSU and Clemson on their own? Do you think they would get more than what Notre Dame gets? The value of the conference is greater than the sum of its parts. There is a lot less dead weight than you seem to think there is.

And, I understand that you want an ACC network. Would Florida State or Clemson fans pay a significant amount to subscribe to that network? Why would they? Not to get Clemson and FSU football games games that aren't currently on TV. The inventory on such a network would consist mostly of what your fans call "crap games between crap teams". Who would pay extra for that?

The SEC and B1G have successful networks because they each have qualities that no other conference possesses. The Bi2 12 will never have those qualities, and neither will the ACC. Together, they might be able to combine for a marginally profitable network. But separately, what they have is what they are going to get. So the only thing that is ever going to make Clemson and FSU fans happier with their lot in life is an invitation from the SEC.

I would pay extra for it. Whenever there's an ACC game on I watch it, Louisville getting top billing of course. I want an ACCN not just for the extra football games but for the extra basketball games as well. To be able to see ACC baseball, women's basketball & the Olympic sports as well. Before Louisville got into the ACC we had several baseball games, women's basketball & volleyball games aired several times a year. Now there aren't any. If Louisville was playing a road game in basketball or football it was on tv, not anymore. It's a small price to pay to be in the ACC but an ACCN that covered all of this would be great.

I agree. What would carry an ACC network would have nothing to do with Clemson and FSU football. And if the only thing that matters to Clemson and FSU fans is football, then they won't care about subscribing to an ACC network. All of which is to say those schools aren't the only ones carrying the load for the conference. They are just carrying their share like everyone else.

My opinion on what it would take for FSU to move...

To the SEC: To get an invite, and for the ACC not to have not landed a deal near the SEC's value. I'm really not sure at all that FSU would move if the ACC was distributing 85-90% of the SEC. But I don't know if that number is possible...even if you could get the TV close somehow, there's the bowl deals as well.

Unlike Nole, I do think there is SOME cost of competition in play. What he says is exactly right...we can not afford MUCH of a deficit to other elite programs, because we still have to go through those programs to get to our annual goal...we are not satisfied with conference titles. However, I think there are some benefits to not being up against better funded programs 7-8 times a year, and that could be worth giving up a little bit in a cost/benefit analysis. But it still needs to be close, not 50-60%.

To the Big 12: For somehow the money to be guaranteed at/above SEC/B1G level AND a minimum of Clemson, Miami, and one more to come along minimum. Much better if it's a +5.

The Big 12 and ACC are at similar money now, so they would have to be guaranteed a huge increase. But I also think we need partners. In the Big 12 we'll still face the same "not the SEC" recruiting struggles we currently face, but we'll lose a lot of the impact up the east coast where we've had a lot of recruiting success. I don't think we are going to start picking up Texas studs all of a sudden, so I feel like losing the recruiting impact could be significant if we went alone.

I also think it's dangerous that most of the non-Florida alumni of FSU is in the ACC footprint, and virtually none of it is in the Big 12 footprint. Considering the extreme commitment it takes for FSU fans to travel and support the team, I think it's risky to pull FSU out of that alumni footprint. Obviously, die hards that post on message boards aren't going to be effected, but you need to stay engaged with more casual fans. I would expect costs in engagement for the alumni up the coast with FSU no longer coming to town or being covered in anyway locally.

The Big 10? I really have no idea. There would be some really good things about a B1G invite, and some really bad things. I really don't know how that would be evaluated at all.

Nole made the swiping statement about ACC dead weight teams, but none have been identified.

(02-29-2016 10:44 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 06:49 AM)nole Wrote:  "The cost of competition in-conference for football is the lowest of the P-5."


This is a bizarre statement. For schools competing for national titles in football (ie the ones bringing in the revenue)....the cost is comparable to the elite schools.

For schools that are sitting back while others carry their weight....sure their is a low cost.


This is THE problem in the ACC. Too much dead weight.

I don't know that I would agree with that statement either. But neither do I agree with your statement that it is just the football schools like FSU and Clemson that are "bringing in the revenue" to the ACC. If those schools were independent, they probably wouldn't command much more money than they get from being in the ACC.

If ESPN is paying the league $280 million a year, how much do you think they would pay FSU and Clemson on their own? Do you think they would get more than what Notre Dame gets? The value of the conference is greater than the sum of its parts. There is a lot less dead weight than you seem to think there is.

