Also here is the Iowa DMA map link as you see it includes some chunks of Rochester MN, Omaha, Neb, etc.:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Iowa...ajaxhist=0



Iowa State also allows the ACC to poke the B10 in the eye a little - overlapping Iowa, as well as Minnesota, Illinois, Whisky, and Nebraska. Although I would not compare Iowa State to Maryland.

I still think the 16th team must be a ND approved playing partner otherwise expansion doesn't happen.

(06-25-2015 04:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  "Why would the ACC add Oklahoma?" Seriously? You need to ask?

You (in the sense of FSU fans, not personally to you) guys are already complaining about the prospects of winning a National Championship playing in a perceived "weak" conference.

Oklahoma would come in here and clean up and you'd (in the sense of FSU fans) still be complaining about not playing for and winning national championships.

Plus, the ACC likely knows OU has leanings to the west. Look at their current football roster and you'll note the presence of 8 California kids compared to 5 FL kids and the lone GA kid.

They'd be more likely to re-align with its old Big 8 buddy, Colorado.

(06-25-2015 04:50 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 04:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  "Why would the ACC add Oklahoma?" Seriously? You need to ask?

You (in the sense of FSU fans, not personally to you) guys are already complaining about the prospects of winning a National Championship playing in a perceived "weak" conference.

Oklahoma would come in here and clean up and you'd (in the sense of FSU fans) still be complaining about not playing for and winning national championships.

Plus, the ACC likely knows OU has leanings to the west. Look at their current football roster and you'll note the presence of 8 California kids compared to 5 FL kids and the lone GA kid.

They'd be more likely to re-align with its old Big 8 buddy, Colorado.

There are also cultural connections between Oklahoma and California, although they are pretty old now. Okies from the Dust Bowl.

(06-25-2015 01:28 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Would the ACC ever invite Oklahoma and Oklahoma State? Surely everyone has heard the talk from Oklahoma lately

Most people think that Oklahoma would be looking at the PAC 12, B1G, or SEC....but would the ACC ever approach them?

NO!

It would be interesting to see what the ACC would offer and how that impacts power dynamics in the B12.

I think that the ACC should offer UTex a ND deal to cause them to suck money out of the conference, and I think that we should also offer OU a safe place to land so that they can suck money out of the conference. That would create a reasonably rich conference (as exists today), but would tilt revenue sharing back to how it was where UT and UO make absolute bank, and everyone else fights for scraps and gets peanuts. It would turn a 10 team conference with 6-8 competitors into a 10 team conference with 2 competitors who already have hit the point where they are getting very small marginal gains on their money. In other words, it would annihilate the overall competitiveness of the conference.

That might drive SEC schools to look (even harder) to the west when they recruit, elevating the actual talent of the ACC (and not just the relative talent).

(06-25-2015 07:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

PSU and UTk would be great. I just don't know how to talk UTk out of being in the SEC. I think that there's a legitimate chance of talking PSU out of the B1G, though, and so does the B1G (see RU and UMD).

*Or UTk/PSU + ND

Oh forgot about the Pedos. Edited and ordered to reflect priority as well.

(06-25-2015 04:41 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 04:31 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  No.. this thread is the first time I've mentioned Iowa State and the ACC in the same context.

I can't paste the State of Illinois DMA map, nor Minnesota's nor Missouri, but if you go to this link you will see what constitutes possible value of Iowa State for the ACC - they put you into the northern part of Illinois in addition to Iowa and the edges of other DMA's.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=dma+...ajaxhist=0

The bulk of their alumni base migrates toward Chicago and Kansas City.

This footprint is of no extra value to the B10, to far away for the P12, unneeded by the SEC but adjoins ND's prime territory.

It's not ideal for the ACC but given that Iowa State is an AAU research university that might tip the balance between an Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, or Iowa State.

Do markets matter? Yes if there is an ACCN. Is it better to be third banana in Chicago or first in Oklahoma or Kansas - I don't know.

Anyway, the DMA's are why Iowa State could be considered.

