CSNbbs

Things are only going to get worse for the ACC should they lose an FSU, Miami or are unable to replace them with a WVU. Not a lot of options for the ACC. Would be wise to go ahead and pick up a UL, WVU and UConn and at least build back a power basketball conference if something happens to the BE God forbid.

http://weblogs.dailypress.com/sports/tee..._refl.html

If the ACC decided to get proactive they could have the following:

Duke
UNC
NC St
Wake
BC
Va Tech
Maryland
Virginia
FSU
Miami
Clemson
Ga Tech
WVU (Strong FB and BB)
UConn (Strong BB and Good FB)
UL (Strong BB and FB)
Temple (Strong BB and potentially good FB)

That is an helluva ACC right there. And before UC and USF fans say I'm crazy for not including your schools think about it. The ACC don't need USF with Miami and FSU in the fold. I chose Temple over UC for two reasons: academics and location. If the ACC did something like this before the Big 12 or SEC had a chance to react talk about some pissed off folks.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/03/16...rship.html

Quote:A source familiar with the situation said FedEx valued its relationship with the Orange Bowl and the decision was ``all about money.'' ESPN acquired the rights to sell all sponsorship and advertising for the BCS games as part of a four-year, $495 million deal that begins this coming season. The source said ESPN paid ``a very large amount of money'' for those rights, and wanted a ``huge increase'' from FedEx -- an increase FedEx could not justify.

* The match-ups (and two of the previous match-ups involved Big East schools) don't justify the increase ESPN wants.

* The only bowl game that is coveted now is the Rose Bowl b/c it can (virtually) guarantee a strong pair every season. That (indirectly) is why Texas is a coveted property in expansion talks. A "Texas vs <pick a B10 school>" or "Texas vs <pick a Pac-10 school>" is an advertiser's dream for the Rose Bowl.

* Remember I said a couple months ago that the Rose Bowl is behind these expansion talks as much as anybody -- they do NOT want to see a Boise State or TCU appear in Pasadena. Not only would that dog not hunt, it would probably get shot.

You're not crazy....but the reasoning is off for a few reasons, not all of them about schools.

Cincinnati/Dayton combined MSA is a top 15 market for any conference looking to add television stations -- the main driving force in expansion right now. Cincinnati by itself is #23.

U of L is farther west of Cincinnati...although I do agree that they have more funds and better facilities at this point.

Cincinnati and U of L were both in the Metro with VaTECH... given our longstanding rivalry with the exception of a few years of the Great Midwest -- we've typically been travel partners.

As for academics:

Cincinnati has higher research expenditures than 3/10 Big 10 schools and some 19 AAU schools.

Cincinnati isn't some liberal education bastion where you'll graduate in 4 years, but its biggest colleges are all top ranked with many top 10 programs.

Temple was kicked out of the Big East....and they weren't exactly swooped up by the ACC when that happened. Just saying...

Actually, I would suspect the Rose is puckered over the prospects of the Big 10 and Pac-10 adding members who do not average 70,000 plus.

The Rose Bowl allots 32,000 tickets to each participating team. The Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta only allot 17,500 tickets to each school.

The Rose does not want to get stuck with two schools that aren't selling a lot more than 32,000 seats at home.

(05-04-2010 03:00 PM)ucat03 Wrote: [ -> ]Temple was kicked out of the Big East....and they weren't exactly swooped up by the ACC when that happened. Just saying...

Well why would they have? At that time, our athletics program was woefully underfunded, especially our football program. The ACC was interested in us before, they certainly should be now that we've show commitment to athletics.

(05-04-2010 03:00 PM)ucat03 Wrote: [ -> ]You're not crazy....but the reasoning is off for a few reasons, not all of them about schools.

Cincinnati/Dayton combined MSA is a top 15 market for any conference looking to add television stations -- the main driving force in expansion right now. Cincinnati by itself is #23.

Temple is in a market bigger than Cincinnati

U of L is farther west of Cincinnati...although I do agree that they have more funds and better facilities at this point.

Not that much further west but geography wouldn't be a factor.

Cincinnati and U of L were both in the Metro with VaTECH... given our longstanding rivalry with the exception of a few years of the Great Midwest -- we've typically been travel partners.

