you are absolutely correct about the most important states in the ACC footprint being NC, NY and FL - but i would add VA to that list.

for the ACCT, my play would be to sign with the Verizon Center in DC until MSG is available. Then make a play for the ACCT in MSG. MSG is first choice, DC a close 2nd. greensboro, even with the history, should be a thing of the past. and we cannot, under ANY circumstances, allow the B1G bball tournament to be at MSG. that would be a disaster. swofford has not called me for advice yet, tho

(11-16-2013 04:34 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 03:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 02:01 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 09:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'm just a traditionalist and I think that the ACC needs a basketball tourney presence in NC to retain its sense of history.

While I am also a traditionalist, I believe identity is as important, if not moreso than tradition, depending upon what identity the conference is trying to convey and market.

The BiG has been the conference of the Midwest and the ACC has been the conference the Mid-Atlantic on down the coast conference (obviously with some overlap with the SEC in terms of being the conference of the South).

The most recent expansions have both the BiG and the ACC trying to lay claim as being the conference of the Northeast as well as their traditional identity. And in terms of identity the ACC needs to be more successful precisely because of the overlap with the SEC in the South and now the BiG in the Northeast.

To even have a shot of establishing the identity the ACC is marketing, it needs to get away from EVERYTHING pretty much being focused in North Carolina or the conference's identity will actually become the North Carolina conference plus friends which will only make it more susceptible to raids in the future.

With the football championship actually being successful in Charlotte that should remain there simply because the basketball tourney can, has been, and will be successful in a few places outside of North Carolina. Which makes that tourney the easier one to move north. If it can't be MSG, the best choice, fine. But the Verizon seems to be a good compromise for now.

Just my thoughts on the topic.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't disagree. I would prefer to rotate between NYC, DC, and NC. However, NC NEEDS to be part of the mix. I believe that balances tradition/identity (which is why the conference has survived B1G attacks thus far) and proactive marketing (which is why the ACC will hopefully surpass the B1G, Pac, and Big XII). I think that somewhere between 25%-33% of the tourney games need to be in NC, 25%-33% should be in DC, and 25%-33% should be in NYC. I don't really care where the rest are, but NC should at least be tied for the most common venue.

For example, I would be OK with:
33% NC (16.166666% Greensboro and 16.166666% Charlotte)
33% NYC or DC
25% the other of NYC or DC
8.33333% Miami/Atlanta/Philly

That gives the conference significant exposure throughout the entire east coast (north and south) and it gives the northern additions something, but it maintains a strong presence in NC and a steady presence in the mid-Atlantic.

And I 100% disagree that the ACCT "needs" to be in NC. It just doesn't. Obviously if it HAS to be a rotation, then Greensboro being part of that is fine. But I'm not convinced it HAS to be a rotation either.

Besides, the conference should only do a rotation if MSG simply cannot be the permanent site. If MSG opens up, then that is where it should permanently be. Duke and UNC (the two NC schools that matter the most in that sport have plenty of alumni and fans in that area as is).

As for the rest, I don't see it any differently than Marquette, DePaul, Cincy, USF, Miami (when it was in the Big East) always having to travel to NYC. The fans of FSU, Wake, GT, Clemson, NCState will adapt just as the northern teams in the ACC will adapt to having their olympic sports teams traveling south for the majority of those championships.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The three key states in the ACC footprint now are North Carolina, Florida, and New York.

North Carolina is covered by hosting the ACC Football Championship.
Florida is covered by the Orange Bowl connection
New York should be covered with MSG for the ACCT.

But if the latter isn't feasible then a rotation of Barclays, Verizon, and Greensboro will suffice for now.