BOLD: No. Recruiting and fan interest aside (as neither are applicable with ISU), markets don't matter, ever - network or not.
UNDERLINED: So what?

(06-25-2015 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Recruiting and fan interest aside (as neither are applicable with ISU), markets don't matter, ever - network or not.

Jim Delany apparently disagrees.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketbal...en-country

Some of the almost 10 million homes in New York and Washington, D.C. alone -- to say nothing of regional areas and New Jersey, where Rutgers' following is strongest -- already receive the Big Ten Network. But there are many more homes to reach, and many more subscriptions to sell.

"We're in, and we have some distribution in, the East," Delany said. "I hope that we'll have complete and total integration and Big Ten distribution in the East in the coming months.

"We're not there yet. We won't get there overnight. These things take a little time to develop. But I'm confident we'll achieve distribution in these markets -- full distribution."

Emphasis mine.

As I have stated in other conversations with you about this topic, markets are not the be-all and end-all. But they have a place in the discussion. To dismiss them out right is foolish, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-25-2015 07:45 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Recruiting and fan interest aside (as neither are applicable with ISU), markets don't matter, ever - network or not.

Jim Delany apparently disagrees.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketbal...en-country

Some of the almost 10 million homes in New York and Washington, D.C. alone -- to say nothing of regional areas and New Jersey, where Rutgers' following is strongest -- already receive the Big Ten Network. But there are many more homes to reach, and many more subscriptions to sell.

"We're in, and we have some distribution in, the East," Delany said. "I hope that we'll have complete and total integration and Big Ten distribution in the East in the coming months.

"We're not there yet. We won't get there overnight. These things take a little time to develop. But I'm confident we'll achieve distribution in these markets -- full distribution."

Emphasis mine.

As I have stated in other conversations with you about this topic, markets are not the be-all and end-all. But they have a place in the discussion. To dismiss them out right is foolish, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

What did you expect him to say? "The ACC almost nabbed our 4th most valuable property when they took our biggest target, but we managed to convince PSU to stay by landing schools near PSU boosters and in areas where PSU recruits both students and athletes." That's a terrible storyline and what was heavily implicated when Madison's AD said that PSU had wandering eyes.

Regardless, I genuinely believe that Delany confident that the B1G will achieve distribution in those markets. Given the country's demographic trends, improvements in telecommunications technology, and market forces, I'm confident that the B1G will receive national distribution in the next 20 years. Heck, I could get national distribution. It's called public access TV. Distribution does not equal money. There might be a correlation, but there is no causal relationship.

Don't get me wrong, the B1G's media payout *will* go up. Inflation alone will make that happen. However, other very real and very significant factors will also benefit the B1G. Michigan just shelled out for a LEGIT head football coach, PSU looks very solid, Wisconsin looks very solid, and OSU is the current NC in football. Those forces aligning at the right time absolutely will create a phenomenal amount of value.

However, RU's random proximity to NYC doesn't. If you think that RU is a media gold mine, then why was the BIG EAST's contract peanuts? If UMD is a media goldmine, why was the ACC's contract low? If BC is a goldmine, why did the (per school) media payout actually go down when BC joined? Why is the SEC such a profitable conference? Why is the ACC fighting for 3rd place revenue?

As I've said in previous arguments, come back with *any* shred of evidence that isn't glorified coach speak, and/or an explanation as to how markets inherently create value. I have yet to hear *anyone* give one of those that wasn't insanely half-baked.

(06-25-2015 04:50 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 04:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  "Why would the ACC add Oklahoma?" Seriously? You need to ask?

You (in the sense of FSU fans, not personally to you) guys are already complaining about the prospects of winning a National Championship playing in a perceived "weak" conference.

Oklahoma would come in here and clean up and you'd (in the sense of FSU fans) still be complaining about not playing for and winning national championships.

Plus, the ACC likely knows OU has leanings to the west. Look at their current football roster and you'll note the presence of 8 California kids compared to 5 FL kids and the lone GA kid.

