Why is a BYU guy telling us ACC folks how to align the divisions?

(02-17-2016 01:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Just say no to Temple. They have to string together far more than one good year of football to even begin to get moved off the football deadweight list.

I agree for now...answer the following questions and I think Temple moves up. They sit in an outstanding geographic area and should always be a potential addition.

Temple needs to build that on-campus stadium first. Can they create a safe tailgate environment? Can they average a legit 25-30k with a competitive team? Can a select game once in awhile be moved to the Linc? Will their academic profile be close to the ACC average?

If you make your annual athletic budget off football as does Clemson, VT, FSU, GT, NC State, Miami, what incentive do you have to add schools that:

1. Aren't located where you recruit
2. Aren't located where there are lots of recruits
3. Will not increase attendance or ticket prices for a home game
4. Are not located in a desirable destination
5. Are located in a climate that is not really compatible with some sports such as baseball

Before you go with UConn, Cincy, or Temple, the ACC probably gets more out adding Tulane and Houston because those destination are good, they are located where many recruits are located, the climate is good, and even though they are really small sisters to LSU, or Texas and TAMU, the cultural fit is probably better.

All that said. I don't seem them adding more net money to the other 15 schools and all 5 programs are located within the media footprint of professional markets - the same issue that Maryland, BC, Pitt, Miami, and GT face.

(02-17-2016 02:05 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 01:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Just say no to Temple. They have to string together far more than one good year of football to even begin to get moved off the football deadweight list.

I agree for now...answer the following questions and I think Temple moves up. They sit in an outstanding geographic area and should always be a potential addition.

Temple needs to build that on-campus stadium first. Can they create a safe tailgate environment? Can they average a legit 35-45k with a competitive team? Can a select game once in awhile be moved to the Linc? Will their academic profile be close to the ACC average?

1. FIFY
2. Who else would move up with them?
3. Can/will that success be sustained?

(02-17-2016 02:05 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 01:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Just say no to Temple. They have to string together far more than one good year of football to even begin to get moved off the football deadweight list.

I agree for now...answer the following questions and I think Temple moves up. They sit in an outstanding geographic area and should always be a potential addition.

Temple needs to build that on-campus stadium first. Can they create a safe tailgate environment? Can they average a legit 25-30k with a competitive team? Can a select game once in awhile be moved to the Linc? Will their academic profile be close to the ACC average?

Having spent some time in Philly and NJ, off the campus of Bryn Mawr, Penn, and Villanova, I didn't find anything that great other than good fried chicken near the bridge at the PA/NJ line over the Deleware.

The worst environment I ever attended for a football game was in Philly at an Eagles game - it was worse than Morgantown and worse than College Park. I wanted my brass knucks and a four rolls of quarters in some socks.

What on earth does Temple bring to the table for the ACC?

Have you seen Temple's endowment? It's less than $400 million. Now overall endowment is not a measure of sports committment per se, but if you don't have at least three quarters of a billion in your endowment, you are under supported by your graduates.

At the end of the day for college presidents, endowment level is the last true measure of the univeristy's ***** and ego:

In the ACC and if you are not in the Triangle or Va, I could be off:

1. Duke 8 Billiion (even more tucked into the Hospital)
2. ND 8 Billion
3. UVa 6 Billion
4. Pitt 3.5 Billion
5. UNC 3 Billion
6. BC 2.2 Billion
7. GT 2 Billion
8. Syracuse 1.2 B
WF 1.2 B
10. NC State 1 B
11. Louisville .9 B
UM .9 B (both of these could be near or over the 1 mark)
13. VT .8 B
14. Clemson .7 B
15. FSU .65 B

Uva, UNC, Pitt, and BC are all over 200 years old, with UVa pushing 300. ND's direct tie the Catholic Church has been a boost. Duke is built on the Duke Tobacco Fortune the same way Vandy is built on the Commodore's fortune. GT, NC State, and VT are all 100-125 years old and built in part on techincial, engineering, innovations in the last 30-40 years. Louisville and FSU are relatively young schools - they may have an old origin like Duke did in Randolph County NC in the 1840's, but Duke became Duke when old Man Duke bought the college and moved it to Durham in the 1920's. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco did the same with WF in the 1950's.