Cheers,
Neil

(11-16-2013 05:00 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  you are absolutely correct about the most important states in the ACC footprint being NC, NY and FL - but i would add VA to that list.

for the ACCT, my play would be to sign with the Verizon Center in DC until MSG is available. Then make a play for the ACCT in MSG. MSG is first choice, DC a close 2nd. greensboro, even with the history, should be a thing of the past. and we cannot, under ANY circumstances, allow the B1G bball tournament to be at MSG. that would be a disaster. swofford has not called me for advice yet, tho

[/quote]

I sure hope he does, lol,

as long as the new big east has MSG, plant the ACC flag at the Verizon Center. DC and NYC are the most important points on the east coast. the ACC is THE conference of the east coast - establish that identity by claiming DC for the nation's preeminent basketball conference tournament. as long as MSG is with the big east (and not the B1G), that is an incredibly good scenario for the ACC. most important thing is to keep MSG away from NYC.

good grief, i hate the B1G. terrible football, overrated basketball, delaney is an insufferable egomaniac who has totally betrayed his UNC roots.

(11-16-2013 05:14 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 05:00 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  you are absolutely correct about the most important states in the ACC footprint being NC, NY and FL - but i would add VA to that list.

for the ACCT, my play would be to sign with the Verizon Center in DC until MSG is available. Then make a play for the ACCT in MSG. MSG is first choice, DC a close 2nd. greensboro, even with the history, should be a thing of the past. and we cannot, under ANY circumstances, allow the B1G bball tournament to be at MSG. that would be a disaster. swofford has not called me for advice yet, tho

I sure hope he does, lol,
[/quote]

(11-16-2013 05:27 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  as long as the new big east has MSG, plant the ACC flag at the Verizon Center. DC and NYC are the most important points on the east coast. the ACC is THE conference of the east coast - establish that identity by claiming DC for the nation's preeminent basketball conference tournament. as long as MSG is with the big east (and not the B1G), that is an incredibly good scenario for the ACC. most important thing is to keep MSG away from NYC.

good grief, i hate the B1G. terrible football, overrated basketball, delaney is an insufferable egomaniac who has totally betrayed his UNC roots.

(11-16-2013 05:14 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 05:00 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  you are absolutely correct about the most important states in the ACC footprint being NC, NY and FL - but i would add VA to that list.

for the ACCT, my play would be to sign with the Verizon Center in DC until MSG is available. Then make a play for the ACCT in MSG. MSG is first choice, DC a close 2nd. greensboro, even with the history, should be a thing of the past. and we cannot, under ANY circumstances, allow the B1G bball tournament to be at MSG. that would be a disaster. swofford has not called me for advice yet, tho

I sure hope he does, lol,

"good grief, i hate the B1G. terrible football, overrated basketball, delaney is an insufferable egomaniac who has totally betrayed his UNC roots."
I can honestly say that I 100% agree to this.

(11-16-2013 04:34 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 03:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 02:01 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 09:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'm just a traditionalist and I think that the ACC needs a basketball tourney presence in NC to retain its sense of history.

While I am also a traditionalist, I believe identity is as important, if not moreso than tradition, depending upon what identity the conference is trying to convey and market.

The BiG has been the conference of the Midwest and the ACC has been the conference the Mid-Atlantic on down the coast conference (obviously with some overlap with the SEC in terms of being the conference of the South).

The most recent expansions have both the BiG and the ACC trying to lay claim as being the conference of the Northeast as well as their traditional identity. And in terms of identity the ACC needs to be more successful precisely because of the overlap with the SEC in the South and now the BiG in the Northeast.

To even have a shot of establishing the identity the ACC is marketing, it needs to get away from EVERYTHING pretty much being focused in North Carolina or the conference's identity will actually become the North Carolina conference plus friends which will only make it more susceptible to raids in the future.

With the football championship actually being successful in Charlotte that should remain there simply because the basketball tourney can, has been, and will be successful in a few places outside of North Carolina. Which makes that tourney the easier one to move north. If it can't be MSG, the best choice, fine. But the Verizon seems to be a good compromise for now.

Just my thoughts on the topic.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't disagree. I would prefer to rotate between NYC, DC, and NC. However, NC NEEDS to be part of the mix. I believe that balances tradition/identity (which is why the conference has survived B1G attacks thus far) and proactive marketing (which is why the ACC will hopefully surpass the B1G, Pac, and Big XII). I think that somewhere between 25%-33% of the tourney games need to be in NC, 25%-33% should be in DC, and 25%-33% should be in NYC. I don't really care where the rest are, but NC should at least be tied for the most common venue.

