(07-22-2014 04:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Actually, what I'd REALLY like to do is to pay a monthly fee directly to ESPN and get a fully-unlocked WatchESPN for my desktop! Now, is there any way I can get that (legally)?

You can't get that for iOS or Android. I'm not sure what you are referring to that you can get it for those two OSes.

Those two have apps that are free, but those are nothing more than interfaces to what you would see & act no different than going to WatchESPN.com or ESPN3.com. You still have to authenticate with your pay TV company credentials.

(07-22-2014 02:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 02:13 PM)nole Wrote:  "Other than free, what more can we ask? "


Revenue that equals that of SEC and B1G so ACC schools can compete with them in football.


THAT is all that matters.

Really? I would think WINNING is all that matters.

Beamer might work for wins, but most coaches out there work for paychecks.

(07-22-2014 02:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 02:13 PM)nole Wrote:  "Other than free, what more can we ask? "


Revenue that equals that of SEC and B1G so ACC schools can compete with them in football.


THAT is all that matters.

Really? I would think WINNING is all that matters.

Nick Saban at Bama makes $6 million a year (approx.)

Coach K at Duke makes $6 million a year (approx.)



Those wins....they cost money. Without revenue akin to other power 5 conferences......the ACC will struggle to keep their coaches who do win.


Everyone understands that....lets not pretend we don't.


Thankfully.....ACC revenue is fine...for now. The Conference Networks at SEC and B1G might change everything. Hope Swofford and his son have a plan.

(07-22-2014 09:41 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 02:46 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 01:29 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Would 4.5 million households pay $20 a month to see every game in every sport their team plays? If I could pay $20 a month to have access to every away UofL men/women game in every sport I would. If that includes all the ACC teams, that would be better.

You should be able to watch all home and away Louisville football and basketball games this year, at least on ESPN3. My understanding is that the ACC's agreement with ESPN requires that all games be made available at least on ESPN3.

With Google Chromecast you can watch anything on ESPN3 on your hi-def TV at home.

I don't think that ESPN's agreement with Chromecast has gotten the attention it deserves.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

ESPN's deal with Chromecast hasn't gotten more attention because it's not a gamechanger. Like WatchESPN on Xbox, Android, etc, you only get WatchESPN if you already subscribe to ESPN on cable. It's of little help to the cord cutter.

You can access ESPN3. That is only for events that are not broadcast anywhere. Florida State will get a few early season basketball games on ESPN3 exclusive. I don't know about Louisville, being a more high profile program I don't know how many you'll get.

For football, games against early season FCS opponents MIGHT show up there, depending on your team.

But ESPN3 with Chromecast, unless you subscribe to ESPN in a cable package, will not get you any conference games or anything deemed worthy of television.

It will get you plenty of womens sports and non-revenue sports if you are into that.

Pac12 selling subscriptions for their YouTube channel internationally showing their content.


http://www.pacifictakes.com/2014/7/25/59...r-cox-deal

(07-22-2014 08:02 PM)nole Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 02:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 02:13 PM)nole Wrote:  "Other than free, what more can we ask? "


Revenue that equals that of SEC and B1G so ACC schools can compete with them in football.


THAT is all that matters.

Really? I would think WINNING is all that matters.

Nick Saban at Bama makes $6 million a year (approx.)

Coach K at Duke makes $6 million a year (approx.)



Those wins....they cost money. Without revenue akin to other power 5 conferences......the ACC will struggle to keep their coaches who do win.


Everyone understands that....lets not pretend we don't.


Thankfully.....ACC revenue is fine...for now. The Conference Networks at SEC and B1G might change everything. Hope Swofford and his son have a plan.

Nole, what you seem to be suggesting is that money buys wins. Does it? http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstList.aspx

Using the above data based the schools report to the US Department of ED what they spent on football and this is their per win amount they spent in the fall of 2012:

Auburn $12 million a win - $36 million total - 3 wins
Iowa $5.25 million a win - $21 million total - 4 wins
Miami $3.4 million a win - $24 million total - 7 wins
Duke $3.16 million a win - $19 million total - 6 wins
Alabama $3.15 million a win - $41 million total - 13 wins
Tennessee $3.0 million a win - $27 million total - 9 wins
Michigan $2.87 million a win - $23 million total - 8 wins
Michigan State $2.85 million a win - $20 million total - 7 wins
NC State $2.57 million a win - $18 million total - 7 wins
Baylor $2.5 million a win - $20 million total - 8 wins
Iowa State $2.5 million a win - $15 million total - 6 wins
Florida $2.3 million a win - $26 million total - 11 wins
South Carolina $2.27 a win - $25 million total - 11 wins
UNC - 2.0 million a win - $16 million total - 8 wins
FSU - 1.9 million a win - $23 million total - 12 wins
Clemson - 1.81 million a win - $20 million total - 11 wins
TAMU - 1.63 million a win - $18 million total - 11 wins


Other than Alabama and Auburn - the spending on the football programs range between $15 and $27 million. Auburn spent $36 million for it's worst season in modern history and Bama spent $41 million for a BCS championship. $5 million separated their spending.