Not saying UC wouldn't fit. Just depends on what the ACC wants.

As for academics:

Cincinnati has higher research expenditures than 3/10 Big 10 schools and some 19 AAU schools.

So does UAB and several other schools. AAU is definitely a special group.

Cincinnati isn't some liberal education bastion where you'll graduate in 4 years, but its biggest colleges are all top ranked with many top 10 programs.

Both schools are Tier 3 so it is a wash.

Temple was kicked out of the Big East....and they weren't exactly swooped up by the ACC when that happened. Just saying...

The ACC didnt need Temple when they were kicked out. But getting kicked out of the BE isnt going to be held against Temple if they rite the ship.

U make some decent points and I agree that UC could just as easily be courted by the ACC. If it came down to markets maybe UC would win out. Would the ACC want to be in the Cincy market or the Philly market?

(05-04-2010 03:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, I would suspect the Rose is puckered over the prospects of the Big 10 and Pac-10 adding members who do not average 70,000 plus.

The Rose Bowl allots 32,000 tickets to each participating team. The Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta only allot 17,500 tickets to each school.

The Rose does not want to get stuck with two schools that aren't selling a lot more than 32,000 seats at home.

Yea i'm sure the Rose Bowl wouldn't be too thrilled w/ a Pitt-Utah matchup.

Tier rankings of BCS programs:

ACC
Duke - 1
UNC - 1
NC St - 1
Wake Forest - 1
Maryland - 1
Boston College - 1
Virginia Tech - 1
Virginia - 1
Miami - 1
Clemson - 1
Ga Tech - 1
FSU - 1

Big East
Pittsburgh - 1
Rutgers - 1
UConn - 1
Syracuse - 1
USF - 3
West Virginia - 3
Cincinnati - 3
Louisville - 3

(05-04-2010 02:23 PM)Insideout Wrote: [ -> ]Things are only going to get worse for the ACC should they lose an FSU, Miami or are unable to replace them with a WVU. Not a lot of options for the ACC. Would be wise to go ahead and pick up a UL, WVU and UConn and at least build back a power basketball conference if something happens to the BE God forbid.

http://weblogs.dailypress.com/sports/tee..._refl.html

I love the way Cincinnati is always conveniently ignored, as if it has some sort of disease. Used to irritate me, but simply cracks me up now.

Tier rankings of BCS programs:

Big 12
Oklahoma - 1
Baylor - 1
Missouri - 1
Kansas - 1
Texas - 1
Texas A&M - 1
Colorado - 1
Iowa St - 1
Nebraska - 1
Texas Tech - 3
Oklahoma St - 3
Kansas St - 3

Big 10
Iowa - 1
Mich St - 1
Michigan -1
Ohio St - 1
Indiana - 1
Northwestern - 1
Purdue - 1
Illinois - 1
Wisconsin - 1
Penn St - 1
Minnesota -1

(05-04-2010 02:49 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: [ -> ]* The only bowl game that is coveted now is the Rose Bowl b/c it can (virtually) guarantee a strong pair every season. That (indirectly) is why Texas is a coveted property in expansion talks. A "Texas vs <pick a B10 school>" or "Texas vs <pick a Pac-10 school>" is an advertiser's dream for the Rose Bowl.

* Remember I said a couple months ago that the Rose Bowl is behind these expansion talks as much as anybody -- they do NOT want to see a Boise State or TCU appear in Pasadena. Not only would that dog not hunt, it would probably get shot.

The Rose Bowl is is not guaranteed a strong matchup by any stretch. That is not why the Rose Bowl is valued so much. The Rose Bowl appeal is strictly (well mostly) based on the Big Ten schools. There is a reason the Rose Bowl pays the Big Ten more than the Pac 10; the Big Ten schools generate the most money. The Big Ten schools bring 40,000 -50,000 fans cross country to stay a week in LA. When you are a sponsor, and teams are directing fans to stay in your hotel, go to your restaurant, and fly your airline, at a time fo year when people don't travel much, that is worth a lot of money. When the Pac 10 sends USC or UCLA three out of every four years, the Pac 10 does not bring as much value.

And that is why the Big Ten is immensely more powerful than the Pac 10; they are just along for the ride. The Big Ten makes more money from the Rose Bowl than any other league from the national championship game.