For example, I would be OK with:
33% NC (16.166666% Greensboro and 16.166666% Charlotte)
33% NYC or DC
25% the other of NYC or DC
8.33333% Miami/Atlanta/Philly

That gives the conference significant exposure throughout the entire east coast (north and south) and it gives the northern additions something, but it maintains a strong presence in NC and a steady presence in the mid-Atlantic.

And I 100% disagree that the ACCT "needs" to be in NC. It just doesn't. Obviously if it HAS to be a rotation, then Greensboro being part of that is fine. But I'm not convinced it HAS to be a rotation either.

Besides, the conference should only do a rotation if MSG simply cannot be the permanent site. If MSG opens up, then that is where it should permanently be. Duke and UNC (the two NC schools that matter the most in that sport have plenty of alumni and fans in that area as is).

As for the rest, I don't see it any differently than Marquette, DePaul, Cincy, USF, Miami (when it was in the Big East) always having to travel to NYC. The fans of FSU, Wake, GT, Clemson, NCState will adapt just as the northern teams in the ACC will adapt to having their olympic sports teams traveling south for the majority of those championships.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The three key states in the ACC footprint now are North Carolina, Florida, and New York.

North Carolina is covered by hosting the ACC Football Championship.
Florida is covered by the Orange Bowl connection
New York should be covered with MSG for the ACCT.

But if the latter isn't feasible then a rotation of Barclays, Verizon, and Greensboro will suffice for now.

Cheers,
Neil

Well, although I think that having a presence in NC is for the good of the conference, having the tourney in NYC is for the good of SU.
I guess that's my way of saying that I could live with either.

(11-16-2013 05:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 04:34 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 03:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 02:01 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 09:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'm just a traditionalist and I think that the ACC needs a basketball tourney presence in NC to retain its sense of history.

While I am also a traditionalist, I believe identity is as important, if not moreso than tradition, depending upon what identity the conference is trying to convey and market.

The BiG has been the conference of the Midwest and the ACC has been the conference the Mid-Atlantic on down the coast conference (obviously with some overlap with the SEC in terms of being the conference of the South).

The most recent expansions have both the BiG and the ACC trying to lay claim as being the conference of the Northeast as well as their traditional identity. And in terms of identity the ACC needs to be more successful precisely because of the overlap with the SEC in the South and now the BiG in the Northeast.

To even have a shot of establishing the identity the ACC is marketing, it needs to get away from EVERYTHING pretty much being focused in North Carolina or the conference's identity will actually become the North Carolina conference plus friends which will only make it more susceptible to raids in the future.

With the football championship actually being successful in Charlotte that should remain there simply because the basketball tourney can, has been, and will be successful in a few places outside of North Carolina. Which makes that tourney the easier one to move north. If it can't be MSG, the best choice, fine. But the Verizon seems to be a good compromise for now.

Just my thoughts on the topic.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't disagree. I would prefer to rotate between NYC, DC, and NC. However, NC NEEDS to be part of the mix. I believe that balances tradition/identity (which is why the conference has survived B1G attacks thus far) and proactive marketing (which is why the ACC will hopefully surpass the B1G, Pac, and Big XII). I think that somewhere between 25%-33% of the tourney games need to be in NC, 25%-33% should be in DC, and 25%-33% should be in NYC. I don't really care where the rest are, but NC should at least be tied for the most common venue.

For example, I would be OK with:
33% NC (16.166666% Greensboro and 16.166666% Charlotte)
33% NYC or DC
25% the other of NYC or DC
8.33333% Miami/Atlanta/Philly

That gives the conference significant exposure throughout the entire east coast (north and south) and it gives the northern additions something, but it maintains a strong presence in NC and a steady presence in the mid-Atlantic.

And I 100% disagree that the ACCT "needs" to be in NC. It just doesn't. Obviously if it HAS to be a rotation, then Greensboro being part of that is fine. But I'm not convinced it HAS to be a rotation either.