It takes either a super sugar daddy, something like Union Carbide (UNC), a lot of time, and a lot of graduates to build an endowment.

I can't imagine the ACC allowing anyone into the league without at least an endowment that matched Clemson's and Clemson is a small public university as major flags go.

(02-17-2016 02:15 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  What on earth does Temple bring to the table for the ACC?

A geographic bridge on the east coast...that is basically it. I'm not saying they are a top choice but it is good to have options.

(02-17-2016 02:42 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 02:15 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  What on earth does Temple bring to the table for the ACC?

A geographic bridge on the east coast...that is basically it. I'm not saying they are a top choice but it is good to have options.

I toss this out for comparison - no judgement please:

School - Endowment:

Delaware (Philly suburbs) 1.6 B (Never had an AAU vote)
Tulane (New Orleans) 1.2 B (AAU)
Cincy 1.2 B (Had and AAU vote in 2010)
Houston .7 B (Never had an AAU vote)
UConn .45 B (Never had an AAU vote)
Temple .4 B (I don't know if they have had an AAU vote)

The "Big 5" in Philly work against them having a P-5 school. They are split three ways between the Ivy League, historically inner city, and Catholic Church.

I'm not suggesting that the Blue Hens should be scouted by the ACC, but their overall profile is more like an ACC school than Temple. Also, I think they are a cow college like State, VT, and Clemson.

There are VERY few options that make the ACC money.

Sometimes folks confuse expansion adds that are paired with TV renegotiiations as the reason for the increase.


The ACC adds anyone short of Texas, ND, or Penn State (none of which are happening) and you lose money.

(02-17-2016 02:08 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  If you make your annual athletic budget off football as does Clemson, VT, FSU, GT, NC State, Miami, what incentive do you have to add schools that:

1. Aren't located where you recruit - MANY ACC teams recruit New Jersey and Ohio
2. Aren't located where there are lots of recruits - see NJ and OH
3. Will not increase attendance or ticket prices for a home game - true
4. Are not located in a desirable destination - true; neither are Clemson or FSU
5. Are located in a climate that is not really compatible with some sports such as baseball - true

Before you go with UConn, Cincy, or Temple, the ACC probably gets more out adding Tulane and Houston because those destination are good, they are located where many recruits are located, the climate is good, and even though they are really small sisters to LSU, or Texas and TAMU, the cultural fit is probably better.

I could live with Tulane and Houston, but I think UC and Temple would be better.

(02-17-2016 02:42 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 02:15 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  What on earth does Temple bring to the table for the ACC?

A geographic bridge on the east coast to New Jersey...that is basically it. I'm not saying they are a top choice but it is good to have options.

FIFY.

(02-17-2016 03:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 02:08 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  If you make your annual athletic budget off football as does Clemson, VT, FSU, GT, NC State, Miami, what incentive do you have to add schools that:

1. Aren't located where you recruit - MANY ACC teams recruit New Jersey and Ohio
2. Aren't located where there are lots of recruits - see NJ and OH
3. Will not increase attendance or ticket prices for a home game - true
4. Are not located in a desirable destination - true; neither are Clemson or FSU
5. Are located in a climate that is not really compatible with some sports such as baseball - true

Before you go with UConn, Cincy, or Temple, the ACC probably gets more out adding Tulane and Houston because those destination are good, they are located where many recruits are located, the climate is good, and even though they are really small sisters to LSU, or Texas and TAMU, the cultural fit is probably better.

I could live with Tulane and Houston, but I think UC and Temple would be better.

(02-17-2016 02:42 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 02:15 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  What on earth does Temple bring to the table for the ACC?

A geographic bridge on the east coast to New Jersey...that is basically it. I'm not saying they are a top choice but it is good to have options.

FIFY.

I would make the trip to Houston and New Orleans every few years. I am never going back to Cincy or Philly if I can help it. The social collapse in Cincy and loss of the German neighborhoods bother a professional aspect of my personality, plus having grown up around black folks in the south east, the Cincy form of racism is vulgar to me. Philly is dirty and reminds me of New York from 30 years ago. A few haves, and a lot of have nots. I also don't like being looked at like I am out of place at black eating establishments until I open my mouth and the realize I am from the south - then I am okay.