The really big head coaching salaries come after the results on the field, not prior to the result - essentially Saban and K are getting defacto bonuses. The players still have to play the game.

A great QB, and a great defense is needed to win 10 or more games.

Here's that cohort with 2013 results (spending not available)

Auburn $12 million a win - $36 million total - 3 wins - 12 wins
Iowa $5.25 million a win - $21 million total - 4 wins - 8 wins
Miami $3.4 million a win - $24 million total - 7 wins - 9 wins
Duke $3.16 million a win - $19 million total - 6 wins - 10 wins
Alabama $3.15 million a win - $41 million total - 13 wins 11 wins
Tennessee $3.0 million a win - $27 million total - 9 wins - 8 wins
Michigan $2.87 million a win - $23 million total - 8 wins - 7 wins
Michigan State $2.85 million a win - $20 million total - 7 wins 13 wins
NC State $2.57 million a win - $18 million total - 7 wins - 3 wins
Baylor $2.5 million a win - $20 million total - 8 wins - 11 wins
Iowa State $2.5 million a win - $15 million total - 6 wins - 3 wins
Florida $2.3 million a win - $26 million total - 11 wins - 4 wins
South Carolina $2.27 a win - $25 million total - 11 wins - 11 wins
UNC - 2.0 million a win - $16 million total - 8 wins - 7 wins
FSU - 1.9 million a win - $23 million total - 12 wins - 14 wins
Clemson - 1.81 million a win - $20 million total - 11 wins - 11 wins
TAMU - 1.63 million a win - $18 million total - 11 wins

Money is important, but money simply can't buy wins. It takes more than money.

Moreover, the cost of competing in your conference is the first obstacle you face. What does it cost to make it to your championship game in the B10, versus the SEC, versus the ACC? I think we can all agree that the cost of competition is highest in the SEC and probably lowest in the ACC.

Then the issue becomes what do you do on the field when you meet a team from outside your conference - is the money edge of that much value in such meetings? FSU and Clemson and MSU seem to indicate that the answer is no.

Perhaps the reality of the money is a two tier game:

1. You need a certain base amount to compete in your conference then,
2. You need a certain extra amount to compete for the top of your conference
3. Once you finally mix with the other top 10 on the field for one game, the extra money seems to have a diminishing return.

FSU frets and many of its backers seem to fret over money like a old widow living off a social security pension. To many of us in the Carolina's it's an amazing obsession - FSU's obsession with the Bama's, and Auburn's and Florida's money. You seem to beat them most of the time you play despite their seeming financial advantage so what's the obsession really about?

When FSU has good coaching, a great QB, and a great defense - they win titles and they stomp mudholes in the competition. Extra money does not buy a Jamis Winston, Chris Weinkie, or Charlie Ward. All the money in the world would not have prevented Coach Bowden from playing is very conservative in some key games FSU lost over the decades as that what his nature and money had nothing to do with that. You probably left 3-4 championships on the field against Miami alone, kicking fg's when you should have gone for the TD.

Texas made $160 last year - how'd that work out for them in Football or Basketball?

The ACC needs the money to be in the ballpark of the other B-5's but most of our games are with each other and that sets the real cost of competition.

NC State last year is a shining example of how no amount of money fixes the lack of a B-5 level qb on your team.

(07-26-2014 02:57 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  FSU frets and many of its backers seem to fret over money like a old widow living off a social security pension. To many of us in the Carolina's it's an amazing obsession - FSU's obsession with the Bama's, and Auburn's and Florida's money. You seem to beat them most of the time you play despite their seeming financial advantage so what's the obsession really about?

When FSU has good coaching, a great QB, and a great defense - they win titles and they stomp mudholes in the competition. Extra money does not buy a Jamis Winston, Chris Weinkie, or Charlie Ward. All the money in the world would not have prevented Coach Bowden from playing is very conservative in some key games FSU lost over the decades as that what his nature and money had nothing to do with that. You probably left 3-4 championships on the field against Miami alone, kicking fg's when you should have gone for the TD.