They'd be more likely to re-align with its old Big 8 buddy, Colorado.

Your first two paragraphs are nonsense.

But you think 8 California kids to 6 Florida and Georgia kids is some type of proof? Lmao. How is that a significant difference either way?

And your still not even answering the question of whether you'd turn down Oklahoma. Your simply saying - wrongly -that FSU wouldn't want the competition, and that Oklahoma wouldn't want the acc. Maybe they wouldn't, as I myself said, but you verbalized not even understanding why the acc would add them in the first place.

And then said Iowa state would be an interesting addition. Wut. Just...what?

(06-25-2015 07:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 07:45 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Recruiting and fan interest aside (as neither are applicable with ISU), markets don't matter, ever - network or not.

Jim Delany apparently disagrees.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketbal...en-country

Some of the almost 10 million homes in New York and Washington, D.C. alone -- to say nothing of regional areas and New Jersey, where Rutgers' following is strongest -- already receive the Big Ten Network. But there are many more homes to reach, and many more subscriptions to sell.

"We're in, and we have some distribution in, the East," Delany said. "I hope that we'll have complete and total integration and Big Ten distribution in the East in the coming months.

"We're not there yet. We won't get there overnight. These things take a little time to develop. But I'm confident we'll achieve distribution in these markets -- full distribution."

Emphasis mine.

As I have stated in other conversations with you about this topic, markets are not the be-all and end-all. But they have a place in the discussion. To dismiss them out right is foolish, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

What did you expect him to say? "The ACC almost nabbed our 4th most valuable property when they took our biggest target, but we managed to convince PSU to stay by landing schools near PSU boosters and in areas where PSU recruits both students and athletes." That's a terrible storyline and what was heavily implicated when Madison's AD said that PSU had wandering eyes.

Regardless, I genuinely believe that Delany confident that the B1G will achieve distribution in those markets. Given the country's demographic trends, improvements in telecommunications technology, and market forces, I'm confident that the B1G will receive national distribution in the next 20 years. Heck, I could get national distribution. It's called public access TV. Distribution does not equal money. There might be a correlation, but there is no causal relationship.

Don't get me wrong, the B1G's media payout *will* go up. Inflation alone will make that happen. However, other very real and very significant factors will also benefit the B1G. Michigan just shelled out for a LEGIT head football coach, PSU looks very solid, Wisconsin looks very solid, and OSU is the current NC in football. Those forces aligning at the right time absolutely will create a phenomenal amount of value.

However, RU's random proximity to NYC doesn't. If you think that RU is a media gold mine, then why was the BIG EAST's contract peanuts? If UMD is a media goldmine, why was the ACC's contract low? If BC is a goldmine, why did the (per school) media payout actually go down when BC joined? Why is the SEC such a profitable conference? Why is the ACC fighting for 3rd place revenue?

As I've said in previous arguments, come back with *any* shred of evidence that isn't glorified coach speak, and/or an explanation as to how markets inherently create value. I have yet to hear *anyone* give one of those that wasn't insanely half-baked.

You do realize that SU has many grads that actually work at ESPN. Have you ever spoken with any of them?

All those market analyses they do regarding who is watching in which markets, totally useless according to you.

National marketing surveys with TNS that they pay for, totally useless according to you.

As for your reason above as to why the B1G took Rutgers and Maryland, that was a small part of it. However, you do realize that PSU could still have jumped to the ACC even with Rutgers and Maryland going to the B1g and gotten basically the same thing with the ACC, right?

And why would the rest of the league vote them in for that reason alone? It's not as though Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, etc. are going to put PSU's interests ahead of their own, are they?

As for "concrete" evidence, I just did above and have on numerous occasions in the past provided said links. But you simply dismiss them but hang on to what Barry Alvarez said as if that was carved on a stone tablet by the good lord himself.

Again, as I have said many times in the past brand trumps markets. But markets do have a smaller role to play in conference realignment.

But I'm done. You have a mental block on this issue that cannot be overcome.