And, I understand that you want an ACC network. Would Florida State or Clemson fans pay a significant amount to subscribe to that network? Why would they? Not to get Clemson and FSU football games games that aren't currently on TV. The inventory on such a network would consist mostly of what your fans call "crap games between crap teams". Who would pay extra for that?

The SEC and B1G have successful networks because they each have qualities that no other conference possesses. The Bi2 12 will never have those qualities, and neither will the ACC. Together, they might be able to combine for a marginally profitable network. But separately, what they have is what they are going to get. So the only thing that is ever going to make Clemson and FSU fans happier with their lot in life is an invitation from the SEC.

I would pay extra for it. Whenever there's an ACC game on I watch it, Louisville getting top billing of course. I want an ACCN not just for the extra football games but for the extra basketball games as well. To be able to see ACC baseball, women's basketball & the Olympic sports as well. Before Louisville got into the ACC we had several baseball games, women's basketball & volleyball games aired several times a year. Now there aren't any. If Louisville was playing a road game in basketball or football it was on tv, not anymore. It's a small price to pay to be in the ACC but an ACCN that covered all of this would be great.

I would pay extra for it too, but only to watch some ND basketball, a lot of ND baseball and maybe an ND lacrosse game or two.

I wouldn't watch any other conference teams play if ND were not involved.

It is not because it is the ACC. If ND were in the Big Ten or SEC, I wouldn't be interested in watching their non-ND games either.

(02-29-2016 09:55 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 06:49 AM)nole Wrote:  "The cost of competition in-conference for football is the lowest of the P-5."


This is a bizarre statement. For schools competing for national titles in football (ie the ones bringing in the revenue)....the cost is comparable to the elite schools.

For schools that are sitting back while others carry their weight....sure their is a low cost.


This is THE problem in the ACC. Too much dead weight.

OK, be clear, who is the dead weight?

NC State. Duplicate market, hasn't produced a major conference title in 29 years. Never played in a major bowl.

(02-29-2016 11:32 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Nole made the swiping statement about ACC dead weight teams, but none have been identified.

Seems all have been at or near the top in the ACC the last 10 years, even Duke & Wake Forrest. Hard to call that dead wood.

(02-28-2016 10:42 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:   End of the day, I really like the ACC, but if the ACC were becoming unstable, Louisville would go where its best interests lies. Of course the same could be said for every school in the ACC.

Right...just like the old Big East.

ACC is where its at but if Syracuse left I think a lot of teams would have bounced first. I would hope we would be good enough for The Big Ten. Add a team like Louisville, I think the Big Ten could do worse than Cuse and the Ville.

I love the ACC though, I would like to be in this conference forever.

(03-01-2016 07:52 AM)44AndThe23 Wrote:  ACC is where its at but if Syracuse left I think a lot of teams would have bounced first. I would hope we would be good enough for The Big Ten. Add a team like Louisville, I think the Big Ten could do worse than Cuse and the Ville.

I love the ACC though, I would like to be in this conference forever.

If the ACC went away, the BIG would be our only hope. On the other hand, if the ACC disbanded, we better hop that the SEC doesn't want schools like Clemson and FSU because of duplicate markets. The B12 is not a threat to the ACC.

(03-01-2016 09:01 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 07:52 AM)44AndThe23 Wrote:  ACC is where its at but if Syracuse left I think a lot of teams would have bounced first. I would hope we would be good enough for The Big Ten. Add a team like Louisville, I think the Big Ten could do worse than Cuse and the Ville.

I love the ACC though, I would like to be in this conference forever.

If the ACC went away, the BIG would be our only hope. On the other hand, if the ACC disbanded, we better hop that the SEC doesn't want schools like Clemson and FSU because of duplicate markets. The B12 is not a threat to the ACC.

From the comments on this thread, I would surmise that the B1G isn't a threat either. In fact, the only risk to the ACC would appear to be the potential loss to the SEC of FSU and Clemson. And, while nobody wants that, it wouldn't destabilize the ACC if it happened. That is to say that we would still not be threatened by either the B12 or the B1G.

(03-01-2016 12:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  From the comments on this thread, I would surmise that the B1G isn't a threat either.

That would be the correct conclusion.

I wouldn't want to leave the ACC and I think most of our fans feel the same way, as well as our administration and staff. But if it the ACC did fall apart then I guess we would go wherever we could. I don't see the B10 or the SEC either one ever offering but if they did I think we could fit in. Geographically we are probably better off than a lot of others because we are an "interior" state and could easily get to most schools within any of those conferences. Academically the B10 would not want us, but for location and athletic ability across the board I think we could do OK there. Same for the SEC as far as the athletics go. We have been fielding teams that can make the top 25 in football, men and women's basketball, baseball, soccer, volleyball -- even swimming, field hockey, tennis etc have had good years. We won lots of titles in the BE across multiple sports.