Texas made $160 last year - how'd that work out for them in Football or Basketball?

The ACC needs the money to be in the ballpark of the other B-5's but most of our games are with each other and that sets the real cost of competition.

NC State last year is a shining example of how no amount of money fixes the lack of a B-5 level qb on your team.

Joining the SEC will might not make the difference that FSU believes it would. Take UK for example. They have been getting SEC money forever. They play in a old out of date football stadium. Their basketball team in spite of their success, plays in an old arena with no corporate boxes. They have a large fan base, so fan support is not an issue. They sell a lot of merchandise so they get good royality money. Their own faculity sometimes does not support funding athletic improvements.

My concerns are two parts:

1. There are 2 teams that carry the conference now in football. I think that will be the same situation in 10 years. There are no other teams trending towards a path where they can compete with the UGA, Bama, LSU, UF, Auburn schools out there. 2 is two few. Basically the ACC has NO room for error. FSU and Clemson cannot afford to slip up. But this happens to the best of teams. The margins are too small for the ACC.


2. These two schools are being forced to carry this burden with what looks like, coming in the future, large revenue differences with who they need to compete with.



IMHO, the ACC has great potential, but until it fixes revenue infrastructure like a weak TV contract and NO CONFERENCE NETWORK, there is great concern for me and how it impacts FSU (which is my primary concern).

The other issue for me is there are 3-5 schools in the ACC with the potential, resources, location, and brand to be MUCH better than they are. I don't believe, personally, that many, if not all of these schools are truly trying as hard as they can. I don't think they are committed to the level needed.


Many here will disagree.....that is fine. As a football fan, and someone who sees this as a simple business logic issue.....80% of revenue comes from football. FSU is a football school in a basketball league that has one foot in and one foot out of the football pool.


I hope it works out for FSU and the ACC......but right now, I don't see it.

(07-26-2014 08:31 PM)nole Wrote:  My concerns are two parts:

1. There are 2 teams that carry the conference now in football. I think that will be the same situation in 10 years. There are no other teams trending towards a path where they can compete with the UGA, Bama, LSU, UF, Auburn schools out there. 2 is two few. Basically the ACC has NO room for error. FSU and Clemson cannot afford to slip up. But this happens to the best of teams. The margins are too small for the ACC.


2. These two schools are being forced to carry this burden with what looks like, coming in the future, large revenue differences with who they need to compete with.



IMHO, the ACC has great potential, but until it fixes revenue infrastructure like a weak TV contract and NO CONFERENCE NETWORK, there is great concern for me and how it impacts FSU (which is my primary concern).

The other issue for me is there are 3-5 schools in the ACC with the potential, resources, location, and brand to be MUCH better than they are. I don't believe, personally, that many, if not all of these schools are truly trying as hard as they can. I don't think they are committed to the level needed.


Many here will disagree.....that is fine. As a football fan, and someone who sees this as a simple business logic issue.....80% of revenue comes from football. FSU is a football school in a basketball league that has one foot in and one foot out of the football pool.


I hope it works out for FSU and the ACC......but right now, I don't see it.

It's way too early to say that Duke is becoming a power but the trajectory is there.

Here's the current recruiting rankings for Duke's 2015 class:
Rivals - #17
247 - #20
Scout - #31

And Duke just got a 4* commitment for 2016.

Yes, it's a long way to top ten recruiting for Duke but when you consider where Duke is coming from bridging the gap doesn't seem impossible.

Maybe Louisville can truly become a national power but I don't see anyone else in the ACC even making progress. UNC and Miami have shown the ability to get recruits but seem incapable of doing much with them.

(07-26-2014 02:43 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 08:02 PM)nole Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 02:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 02:13 PM)nole Wrote:  "Other than free, what more can we ask? "


Revenue that equals that of SEC and B1G so ACC schools can compete with them in football.


THAT is all that matters.

Really? I would think WINNING is all that matters.

Nick Saban at Bama makes $6 million a year (approx.)

Coach K at Duke makes $6 million a year (approx.)



Those wins....they cost money. Without revenue akin to other power 5 conferences......the ACC will struggle to keep their coaches who do win.


Everyone understands that....lets not pretend we don't.


Thankfully.....ACC revenue is fine...for now. The Conference Networks at SEC and B1G might change everything. Hope Swofford and his son have a plan.