Peace,
Neil

(06-25-2015 08:47 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 07:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 07:45 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Recruiting and fan interest aside (as neither are applicable with ISU), markets don't matter, ever - network or not.

Jim Delany apparently disagrees.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketbal...en-country

Some of the almost 10 million homes in New York and Washington, D.C. alone -- to say nothing of regional areas and New Jersey, where Rutgers' following is strongest -- already receive the Big Ten Network. But there are many more homes to reach, and many more subscriptions to sell.

"We're in, and we have some distribution in, the East," Delany said. "I hope that we'll have complete and total integration and Big Ten distribution in the East in the coming months.

"We're not there yet. We won't get there overnight. These things take a little time to develop. But I'm confident we'll achieve distribution in these markets -- full distribution."

Emphasis mine.

As I have stated in other conversations with you about this topic, markets are not the be-all and end-all. But they have a place in the discussion. To dismiss them out right is foolish, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

What did you expect him to say? "The ACC almost nabbed our 4th most valuable property when they took our biggest target, but we managed to convince PSU to stay by landing schools near PSU boosters and in areas where PSU recruits both students and athletes." That's a terrible storyline and what was heavily implicated when Madison's AD said that PSU had wandering eyes.

Regardless, I genuinely believe that Delany confident that the B1G will achieve distribution in those markets. Given the country's demographic trends, improvements in telecommunications technology, and market forces, I'm confident that the B1G will receive national distribution in the next 20 years. Heck, I could get national distribution. It's called public access TV. Distribution does not equal money. There might be a correlation, but there is no causal relationship.

Don't get me wrong, the B1G's media payout *will* go up. Inflation alone will make that happen. However, other very real and very significant factors will also benefit the B1G. Michigan just shelled out for a LEGIT head football coach, PSU looks very solid, Wisconsin looks very solid, and OSU is the current NC in football. Those forces aligning at the right time absolutely will create a phenomenal amount of value.

However, RU's random proximity to NYC doesn't. If you think that RU is a media gold mine, then why was the BIG EAST's contract peanuts? If UMD is a media goldmine, why was the ACC's contract low? If BC is a goldmine, why did the (per school) media payout actually go down when BC joined? Why is the SEC such a profitable conference? Why is the ACC fighting for 3rd place revenue?

As I've said in previous arguments, come back with *any* shred of evidence that isn't glorified coach speak, and/or an explanation as to how markets inherently create value. I have yet to hear *anyone* give one of those that wasn't insanely half-baked.

You do realize that SU has many grads that actually work at ESPN. Have you ever spoken with any of them?

All those market analyses they do regarding who is watching in which markets, totally useless according to you.

National marketing surveys with TNS that they pay for, totally useless according to you.

As for your reason above as to why the B1G took Rutgers and Maryland, that was a small part of it. However, you do realize that PSU could still have jumped to the ACC even with Rutgers and Maryland going to the B1g and gotten basically the same thing with the ACC, right?

And why would the rest of the league vote them in for that reason alone? It's not as though Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, etc. are going to put PSU's interests ahead of their own, are they?

As for "concrete" evidence, I just did above and have on numerous occasions in the past provided said links. But you simply dismiss them but hang on to what Barry Alvarez said as if that was carved on a stone tablet by the good lord himself.

Again, as I have said many times in the past brand trumps markets. But markets do have a smaller role to play in conference realignment.

But I'm done. You have a mental block on this issue that cannot be overcome.

Peace,
Neil

"You do realize that SU has many grads that actually work at ESPN. Have you ever spoken with any of them?
*All those market analyses they do regarding who is watching in which markets, totally useless according to you.
*National marketing surveys with TNS that they pay for, totally useless according to you."
WTH are you talking about? A school's presence in a markets doesn't matter. That doesn't mean that marketing doesn't matter. Your half-baked contention that RU is somehow magically a valuable TV commodity because of its location (against many years of evidence which is CLEARLY to the contrary) is 100% wrong. That's not to say that a customers' willingness to pay for access to a product and/or watch content and then purchase items advertised during that content doesn't add value. It does. It just has *nothing* to do with geography. That's my point, which is why Nielsen reports matter and other market research matter. The networks don't care where schools are located. For all they care, a school could be on the moon. But, if Moon U got good ratings and fans everywhere were clamoring for access, you better believe that the Networks would buy its content. That has *nothing* to do with geography.