St. Cloud Minnesota remains the scariest place on Earth

I went into a Burger King and EVERYONE had white blond hair and blue eyes. Scared the **** out of me. It was like a science fiction horror film. I couldn't wait to get back to Chicago and hit a soul food restaurant. I told the lady my tale of horror and she was able to sooth me with pork chops, black eyed peas, greens, cornbread and yes, SWEET TEA.

(02-17-2016 02:08 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  If you make your annual athletic budget off football as does Clemson, VT, FSU, GT, NC State, Miami, what incentive do you have to add schools that:

1. Aren't located where you recruit
2. Aren't located where there are lots of recruits
3. Will not increase attendance or ticket prices for a home game
4. Are not located in a desirable destination
5. Are located in a climate that is not really compatible with some sports such as baseball

Before you go with UConn, Cincy, or Temple, the ACC probably gets more out adding Tulane and Houston because those destination are good, they are located where many recruits are located, the climate is good, and even though they are really small sisters to LSU, or Texas and TAMU, the cultural fit is probably better.

All that said. I don't seem them adding more net money to the other 15 schools and all 5 programs are located within the media footprint of professional markets - the same issue that Maryland, BC, Pitt, Miami, and GT face.

Cincy meets the recruiting threshold. Loads of recruits in Ohio. They also have shown that they aren't just a one year wonder by having nine winning seasons out of the past ten. I wouldn't object to Cincy as they bring a lot to the table.

Tulane is a no-go. There simply isn't a commitment to football there. Houston would be on an island since there are no legitimate options between them and us.


As for adding Temple because they offer a geographic bridge......that's about as dumb of an idea as the TV market fallacy.

(02-17-2016 03:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 02:08 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  If you make your annual athletic budget off football as does Clemson, VT, FSU, GT, NC State, Miami, what incentive do you have to add schools that:

1. Aren't located where you recruit
2. Aren't located where there are lots of recruits
3. Will not increase attendance or ticket prices for a home game
4. Are not located in a desirable destination
5. Are located in a climate that is not really compatible with some sports such as baseball

Before you go with UConn, Cincy, or Temple, the ACC probably gets more out adding Tulane and Houston because those destination are good, they are located where many recruits are located, the climate is good, and even though they are really small sisters to LSU, or Texas and TAMU, the cultural fit is probably better.

All that said. I don't seem them adding more net money to the other 15 schools and all 5 programs are located within the media footprint of professional markets - the same issue that Maryland, BC, Pitt, Miami, and GT face.

Cincy meets the recruiting threshold. Loads of recruits in Ohio. They also have shown that they aren't just a one year wonder by having nine winning seasons out of the past ten. I wouldn't object to Cincy as they bring a lot to the table.

Tulane is a no-go. There simply isn't a commitment to football there. Houston would be on an island since there are no legitimate options between them and us.


As for adding Temple because they offer a geographic bridge......that's about as dumb of an idea as the TV market fallacy.

Kap, I agree that Tulane has no commitment to football as evidenced by three scale backs in the last 50 years, however not every school needs to be a winner. I like Tulane for the location alone and potential recruiting exposure in Miss and Louisiana.

How many kids are you going to get to Clemson from Ohio that are not already Big 10 kids? What exposure to you get in Cincy that you do not already get via nearby Louisville? I agree that Cincy is the program closest to being ready now (except for that shoebox stadium), but long term I like the Gulf Coast.

nzmorange, you're off your game today...

(02-17-2016 01:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  #1 Markets don't matter. I have yet to hear anybody put together a coherent argument to the contrary.

BTN? (Maryland and New Jersey)

Quote:#2 The volume of inventory doesn't really matter. The quality of the average piece of inventory matters because that impacts per school payouts, which is what drives the bus.

It isn't about volume, it's about the difference between having NOTHING to sell (now, since ESPN already owns it all) and having SOMETHING to sell (16 home games at 2 new teams).

Quote:#3 Who cares if the Big XII "gets in ACC territory?" What are they going to do? The same goes for "solidifying a border." What possible advantage does that give us?

Take recruits who otherwise would have signed with an ACC school (not sure how big that effect would be, though).

Quote:#4 through #7

AGREED.

(02-17-2016 03:20 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  nzmorange, you're off your game today...

(02-17-2016 01:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  #1 Markets don't matter. I have yet to hear anybody put together a coherent argument to the contrary.