Besides, the conference should only do a rotation if MSG simply cannot be the permanent site. If MSG opens up, then that is where it should permanently be. Duke and UNC (the two NC schools that matter the most in that sport have plenty of alumni and fans in that area as is).

As for the rest, I don't see it any differently than Marquette, DePaul, Cincy, USF, Miami (when it was in the Big East) always having to travel to NYC. The fans of FSU, Wake, GT, Clemson, NCState will adapt just as the northern teams in the ACC will adapt to having their olympic sports teams traveling south for the majority of those championships.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The three key states in the ACC footprint now are North Carolina, Florida, and New York.

North Carolina is covered by hosting the ACC Football Championship.
Florida is covered by the Orange Bowl connection
New York should be covered with MSG for the ACCT.

But if the latter isn't feasible then a rotation of Barclays, Verizon, and Greensboro will suffice for now.

Cheers,
Neil

Well, although I think that having a presence in NC is for the good of the conference, having the tourney in NYC is for the good of SU.
I guess that's my way of saying that I could live with either.

And I think you may still be missing my overall point. I don't think it is "good" for the conference to have so much of it tied to the state of North Carolina. I actually like ren.hoek's idea of making the Verizon the permanent site until MSG is available more than a rotation, but I just don't think that will fly.

But if it has to be a rotation, as I stated earlier, it should be a true rotation of Barclays, Verizon, and Greensboro and not one where Greensboro gets it 4 times in 6 years while Barclays and Verizon get it once each.

Cheers,
Neil

The reason why so much of the conference is tied to NC is because of 2 of the best programs in history reside there. In the last 30 years, there have been only 3 times the tourney final didn't feature Dook or UNC. So basically 90% of the time the final features at least one team from NC. And...........almost half the time the final featured two teams from NC. You also have to remember, back in the day Wake Forest and NC State were pretty good.

With the influx of Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, ND I would expect fewer times where one of the NC teams are in the final which makes it less of a necessity of keep the tourney in NC every year. I like the rotation idea of 4 regions.....deep south tourney goes to Atlanta....south tourney is in either Charlotte or Greensboro...mid-atlantic tourney goes to DC..and the northeast tourney in NY/Brooklyn...rotate each year. Unfortunately, I don't think the northern folks will go for that.

(11-17-2013 08:59 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  The reason why so much of the conference is tied to NC is because of 2 of the best programs in history reside there. In the last 30 years, there have been only 3 times the tourney final didn't feature Dook or UNC. So basically 90% of the time the final features at least one team from NC. And...........almost half the time the final featured two teams from NC. You also have to remember, back in the day Wake Forest and NC State were pretty good.

With the influx of Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, ND I would expect fewer times where one of the NC teams are in the final which makes it less of a necessity of keep the tourney in NC every year. I like the rotation idea of 4 regions.....deep south tourney goes to Atlanta....south tourney is in either Charlotte or Greensboro...mid-atlantic tourney goes to DC..and the northeast tourney in NY/Brooklyn...rotate each year. Unfortunately, I don't think the northern folks will go for that.

To me, Atlanta makes no sense whatsoever. It's not a basketball city and the media coverage in the city will be split between what is going on with the SEC tournament in Nashville and the ACC tourney in its own city.

The other sites won't have that issue.

Cheers,
Neil

(11-17-2013 09:31 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 08:59 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  The reason why so much of the conference is tied to NC is because of 2 of the best programs in history reside there. In the last 30 years, there have been only 3 times the tourney final didn't feature Dook or UNC. So basically 90% of the time the final features at least one team from NC. And...........almost half the time the final featured two teams from NC. You also have to remember, back in the day Wake Forest and NC State were pretty good.

With the influx of Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, ND I would expect fewer times where one of the NC teams are in the final which makes it less of a necessity of keep the tourney in NC every year. I like the rotation idea of 4 regions.....deep south tourney goes to Atlanta....south tourney is in either Charlotte or Greensboro...mid-atlantic tourney goes to DC..and the northeast tourney in NY/Brooklyn...rotate each year. Unfortunately, I don't think the northern folks will go for that.