"As for your reason above as to why the B1G took Rutgers and Maryland, that was a small part of it. However, you do realize that PSU could still have jumped to the ACC even with Rutgers and Maryland going to the B1g and gotten basically the same thing with the ACC, right?"
No. Had PSU jumped to the ACC, they would have lost OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Nebraska, Iowa, and a massive TV contract. That's a big loss. It *might* have been worth it to pick up southern exposure and put eastern rivals back on their schedule (Pitt, SU, and VT), but adding RU and UMD tilted the balance back to the B1G because the adds gave PSU games in front of wealthy alumni. PSU even admitted this.

"And why would the rest of the league vote them in for that reason alone? It's not as though Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, etc. are going to put PSU's interests ahead of their own, are they?"
The won't. It's in their interest to keep PSU in the league. Not only does PSU give the conference football credibility, the Nittany Lions make the conference a TON of money. Do you really think that those schools would be willing to throw that money away and give it to the ACC? You're also stupidly ignoring the fact that NJ is great for football, basketball, and academic recruiting, which is a HUGE issue for the B1G. Michigan (the state) isn't what it used to be, and neither is western PA. Beyond that, there is a limited amount of basketball talent in the Midwest, and schools like Madison have substantial ambitions.

"As for "concrete" evidence, I just did above and have on numerous occasions in the past provided said links. But you simply dismiss them but hang on to what Barry Alvarez said as if that was carved on a stone tablet by the good lord himself."
No. You have yet to even put together an economic model to explain your scattered and half-baked thoughts, let alone *any* real supporting evidence. You specifically said that BC was a market grab. That was your "hard evidence." The ACC's media deal got worse with the BC add. Nice evidence. Also, while we're at it, why would Barry lie about that. It made the B1G look weak and hurt Wisconsin's position. It was a statement against his own interest. That's a weird thing to lie about, no?

"But I'm done."
No. Your an uneducated buffoon who spews breath-takingly stupid dribble across the internet with an astonishingly undeserved sense or superiority. Unfortunately, I doubt that you're done.

"You have a mental block on this issue that cannot be overcome."
Yes, it's called rational thought.

(06-26-2015 01:07 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  WTH are you talking about? A school's presence in a markets doesn't matter. That doesn't mean that marketing doesn't matter. Your half-baked contention that RU is somehow magically a valuable TV commodity because of its location (against many years of evidence which is CLEARLY to the contrary) is 100% wrong. That's not to say that a customers' willingness to pay for access to a product and/or watch content and then purchase items advertised during that content doesn't add value. It does. It just has *nothing* to do with geography. That's my point, which is why Nielsen reports matter and other market research matter. The networks don't care where schools are located. For all they care, a school could be on the moon. But, if Moon U got good ratings and fans everywhere were clamoring for access, you better believe that the Networks would buy its content. That has *nothing* to do with geography.

Well, I thought I was done...

Geography itself has never been your point. Your stance repeatedly has been that markets play no role whatsoever in conference realignment. Obviously geography is meaningless in the case of a PSU which is out in the boonies but still has considerable influence on the entire state of Pennsylvania and all of its markets.

Something by the way that I pointed out in a previous discussion with you on this topic when I actually came to your defense in a debate you were having with another poster. It's why I said then and continue to say "brand" is more important than markets but markets do play a role.

However geography can matter (now in the current paradigm of conference tv networks moreso than ever before), particularly when the brand isn't powerful or when the choice is between two institutions where one has more brand (WVU) but not enough of a brand to overcome lesser brand but more markets (Missouri).