Also to note, the Rose Bowl contract is actually written so that when the Rose Bowl is not used for a Pac 10/Big ten matchup, the pay goes down. And if it is a non BCS team, it goes down even more. It also expires a year before the BCS contracts, which allows the Big Ten better negotiating position (and actually hurts the BCS negotiating position, as there is only so much money to go around). The Big Ten and the Rose Bowl have the GBC by the balls, and like to squeeze every chance they get. And yes, you can tell, I do not have a favorable opinion of the Big Ten.

(05-04-2010 03:00 PM)ucat03 Wrote: [ -> ]Cincinnati/Dayton combined MSA is a top 15 market for any conference looking to add television stations -- the main driving force in expansion right now. Cincinnati by itself is #23.

TV markets are not the expansion priorities of any conference not using or preparing to start a TV network. Unless a conference is planning a network, your market size is not near as important as your market precense or market share. A team in a large market that cannot deliver ratings is useless, unless they can get a conference network on basic cable (see Rutgers). To use an example listed above, Temple's market size is totally irrelevant for anyone with the intelligence to actually interpret data. They do not dsraw ratings, or fan support. And if a conference were starting a network, Temple would not get it on basic cable (the exception to this is if they are combined with Villanova).
South Florida and Central Florida would have to prove they have enough clout in their market to offer ratings (national TV contract) or can get a network on basic cable before their market size can be counted on. Until then they are just projects you hope to develop. however, they have even less value if Florida State and Miami are around.

Using that same logic, I am not really convinced you can combine Cincy and Dayton as one market, as I do not think Cincinnati has near enough precense in Dayton to do so. Likewise, West Virginia would have a hard time convincing someone that Pittsburgh is in their market. That would be like Louisville fans claiming the Cincinnati market, or vice versa (based on distance). But that part I could be wrong about as I do not live in either area.

If I am the ACC and I am expanding, assuming my revenue model is the same, these are the teams I look at, assuming Pitt, Syr, and Rut are taken by the Big Ten:

UConn - They bring in good ratings, and have a good nationally known basketball team

West Virginia - can give my conference more football star power

Louisville - The king of college basketball ratings, and was a good football program for a decade

Cincinnati - Adds depth to my basketball repetoire, and recently has been a good football team.


Geographically, these teams create a nice footprint. Also, more importnantly, all of these teams are needle movers in their areas, meaning they will make my broadcasts have higher ratings, which equals more money. Also, with the Big East demise, ESPN needs someone to take more marquee college basketball slots, and I am now poised to do so.

Let's be clear. I do not think expansion is a good idea for the ACC. This si just if I were to expand it.

Tier rankings of BCS programs

SEC
Alabama - 1
Auburn - 1
Florida - 1
South Carolina - 1
Georgia - 1
Tennessee - 1
Vanderbilt - 1
Kentucky - 1
Arkansas - 1
LSU - 1
Mississippi St - 3
Mississippi - 3

PAC 10
Cal - 1
USC - 1
UCLA - 1
Stanford - 1
Oregon - 1
Washington - 1
Washington St - 1
Arizona St - 1
Arizona - 1
Oregon St - 3

So I'm looking at these tier rankings and noticing a few things. The Big 10 only want the Tier programs from the Big East. People say academics may not matter in this round of expansion and I don't agree. These tier rankings also support my theory that WVU, UL, and UC will end up in the Big 12 before the ACC. I don't know what FSU Tier ranking was before they joined the ACC but I don't see USF getting in the ACC with a Tier 3 ranking regardless of location. These rankings would also support my theory that if UConn isn't invited to the Big 10 they will get an invite to the ACC.