To me, Atlanta makes no sense whatsoever. It's not a basketball city and the media coverage in the city will be split between what is going on with the SEC tournament in Nashville and the ACC tourney in its own city.

The other sites won't have that issue.

Cheers,
Neil

Atlanta has been a host 6 times I believe and it's been pretty good during those years. There are a lot of core ACC fans in the Atlanta area.

(11-17-2013 09:34 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 09:31 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 08:59 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  The reason why so much of the conference is tied to NC is because of 2 of the best programs in history reside there. In the last 30 years, there have been only 3 times the tourney final didn't feature Dook or UNC. So basically 90% of the time the final features at least one team from NC. And...........almost half the time the final featured two teams from NC. You also have to remember, back in the day Wake Forest and NC State were pretty good.

With the influx of Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, ND I would expect fewer times where one of the NC teams are in the final which makes it less of a necessity of keep the tourney in NC every year. I like the rotation idea of 4 regions.....deep south tourney goes to Atlanta....south tourney is in either Charlotte or Greensboro...mid-atlantic tourney goes to DC..and the northeast tourney in NY/Brooklyn...rotate each year. Unfortunately, I don't think the northern folks will go for that.

To me, Atlanta makes no sense whatsoever. It's not a basketball city and the media coverage in the city will be split between what is going on with the SEC tournament in Nashville and the ACC tourney in its own city.

The other sites won't have that issue.

Cheers,
Neil

Atlanta has been a host 6 times I believe and it's been pretty good during those years. There are a lot of core ACC fans in the Atlanta area.

You're missing the point. I'm talking about media coverage of it versus the SEC tournament and the fact that the city itself, overall, is not a basketball crazy type town likely equates to said media coverage giving just as much emphasis on the SEC tournament as it will the ACC tournament. That wouldn't be an issue at the other sites.

Sure other tournaments outside of the BE tournament were going on elsewhere, but in NYC one would hardly have known it. And that's the media capital of the world.

Atlanta is not close in terms of media importance, they are not a basketball city per se (which means its not something they emphasize during the regular season, so why would they suddenly do so at tourney time), and it's a city torn between two conferences.

Those are issues whether you want to recognize them as such or not.

Cheers,
Neil

(11-17-2013 09:34 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Atlanta has been a host 6 times I believe and it's been pretty good during those years. There are a lot of core ACC fans in the Atlanta area.

Back in those days Ga Tech was Final Four good. Now the Jackets aren't even ACC Finals good. Now if they get back to that level, fine. For now, may as well have the tournament in Greenville, SC or Roanoke, VA.

(11-17-2013 10:07 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 09:34 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 09:31 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 08:59 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  The reason why so much of the conference is tied to NC is because of 2 of the best programs in history reside there. In the last 30 years, there have been only 3 times the tourney final didn't feature Dook or UNC. So basically 90% of the time the final features at least one team from NC. And...........almost half the time the final featured two teams from NC. You also have to remember, back in the day Wake Forest and NC State were pretty good.

With the influx of Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, ND I would expect fewer times where one of the NC teams are in the final which makes it less of a necessity of keep the tourney in NC every year. I like the rotation idea of 4 regions.....deep south tourney goes to Atlanta....south tourney is in either Charlotte or Greensboro...mid-atlantic tourney goes to DC..and the northeast tourney in NY/Brooklyn...rotate each year. Unfortunately, I don't think the northern folks will go for that.

To me, Atlanta makes no sense whatsoever. It's not a basketball city and the media coverage in the city will be split between what is going on with the SEC tournament in Nashville and the ACC tourney in its own city.

The other sites won't have that issue.

Cheers,
Neil

Atlanta has been a host 6 times I believe and it's been pretty good during those years. There are a lot of core ACC fans in the Atlanta area.

You're missing the point. I'm talking about media coverage of it versus the SEC tournament and the fact that the city itself, overall, is not a basketball crazy type town likely equates to said media coverage giving just as much emphasis on the SEC tournament as it will the ACC tournament. That wouldn't be an issue at the other sites.