Nole, what you seem to be suggesting is that money buys wins. Does it? http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstList.aspx

Using the above data based the schools report to the US Department of ED what they spent on football and this is their per win amount they spent in the fall of 2012:

Auburn $12 million a win - $36 million total - 3 wins
Iowa $5.25 million a win - $21 million total - 4 wins
Miami $3.4 million a win - $24 million total - 7 wins
Duke $3.16 million a win - $19 million total - 6 wins
Alabama $3.15 million a win - $41 million total - 13 wins
Tennessee $3.0 million a win - $27 million total - 9 wins
Michigan $2.87 million a win - $23 million total - 8 wins
Michigan State $2.85 million a win - $20 million total - 7 wins
NC State $2.57 million a win - $18 million total - 7 wins
Baylor $2.5 million a win - $20 million total - 8 wins
Iowa State $2.5 million a win - $15 million total - 6 wins
Florida $2.3 million a win - $26 million total - 11 wins
South Carolina $2.27 a win - $25 million total - 11 wins
UNC - 2.0 million a win - $16 million total - 8 wins
FSU - 1.9 million a win - $23 million total - 12 wins
Clemson - 1.81 million a win - $20 million total - 11 wins
TAMU - 1.63 million a win - $18 million total - 11 wins


Other than Alabama and Auburn - the spending on the football programs range between $15 and $27 million. Auburn spent $36 million for it's worst season in modern history and Bama spent $41 million for a BCS championship. $5 million separated their spending.

The really big head coaching salaries come after the results on the field, not prior to the result - essentially Saban and K are getting defacto bonuses. The players still have to play the game.

A great QB, and a great defense is needed to win 10 or more games.

Here's that cohort with 2013 results (spending not available)

Auburn $12 million a win - $36 million total - 3 wins - 12 wins
Iowa $5.25 million a win - $21 million total - 4 wins - 8 wins
Miami $3.4 million a win - $24 million total - 7 wins - 9 wins
Duke $3.16 million a win - $19 million total - 6 wins - 10 wins
Alabama $3.15 million a win - $41 million total - 13 wins 11 wins
Tennessee $3.0 million a win - $27 million total - 9 wins - 8 wins
Michigan $2.87 million a win - $23 million total - 8 wins - 7 wins
Michigan State $2.85 million a win - $20 million total - 7 wins 13 wins
NC State $2.57 million a win - $18 million total - 7 wins - 3 wins
Baylor $2.5 million a win - $20 million total - 8 wins - 11 wins
Iowa State $2.5 million a win - $15 million total - 6 wins - 3 wins
Florida $2.3 million a win - $26 million total - 11 wins - 4 wins
South Carolina $2.27 a win - $25 million total - 11 wins - 11 wins
UNC - 2.0 million a win - $16 million total - 8 wins - 7 wins
FSU - 1.9 million a win - $23 million total - 12 wins - 14 wins
Clemson - 1.81 million a win - $20 million total - 11 wins - 11 wins
TAMU - 1.63 million a win - $18 million total - 11 wins

Money is important, but money simply can't buy wins. It takes more than money.

Moreover, the cost of competing in your conference is the first obstacle you face. What does it cost to make it to your championship game in the B10, versus the SEC, versus the ACC? I think we can all agree that the cost of competition is highest in the SEC and probably lowest in the ACC.

Then the issue becomes what do you do on the field when you meet a team from outside your conference - is the money edge of that much value in such meetings? FSU and Clemson and MSU seem to indicate that the answer is no.

Perhaps the reality of the money is a two tier game:

1. You need a certain base amount to compete in your conference then,
2. You need a certain extra amount to compete for the top of your conference
3. Once you finally mix with the other top 10 on the field for one game, the extra money seems to have a diminishing return.

Those 2012 finances for Clemson are amazing considering 2012 was when we built our $10 million practice facility.

Oh yeah....that isn't those numbers for football.

Neither are coach's salaries.

Neither are recruiting expenses.

Neither are other facility upgrades for the football program.


Now when you look at those numbers provided the only thing that comes to mind is this:

Quote:There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics

Mark Twain

(07-26-2014 08:31 PM)nole Wrote:  ...there are 3-5 schools in the ACC with the potential, resources, location, and brand to be MUCH better than they are. I don't believe, personally, that many, if not all of these schools are truly trying as hard as they can. I don't think they are committed to the level needed.

I agree, and I think Va Tech is one of the schools that can do better. The Hokies have made some bad hiring decisions in the past (based on personal relationships rather than on performance), and the facilities have not kept up with the rest of the country.

We discussed the ridiculous academic requirements at Ga Tech already.