Non BCS Programs Tier Rankings

MWC
TCU – 1
Utah – 1
BYU – 1
New Mexico – 1
Air Force – 1
Colorado St - 1
San Diego St – 3
Wyoming - 3
UNLV – 4

WAC
Fresno St – 1
Boise St – 1
San Jose St – 1
Idaho – 3
Utah St. - 3
Hawaii – 3
Nevada – 3
La Tech – 3
New Mexico St – 4

CUSA
SMU – 1
Rice – 1
Tulane – 1
Tulsa – 1
Marshall - 1
UAB – 3
UCF – 3
USM – 4
East Carolina - 4
Memphis – 4
Houston – 4
UTEP - 4

(05-04-2010 04:41 PM)BlazerOfUAB Wrote: [ -> ]So I'm looking at these tier rankings and noticing a few things. The Big 10 only want the Tier programs from the Big East. People say academics may not matter in this round of expansion and I don't agree. These tier rankings also support my theory that WVU, UL, and UC will end up in the Big 12 before the ACC. I don't know what FSU Tier ranking was before they joined the ACC but I don't see USF getting in the ACC with a Tier 3 ranking regardless of location. These rankings would also support my theory that if UConn isn't invited to the Big 10 they will get an invite to the ACC.

Not sure who these people are that you are referring to, but they are wrong in that assumption. On a sports message board it's easy to forget that academics are still the main reason for these universities to operate and also the main producer of revenue for these universities.

Academics will matter very much for some conferences with their additions and for some individual schools, academics will matter when asked to join certain conferences.

Basically, some schools will not be asked to join certain conferences and some schools will not join certain conferences if asked. Sorry, if that sounds condescending, but it's the truth.

(05-04-2010 05:13 PM)BlazerOfUAB Wrote: [ -> ]Non BCS Programs Tier Rankings

MWC
TCU – 1
Utah – 1
BYU – 1
New Mexico – 1
Air Force – 1
Colorado St - 1
San Diego St – 3
Wyoming - 3
UNLV – 4

WAC
Fresno St – 1
Boise St – 1
San Jose St – 1
Idaho – 3
Utah St. - 3
Hawaii – 3
Nevada – 3
La Tech – 3
New Mexico St – 4

CUSA
SMU – 1
Rice – 1
Tulane – 1
Tulsa – 1
Marshall - 1
UAB – 3
UCF – 3
USM – 4
East Carolina - 4
Memphis – 4
Houston – 4
UTEP - 4

I hate to inform you but Marshall is NOT EVEN CLOSE to a Tier 1. It's a tier 4

(05-04-2010 04:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-04-2010 02:49 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: [ -> ]* The only bowl game that is coveted now is the Rose Bowl b/c it can (virtually) guarantee a strong pair every season. That (indirectly) is why Texas is a coveted property in expansion talks. A "Texas vs <pick a B10 school>" or "Texas vs <pick a Pac-10 school>" is an advertiser's dream for the Rose Bowl.

* Remember I said a couple months ago that the Rose Bowl is behind these expansion talks as much as anybody -- they do NOT want to see a Boise State or TCU appear in Pasadena. Not only would that dog not hunt, it would probably get shot.

The Rose Bowl is is not guaranteed a strong matchup by any stretch. That is not why the Rose Bowl is valued so much. The Rose Bowl appeal is strictly (well mostly) based on the Big Ten schools. There is a reason the Rose Bowl pays the Big Ten more than the Pac 10; the Big Ten schools generate the most money. The Big Ten schools bring 40,000 -50,000 fans cross country to stay a week in LA. When you are a sponsor, and teams are directing fans to stay in your hotel, go to your restaurant, and fly your airline, at a time fo year when people don't travel much, that is worth a lot of money. When the Pac 10 sends USC or UCLA three out of every four years, the Pac 10 does not bring as much value.

And that is why the Big Ten is immensely more powerful than the Pac 10; they are just along for the ride. The Big Ten makes more money from the Rose Bowl than any other league from the national championship game.

Also to note, the Rose Bowl contract is actually written so that when the Rose Bowl is not used for a Pac 10/Big ten matchup, the pay goes down. And if it is a non BCS team, it goes down even more. It also expires a year before the BCS contracts, which allows the Big Ten better negotiating position (and actually hurts the BCS negotiating position, as there is only so much money to go around). The Big Ten and the Rose Bowl have the GBC by the balls, and like to squeeze every chance they get. And yes, you can tell, I do not have a favorable opinion of the Big Ten.

Most bowls now pay each participant differently, it just isn't advertised.

Actually Marshall is a tier 1 masters institution, much like Villanova is. In the past 10 years they have been working toward a extrensic research university, by adding more doctoral programs and doing more research (especially in biotechnology and medicine).