Sure other tournaments outside of the BE tournament were going on elsewhere, but in NYC one would hardly have known it. And that's the media capital of the world.

Atlanta is not close in terms of media importance, they are not a basketball city per se (which means its not something they emphasize during the regular season, so why would they suddenly do so at tourney time), and it's a city torn between two conferences.

Those are issues whether you want to recognize them as such or not.

Cheers,
Neil

No one is discounting the media coverage NY can provide. There are contractual obligations MSG and Barclays have to get through first. The ACC started as a Southern conference and will not get completely away from its roots..nor should it. Atlanta has been a great host for the ACC Tournament and is just as much a basketball town as Washington DC. Atlanta has tons of ACC alums in the area to fill the seats. I'm not remotely scared of the SEC in basketball. They can't even sellout a single session in their tourney.

(11-17-2013 08:35 AM)omniorange Wrote:  And I think you may still be missing my overall point. I don't think it is "good" for the conference to have so much of it tied to the state of North Carolina. I actually like ren.hoek's idea of making the Verizon the permanent site until MSG is available more than a rotation, but I just don't think that will fly.

But if it has to be a rotation, as I stated earlier, it should be a true rotation of Barclays, Verizon, and Greensboro and not one where Greensboro gets it 4 times in 6 years while Barclays and Verizon get it once each.

Cheers,
Neil

No. I got your point. I just think you're wrong, but I don't want to argue about it. Ultimately, I don't think that it matters THAT much, and NYC would be good for SU, so I can live with it.

(11-17-2013 10:07 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 09:34 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 09:31 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 08:59 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  The reason why so much of the conference is tied to NC is because of 2 of the best programs in history reside there. In the last 30 years, there have been only 3 times the tourney final didn't feature Dook or UNC. So basically 90% of the time the final features at least one team from NC. And...........almost half the time the final featured two teams from NC. You also have to remember, back in the day Wake Forest and NC State were pretty good.

With the influx of Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, ND I would expect fewer times where one of the NC teams are in the final which makes it less of a necessity of keep the tourney in NC every year. I like the rotation idea of 4 regions.....deep south tourney goes to Atlanta....south tourney is in either Charlotte or Greensboro...mid-atlantic tourney goes to DC..and the northeast tourney in NY/Brooklyn...rotate each year. Unfortunately, I don't think the northern folks will go for that.

To me, Atlanta makes no sense whatsoever. It's not a basketball city and the media coverage in the city will be split between what is going on with the SEC tournament in Nashville and the ACC tourney in its own city.

The other sites won't have that issue.

Cheers,
Neil

Atlanta has been a host 6 times I believe and it's been pretty good during those years. There are a lot of core ACC fans in the Atlanta area.

You're missing the point. I'm talking about media coverage of it versus the SEC tournament and the fact that the city itself, overall, is not a basketball crazy type town likely equates to said media coverage giving just as much emphasis on the SEC tournament as it will the ACC tournament. That wouldn't be an issue at the other sites.

Sure other tournaments outside of the BE tournament were going on elsewhere, but in NYC one would hardly have known it. And that's the media capital of the world.

Atlanta is not close in terms of media importance, they are not a basketball city per se (which means its not something they emphasize during the regular season, so why would they suddenly do so at tourney time), and it's a city torn between two conferences.

Those are issues whether you want to recognize them as such or not.

Cheers,
Neil

Exactly. The plan should be to permanently have the tourney in DC with occasional trips to other locations such as Charlotte and Brooklyn. Another city that also should be considered in Philly.

(11-18-2013 06:56 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 10:07 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 09:34 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 09:31 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 08:59 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  The reason why so much of the conference is tied to NC is because of 2 of the best programs in history reside there. In the last 30 years, there have been only 3 times the tourney final didn't feature Dook or UNC. So basically 90% of the time the final features at least one team from NC. And...........almost half the time the final featured two teams from NC. You also have to remember, back in the day Wake Forest and NC State were pretty good.