But again, I don't think we would even consider leaving unless it fell apart. We were actually happy in the BE and would have stayed if several others hadn't deserted it.

(03-01-2016 12:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 09:01 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 07:52 AM)44AndThe23 Wrote:  ACC is where its at but if Syracuse left I think a lot of teams would have bounced first. I would hope we would be good enough for The Big Ten. Add a team like Louisville, I think the Big Ten could do worse than Cuse and the Ville.

I love the ACC though, I would like to be in this conference forever.

If the ACC went away, the BIG would be our only hope. On the other hand, if the ACC disbanded, we better hop that the SEC doesn't want schools like Clemson and FSU because of duplicate markets. The B12 is not a threat to the ACC.

From the comments on this thread, I would surmise that the B1G isn't a threat either. In fact, the only risk to the ACC would appear to be the potential loss to the SEC of FSU and Clemson. And, while nobody wants that, it wouldn't destabilize the ACC if it happened. That is to say that we would still not be threatened by either the B12 or the B1G.

I would say the 2 biggest threats to the ACC are the SEC & a new conference consisting of the best of the B12 & the football powers of the ACC.

(03-01-2016 06:45 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 12:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 09:01 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 07:52 AM)44AndThe23 Wrote:  ACC is where its at but if Syracuse left I think a lot of teams would have bounced first. I would hope we would be good enough for The Big Ten. Add a team like Louisville, I think the Big Ten could do worse than Cuse and the Ville.

I love the ACC though, I would like to be in this conference forever.

If the ACC went away, the BIG would be our only hope. On the other hand, if the ACC disbanded, we better hop that the SEC doesn't want schools like Clemson and FSU because of duplicate markets. The B12 is not a threat to the ACC.

From the comments on this thread, I would surmise that the B1G isn't a threat either. In fact, the only risk to the ACC would appear to be the potential loss to the SEC of FSU and Clemson. And, while nobody wants that, it wouldn't destabilize the ACC if it happened. That is to say that we would still not be threatened by either the B12 or the B1G.

I would say the 2 biggest threats to the ACC are the SEC & a new conference consisting of the best of the B12 & the football powers of the ACC.

What does the SEC gain from adding Florida State and/or Clemson? The answer is nothing. The SEC doesn't more football powers. The only way the SEC could "threaten the ACC" would be if the SEC had something that UVa and UNC wanted which they do not.

Conceivably the ACC could make money off of allowing NC State and VT to go to the SEC as it would allow for a backfill to 16 with Texas, OU, ND up to 8 football games, and a 16th school.

FSU and Clemson do not have a B10 or a SEC option despite being the best programs in the ACC due to geography.

Only UNC, UVa, and Duke have all options open, again due in part to geography.

All options mean that you would be welcomed into any conference after one phone call.

For certain all options - UNC, UVa, Duke, ND because of academics, geography, market, etc.

Possibly all options - GT, VT, NC State because of geography and market

After these five, you get into schools that for some reason or another would not get a B10, SEC, or B12 invite under most conceivable circumstances.

Unless you are ND, liberal arts and undergraduate focused schools are not getting a B10 invite. You need to be a large university factory or be in the AAU club. That eliminates BC, Miami, Wake Forest, Clemson, FSU, and Louisville. UVa and UNC would be preferred over VT and NC State, but would likely be invited if lightening struck UVa and UNC went to the SEC.

Unless you have a football factory and/or add a new market in the mid-south you are not getting an SEC invite under most conceivable circumstances. Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville all duplicate a SEC market. BC and Syracuse are not in the mid-south. Pitt is in a geographic twilight zone. That leaves VT, UVa, UNC, NC State, Duke, and WF One of VT and UVa, and one of UNC/NC State/Duke and WF and you know it wont be WF.

As far as the ACC goes, other than ND, the schools with all the unquestioned options on the table are the blues - UNC/Duke/UVa. Their little brothers, NC State and VT might have all options but can only exercise them in concert with big sister. Then there is GT, a school that the SEC might re-admit under some bizarre expand to 18 or 20 scenario, but would never be an SEC 15th or 16th.

The only "threat" to the ACC can come from two of the three blues being unhappy about something.