Miami - can they win the local recruiting battles without cheating? Can they coach them?

UNC - Mack Brown had them playing at a very high level, so I know it can be done there. One thing which never really caught up was fan support.

NC State hasn't had a really great football coaching staff in years. When they had Amato as head coach and Norm Chow as OC (2000), that's the best combo they've had in recent memory - but it was only for 1 year.

UVa - a few 5-star players is not the answer. This team lacks a foundation like it had when George Welsh was coaching there.

I honestly think Pitt can still contend for a title if they put their minds to it. So can Syracuse and Boston College.

I guess I'm saying the only team with a REAL ceiling is Wake Forest.

The ACC is improving, we only trail the SEC in recruiting & NFL draft picks. The experts now have us ranked #3 of the P5. To me this all shows improvement. Yes, Florida St & Clemson have been the flag bearers but Louisville will give you a run for your money. I have read articles saying that the ACC will have a network by 2017, so in about 5 years we will have a better idea as to where the conference stands.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

(07-27-2014 06:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 08:31 PM)nole Wrote:  ...there are 3-5 schools in the ACC with the potential, resources, location, and brand to be MUCH better than they are. I don't believe, personally, that many, if not all of these schools are truly trying as hard as they can. I don't think they are committed to the level needed.

I agree, and I think Va Tech is one of the schools that can do better. The Hokies have made some bad hiring decisions in the past (based on personal relationships rather than on performance), and the facilities have not kept up with the rest of the country.

We discussed the ridiculous academic requirements at Ga Tech already.

Miami - can they win the local recruiting battles without cheating? Can they coach them?

UNC - Mack Brown had them playing at a very high level, so I know it can be done there. One thing which never really caught up was fan support.

NC State hasn't had a really great football coaching staff in years. When they had Amato as head coach and Norm Chow as OC (2000), that's the best combo they've had in recent memory - but it was only for 1 year.

UVa - a few 5-star players is not the answer. This team lacks a foundation like it had when George Welsh was coaching there.

I honestly think Pitt can still contend for a title if they put their minds to it. So can Syracuse and Boston College.

I guess I'm saying the only team with a REAL ceiling is Wake Forest.

I kind of think that with the right next coach, VT has the potential to be elite fairly easily. They've got a great atmosphere, a strong history of success and an enthusiastic fan base. They've done pretty well considering how weakly they've recruited there, and even now it's not like the wheels have completely come off.

But I have to think that a youngish energetic coach who gets after it on the recruiting trail and can sell the need for upgraded facilities, the sky is the limit. Beamer doesn't really believe in the importance of elite recruiting, therefore facilities are going to lag. If your coach doesn't believe in recruiting stars, then the supporters don't open up their pocketbooks for the things to recruit those stars.

I have nothing but respect for Coach Beamer, but those days of recruiting a bunch of lowly rated kids and then being elite are over. Nobody's done it better than Virginia Tech over the years, but they're not going to get back to where they want to be without top 10-15 recruiting classes. And I think that it is totally possible to recruit like that Virginia Tech.

The danger is that they remain on this trajectory another 7-8 years and lose too much traction from their glory days.

(07-28-2014 09:59 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  I have nothing but respect for Coach Beamer, but those days of recruiting a bunch of lowly rated kids and then being elite are over. Nobody's done it better than Virginia Tech over the years, but they're not going to get back to where they want to be without top 10-15 recruiting classes. And I think that it is totally possible to recruit like that Virginia Tech.

The danger is that they remain on this trajectory another 7-8 years and lose too much traction from their glory days.

I give it 2-3 more years. If Beamer can't turn it around by the time his current contract runs out, he'll be asked to retire (IMO).

(07-28-2014 11:18 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-28-2014 09:59 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  I have nothing but respect for Coach Beamer, but those days of recruiting a bunch of lowly rated kids and then being elite are over. Nobody's done it better than Virginia Tech over the years, but they're not going to get back to where they want to be without top 10-15 recruiting classes. And I think that it is totally possible to recruit like that Virginia Tech.

The danger is that they remain on this trajectory another 7-8 years and lose too much traction from their glory days.

I give it 2-3 more years. If Beamer can't turn it around by the time his current contract runs out, he'll be asked to retire (IMO).

I think that's the window...after that...you might be in some trouble. Once guys coach past the age when they can't imagine doing anything else with their lives like Paterno and Bowden, that's when you're pretty much never going to get them out.

In 3 years he'll be 70. Hopefully he can retire on a high note.