Obviously powerful brand is still way more important but to insist that markets have no meaning whatsoever in the landscape now as you repeatedly do is to ignore all of the evidence that shows that it does.

If Rutgers/Maryland weren't located near NYC in one case and Baltimore/DC in the other, their ratings would be even worse then they are now. Do you honestly believe that with all else being the same except for the fact that Rutgers were located in Rhode Island and the Terrapins were the state school of Delaware, the B1G would still have invited them? Their brands just don't cut it by themselves. But the B1G with their BTN can make $$$ off of them precisely because of their location.

What is so difficult to grasp about this concept?

Cheers,
Neil

(06-25-2015 04:44 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Also here is the Iowa DMA map link as you see it includes some chunks of Rochester MN, Omaha, Neb, etc.:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Iowa...ajaxhist=0



Iowa State also allows the ACC to poke the B10 in the eye a little - overlapping Iowa, as well as Minnesota, Illinois, Whisky, and Nebraska. Although I would not compare Iowa State to Maryland.

I still think the 16th team must be a ND approved playing partner otherwise expansion doesn't happen.

Why? ND doesn't play football in the ACC.

Why would ND care at all?

(06-25-2015 03:07 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Would the ACC ever invite Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?

No.

Remove "Oklahoma State" from that question and the answer is "Maybe, but why?"
Remove "Oklahoma State" and replace it with "Iowa State" and the answer is, "Hmm... that's an interesting thought."

---

More to the point, I don't think OSU would have the votes, and I don't get a sense that Oklahoma's power structure would let OU leave OSU behind.

So... no.

You guys from FSU can continue to schedule OU to your hearts desire. Be sure to win a few of 'em for us please. Thanky.

you guys would really give up Oklahoma because little brother Okie State was attached?

give me a break

This thinking leads to FSU looking elsewhere

(06-25-2015 04:50 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 04:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  "Why would the ACC add Oklahoma?" Seriously? You need to ask?

You (in the sense of FSU fans, not personally to you) guys are already complaining about the prospects of winning a National Championship playing in a perceived "weak" conference.

Oklahoma would come in here and clean up and you'd (in the sense of FSU fans) still be complaining about not playing for and winning national championships.

Plus, the ACC likely knows OU has leanings to the west. Look at their current football roster and you'll note the presence of 8 California kids compared to 5 FL kids and the lone GA kid.

They'd be more likely to re-align with its old Big 8 buddy, Colorado.

Leanings left for Oklahoma are fine, but you've got be invited first....

I just don't know what the PAC 12 gains, unless Texas schools are involved....

I just think that if the PAC 12 expands, Texas schools are the target, regardless if Oklahoma is part of that or not

(06-26-2015 09:49 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  you guys would really give up Oklahoma because little brother Okie State was attached?

Actually, we're not giving up anything. Oklahoma is not in play. That said -- and not to speak for the rest, but -- I have no use for Oklahoma State as an ACC member, so hypothetically -- "yes"

Quote:give me a break

You rang...

Quote:This thinking leads to FSU looking elsewhere

We're not hearing that level of sabre-rattling from the FSU rank-and-file, like we are from the rank-and-file FSU fans (yourself among them) on this forum.

--

Again, if FSU needs to schedule OU to boost its SOS, please do so -- noone is stopping FSU from doing that.

Be sure to win a few for us.

(06-26-2015 07:09 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 04:44 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Also here is the Iowa DMA map link as you see it includes some chunks of Rochester MN, Omaha, Neb, etc.:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Iowa...ajaxhist=0



Iowa State also allows the ACC to poke the B10 in the eye a little - overlapping Iowa, as well as Minnesota, Illinois, Whisky, and Nebraska. Although I would not compare Iowa State to Maryland.

I still think the 16th team must be a ND approved playing partner otherwise expansion doesn't happen.

Why? ND doesn't play football in the ACC.

Why would ND care at all?

Give it up Terry. You know what the future holds. You may get by with as few as 7 ACC games a year, but your direction is more not less.