BTN? (Maryland and New Jersey)

Quote:#2 The volume of inventory doesn't really matter. The quality of the average piece of inventory matters because that impacts per school payouts, which is what drives the bus.

It isn't about volume, it's about the difference between having NOTHING to sell (now, since ESPN already owns it all) and having SOMETHING to sell (16 home games at 2 new teams).

Quote:#3 Who cares if the Big XII "gets in ACC territory?" What are they going to do? The same goes for "solidifying a border." What possible advantage does that give us?

Take recruits who otherwise would have signed with an ACC school (not sure how big that effect would be, though).

Quote:#4 through #7

AGREED.

1. FOX, Ohio, and Michigan. I can list off a TV network and two random states too. What's your point?
2. It's also the difference between having 15 mouths and 17. Unless that extra content is above average, the other schools will have to subsidize the difference. Once again, it isn't about volume. It's about quality.
3. Who are we going to lose? Are/is Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech going to stop focusing on Texas recruiting, or are/is Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State suddenly going to raid eastern NJ/PA recruits? And like you said, how much of a difference will it realistically make? What worthwhile player from Philly is going to actually *want* to go to Kansas to play football?

(02-17-2016 03:25 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 03:20 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  nzmorange, you're off your game today...

(02-17-2016 01:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  #1 Markets don't matter. I have yet to hear anybody put together a coherent argument to the contrary.

BTN? (Maryland and New Jersey)

Quote:#2 The volume of inventory doesn't really matter. The quality of the average piece of inventory matters because that impacts per school payouts, which is what drives the bus.

It isn't about volume, it's about the difference between having NOTHING to sell (now, since ESPN already owns it all) and having SOMETHING to sell (16 home games at 2 new teams).

Quote:#3 Who cares if the Big XII "gets in ACC territory?" What are they going to do? The same goes for "solidifying a border." What possible advantage does that give us?

Take recruits who otherwise would have signed with an ACC school (not sure how big that effect would be, though).

Quote:#4 through #7

AGREED.

1. FOX, Ohio, and Michigan. I can list off a TV network and two random states too. What's your point?
2. It's also the difference between having 15 mouths and 17. Unless that extra content is above average, the other schools will have to subsidize the difference. Once again, it isn't about volume. It's about quality.
3. Who are we going to lose? Are/is Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech going to stop focusing on Texas recruiting, or are/is Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State suddenly going to raid eastern NJ/PA recruits? And like you said, how much of a difference will it realistically make? What worthwhile player from Philly is going to actually *want* to go to Kansas to play football?

1. The general understanding is that BTN got about $1 per cable customer in the entire states of Maryland and New Jersey. That more than pays for a team, I would think.
2. I'm referring to games; it seems like you are referring to teams?
3. I'm thinking if WVU had more games in the area, THEY would get more local players. Plus the team(s) added to the Big XII would probably get better recruits, too. NOBODY wants to spend 4 years in Kansas.

(02-17-2016 03:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 03:25 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 03:20 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  nzmorange, you're off your game today...

(02-17-2016 01:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  #1 Markets don't matter. I have yet to hear anybody put together a coherent argument to the contrary.

BTN? (Maryland and New Jersey)

Quote:#2 The volume of inventory doesn't really matter. The quality of the average piece of inventory matters because that impacts per school payouts, which is what drives the bus.

It isn't about volume, it's about the difference between having NOTHING to sell (now, since ESPN already owns it all) and having SOMETHING to sell (16 home games at 2 new teams).

Quote:#3 Who cares if the Big XII "gets in ACC territory?" What are they going to do? The same goes for "solidifying a border." What possible advantage does that give us?

Take recruits who otherwise would have signed with an ACC school (not sure how big that effect would be, though).

Quote:#4 through #7

AGREED.

1. FOX, Ohio, and Michigan. I can list off a TV network and two random states too. What's your point?
2. It's also the difference between having 15 mouths and 17. Unless that extra content is above average, the other schools will have to subsidize the difference. Once again, it isn't about volume. It's about quality.
3. Who are we going to lose? Are/is Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech going to stop focusing on Texas recruiting, or are/is Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State suddenly going to raid eastern NJ/PA recruits? And like you said, how much of a difference will it realistically make? What worthwhile player from Philly is going to actually *want* to go to Kansas to play football?