With the influx of Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, ND I would expect fewer times where one of the NC teams are in the final which makes it less of a necessity of keep the tourney in NC every year. I like the rotation idea of 4 regions.....deep south tourney goes to Atlanta....south tourney is in either Charlotte or Greensboro...mid-atlantic tourney goes to DC..and the northeast tourney in NY/Brooklyn...rotate each year. Unfortunately, I don't think the northern folks will go for that.

To me, Atlanta makes no sense whatsoever. It's not a basketball city and the media coverage in the city will be split between what is going on with the SEC tournament in Nashville and the ACC tourney in its own city.

The other sites won't have that issue.

Cheers,
Neil

Atlanta has been a host 6 times I believe and it's been pretty good during those years. There are a lot of core ACC fans in the Atlanta area.

You're missing the point. I'm talking about media coverage of it versus the SEC tournament and the fact that the city itself, overall, is not a basketball crazy type town likely equates to said media coverage giving just as much emphasis on the SEC tournament as it will the ACC tournament. That wouldn't be an issue at the other sites.

Sure other tournaments outside of the BE tournament were going on elsewhere, but in NYC one would hardly have known it. And that's the media capital of the world.

Atlanta is not close in terms of media importance, they are not a basketball city per se (which means its not something they emphasize during the regular season, so why would they suddenly do so at tourney time), and it's a city torn between two conferences.

Those are issues whether you want to recognize them as such or not.

Cheers,
Neil

Exactly. The plan should be to permanently have the tourney in DC with occasional trips to other locations such as Charlotte and Brooklyn. Another city that also should be considered in Philly.

The question the ACC needs to ask itself with every such decision is "does this make conference the conference stronger?"

It's pretty much that simple.

(11-18-2013 11:55 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The question the ACC needs to ask itself with every such decision is "does this make the conference stronger?"

It's pretty much that simple.

Those questions though, as I suspect you know more than most (having read your posts on academics, research, etc.) are rarely simple.

Something might make the conference stronger in terms of marketing, media coverage, and identity (long-term type investment), but not make it stronger in terms of immediate financial return. The DC versus Greensboro is probably a good of example of this.

Taking Pitt and SU over let's say Pitt and WVU, may be another.

Cheers,
Neil

(11-18-2013 12:28 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 11:55 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The question the ACC needs to ask itself with every such decision is "does this make the conference stronger?"

It's pretty much that simple.

Those questions though, as I suspect you know more than most (having read your posts on academics, research, etc.) are rarely simple.

Something might make the conference stronger in terms of marketing, media coverage, and identity (long-term type investment), but not make it stronger in terms of immediate financial return. The DC versus Greensboro is probably a good of example of this.

Taking Pitt and SU over let's say Pitt and WVU, may be another.

Cheers,
Neil

You're right, it may not be as simple as we think, and it rarely ever is, especially as we are not privy to discussion in the board rooms. But what we do know is that the decade long strategy of the ACC has been one to become a total East Coast conference, and thus dominate East Coast college athletics mindshare. If that strategy is important, and two rounds of expansion suggest that it is, then on the surface it seems as though there is little doubt about where priority lies for placing marquee events.

If there are reasons to keep the tournament in Greensboro, I'd like to know what they are. There well could be negative political ramifications to the conference by permanently moving it elsewhere. Those would be interesting to discuss. But all I've heard so far after months of discussion, on any media format, is some variation of "that is where its always been held", and frankly, that isn't good enough.

(11-18-2013 04:52 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 12:28 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 11:55 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The question the ACC needs to ask itself with every such decision is "does this make the conference stronger?"

It's pretty much that simple.

Those questions though, as I suspect you know more than most (having read your posts on academics, research, etc.) are rarely simple.

Something might make the conference stronger in terms of marketing, media coverage, and identity (long-term type investment), but not make it stronger in terms of immediate financial return. The DC versus Greensboro is probably a good of example of this.

Taking Pitt and SU over let's say Pitt and WVU, may be another.

Cheers,
Neil

You're right, it may not be as simple as we think, and it rarely ever is, especially as we are not privy to discussion in the board rooms. But what we do know is that the decade long strategy of the ACC has been one to become a total East Coast conference, and thus dominate East Coast college athletics mindshare. If that strategy is important, and two rounds of expansion suggest that it is, then on the surface it seems as though there is little doubt about where priority lies for placing marquee events.