1. The general understanding is that BTN got about $1 per cable customer in the entire states of Maryland and New Jersey. That more than pays for a team, I would think.
2. I'm referring to games; it seems like you are referring to teams?
3. I'm thinking if WVU had more games in the area, THEY would get more local players. Plus the team(s) added to the Big XII would probably get better recruits, too. NOBODY wants to spend 4 years in Kansas.

1. Right. And the price that they got for subscribers in those states was largely because of schools in Ohio and Michigan. If common theory as to what the B1G got (and who knows what they actually got?) is correct, then it's a weighted average of interest (or call it whatever you want - ability to extract money from people) across the B1G footprint. Do you care to wager why people are paying what they're paying? Or more accurately, why they're willing to pay for the extra content?

I don't think that adding RU and UMD had anything to do with it. My guess is that the B1G would make more per team without them (assuming that everything else stayed the same).

2. Well, those games would necessitate adding extra teams, so they go hand-in-hand. Unless the added content (i.e. the extra games) is worth the cost (i.e. feeding two extra mouths), then does it not lose money?

3. Fair enough, but without looking at their roster now vs. when they played RU every year in the BIG EAST, I doubt that WVU is going to start pulling in a ton more NJ/east PA talent than they do now. Also, good point about Temple, but I still don't see them making enough of a splash to matter. How many more good recruits are they realistically going to get because those recruits would have the honor of having their face kicked in by OU, Texas, TCU, Baylor, or OSU once every year/other year? And perhaps more importantly, who is going to lose those recruits - us or the B1G (PSU, UMD, or RU)?

(02-17-2016 02:04 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Why is a BYU guy telling us ACC folks how to align the divisions?

Just my $.02.

FWIW, to the casual fan and outsiders, the Coastal and Atlantic divisions make about as much sense as the old Leaders and Legends divisions.

(02-17-2016 03:57 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. Right. And the price that they got for subscribers in those states was largely because of schools in Ohio and Michigan. If common theory as to what the B1G got (and who knows what they actually got?) is correct, then it's a weighted average of interest (or call it whatever you want - ability to extract money from people) across the B1G footprint. Do you care to wager why people are paying what they're paying? Or more accurately, why they're willing to pay for the extra content?

I don't think that adding RU and UMD had anything to do with it. My guess is that the B1G would make more per team without them (assuming that everything else stayed the same).

2. Well, those games would necessitate adding extra teams, so they go hand-in-hand. Unless the added content (i.e. the extra games) is worth the cost (i.e. feeding two extra mouths), then does it not lose money?

3. Fair enough, but without looking at their roster now vs. when they played RU every year in the BIG EAST, I doubt that WVU is going to start pulling in a ton more NJ/east PA talent than they do now. Also, good point about Temple, but I still don't see them making enough of a splash to matter. How many more good recruits are they realistically going to get because those recruits would have the honor of having their face kicked in by OU, Texas, TCU, Baylor, or OSU once every year/other year? And perhaps more importantly, who is going to lose those recruits - us or the B1G (PSU, UMD, or RU)?

1. The SECN would LOVE to get full carriage rates in the North Carolina and Virginia markets; of course Alabama and LSU influence the equation, but it won't happen until they add schools from North Carolina and Virginia.

The PACN would be thrilled to get full carriage rates in Texas and the Central time zone; of course USC and Oregon carry tremendous value in the analysis; but it's not happening without quality local schools.

The B1GN didn't get full carriage rates in New Jersey or Maryland until after Rutgers and UMaryland joined the conference - Ohio St. and Michigan and the rest of the B1G couldn't get full value without a local presence.

2. Temple and Cincinnati make like $2M per year from the AAC media deal; it wouldn't take much to find a win-win business model that benefits the new members as well as the rest of the ACC.

3. I admittedly don't follow Pennsylvania or Ohio recruiting closely. But, Cincy would see an uptick in recruiting if they do join the Big 12. I would even guess that it would help WVU recruiting to have a proximate conference member.

Fair point on whether that would even hurt ACC recruiting; Louisville? Pitt?.

I'm not guaranteeing that Cincinnati and Temple would be homeruns for the ACC - but could the ACC improve its position with a bigger market-share and better recruiting?