If there are reasons to keep the tournament in Greensboro, I'd like to know what they are. There well could be negative political ramifications to the conference by permanently moving it elsewhere. Those would be interesting to discuss. But all I've heard so far after months of discussion, on any media format, is some variation of "that is where its always been held", and frankly, that isn't good enough.

I would submit that the intransigence of some in the ACC is related the the mindset. As you state, the ACC has been trying to transform itself into the Est Coast Conference, but that adjustment was purely defensive. After rendering the former BE irrelevant, going back to the status quo might seem prudent too many hard liners on Tobacco Road. 'Hey, we were the conference that threw the former BE members a lifeline, you can suck up the trips to Greenboro.'

Of course this philosophy doesn't foster unity between the new and the old members in any way. Swafford might have to go with a soft transformation that slowly shifts the MBB tourney home further north to lessen the blow. The question is, say the ACC puts the tourney in DC for 5-7 years and its proven to be successful by every metric, do you still yank the tourney out of the there should MSG become available?

To me, I could see going to MSG if they want it on a permanent basis and it makes more money for the league. If that is not the case, then I think it should rotate between GSO/CLT, ATL and DC/Brooklyn.

(11-19-2013 07:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 04:52 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 12:28 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 11:55 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The question the ACC needs to ask itself with every such decision is "does this make the conference stronger?"

It's pretty much that simple.

Those questions though, as I suspect you know more than most (having read your posts on academics, research, etc.) are rarely simple.

Something might make the conference stronger in terms of marketing, media coverage, and identity (long-term type investment), but not make it stronger in terms of immediate financial return. The DC versus Greensboro is probably a good of example of this.

Taking Pitt and SU over let's say Pitt and WVU, may be another.

Cheers,
Neil

You're right, it may not be as simple as we think, and it rarely ever is, especially as we are not privy to discussion in the board rooms. But what we do know is that the decade long strategy of the ACC has been one to become a total East Coast conference, and thus dominate East Coast college athletics mindshare. If that strategy is important, and two rounds of expansion suggest that it is, then on the surface it seems as though there is little doubt about where priority lies for placing marquee events.

If there are reasons to keep the tournament in Greensboro, I'd like to know what they are. There well could be negative political ramifications to the conference by permanently moving it elsewhere. Those would be interesting to discuss. But all I've heard so far after months of discussion, on any media format, is some variation of "that is where its always been held", and frankly, that isn't good enough.

I would submit that the intransigence of some in the ACC is related the the mindset. As you state, the ACC has been trying to transform itself into the Est Coast Conference, but that adjustment was purely defensive. After rendering the former BE irrelevant, going back to the status quo might seem prudent too many hard liners on Tobacco Road. 'Hey, we were the conference that threw the former BE members a lifeline, you can suck up the trips to Greenboro.'

I keep seeing these types of posts from certain folks, but the reality is that it is a mutually beneficial relationship. The BE schools and the Acc threw each other a life line. The ACC had to choose the right two schools to invite. But if the BE schools, had refused to leave and stick it out in the BE with their new tv deal being opened up for bids in just a few months and would have dwarfed the ACC tv deal, WHO would the ACC have turned for new schools that were the right fit that ESPN would be willing to open up negotiations to pay the Acc more than the $13 million deal that they were stuck with for many years? WHO? Even if you think that other BE schools would have accepted an invite, would they have been the right schools? I can tell you right now, that if Pitt/SU were still in the BE, there would be no deals with ND or Louisville. So who would the ACC have expanded with?

Based on what has transpired since, even with a renegotiated tv deal, with the FSU backers who were lamenting how bad their tv deal was, and Maryland leaving, there would have been a lot more chaos within the Acc and I think the league would be a shell of what it is today. There would have never been a GOR, because no one would want to be stuck with a $13 million dollar per school tv deal while every other major league was getting at least $20 million, and there would never be a sense of stability that exists today.