(06-05-2016 01:57 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:44 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 12:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  FSU and Clemson got screwed by the timing of realignment.

I think, with hindsight, they'd bolt. The Big XII would have been a good landing spot. But they had to decide while the Big XII was going through its extreme instability period.

The ACC was quite smart to make the GOR long term and strong. Other good moves. They boxed the Big XII in by taking Louisville. They offered ND a deal that prevented them from going to the B1G. They only lost Maryland to the B1G and lost no one to the SEC. Syracuse and Pitt were questionable adds (from a P5 football perspective) but better than Rutgers.

But at the end of the GOR/Day, the ACC is stuck with Wake, BC, Pitt, Virginia, NC State, Duke, and Syracuse. Some of them are okay for football, but that's a lot of historically poorly performing football schools (again from a P5 perspective). They had better watch their backs in 5 or so years. Because the Big XII if they survive could grab FSU and Clemson (or Miami). If I'm the Big XII, I'd be holding spots open for them.

The ACC should've targeted flagship public schools first, especially those that have no FBS competition. To that end, I would've taken Rutgers and West Virginia first but also Syracuse and Pitt to get to 16.

Penn State wanted Rutgers.

I would not say that. Penn State wanted company in the east. They "wanted" MD and UVa. Rutgers and UConn was all that was left as UNC, UVa, Duke, VT, and NC State were not interested. Penn State did not want to give oxygen to Syracuse or Pitt.

(06-05-2016 01:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Rutgers has value to the B10 only because of the way the B10 Network is structured. Rutgers was added for TV sets - nothing else. They would have added nothing to the ACC given the way the ACC's contract was structured, just another mouth to feed. And I think calling West Virginia a flagship public school is a bit of an exaggeration. West Va is a tiny state, and WVa's geographic location was also covered by UVa, VT, and MD at the time WVa received their B12 offer. The addition of Pitt with those three meant WVa would add next to nothing for the ACC.

Maryland was never going to allow West Virginia into the ACC and they had Virginia's and Duke's support on that point. It is also doubtful GT and WF would ever have voted for WVa, over MD's objections. WVa is to MD what UConn is to BC - an existential threat that is perceived as too close for comfort and MD's administration hated WVa's fans.

Sounds like you're saying that Rutgers wouldn't be beneficial to the ACC because geography not important to ACC's set up and WVU wouldn't be beneficial to the ACC because of geographic location. Which seems contradictory.

Since the B10 invited Penn State, each and every ACC addition has been a football addition based on adding the best school available at the time and gobbled up in bites that the conference could digest. You don't get to Miami without FSU. You don't get to ND without BC, Pitt, and Syracuse.

(06-05-2016 02:02 PM)Johnny Incognito Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Rutgers has value to the B10 only because of the way the B10 Network is structured. Rutgers was added for TV sets - nothing else. They would have added nothing to the ACC given the way the ACC's contract was structured, just another mouth to feed. And I think calling West Virginia a flagship public school is a bit of an exaggeration. West Va is a tiny state, and WVa's geographic location was also covered by UVa, VT, and MD at the time WVa received their B12 offer. The addition of Pitt with those three meant WVa would add next to nothing for the ACC.

Maryland was never going to allow West Virginia into the ACC and they had Virginia's and Duke's support on that point. It is also doubtful GT and WF would ever have voted for WVa, over MD's objections. WVa is to MD what UConn is to BC - an existential threat that is perceived as too close for comfort and MD's administration hated WVa's fans.

Sounds like you're saying that Rutgers wouldn't be beneficial to the ACC because geography not important to ACC's set up and WVU wouldn't be beneficial to the ACC because of geographic location. Which seems contradictory.

Rutgers does not add a substantial new geography that is not already hit by a combination of Syracuse, Duke, Notre Dame, and Pitt. New Jersey is essentially a suburb of Philadelphia and NYC as those media markets dominate the State. You don't have to have a physical presence if the boarder striding metropolitan area broadcasts into the state, as Charlotte does for Clemson into NC and UNC and NC State into SC. If the ACC received revenue based on cable tv boxes, things would be different regarding Rutgers. Also keep in mind that Rutgers sports are terrible and that FSU, Clemson, NC State, GT, and VT are not thrilled about playing them every year as NJ is not that great a recruiting hot bed.

UConn and Cincy have this same problem regarding the ACC.

All of this is best shown with the ESPN/ABC broadcast split maps. With rare exception what is on in Boston, is what is on in all of New England. What is on in NYC is on in the entire Tri-State area. What is on in Philly is on in NJ and PA.

What makes MD so lucrative for the B10 is that the geography of the area is such that MD is appealing in NOVA, the panhandle of WVa, Delmarva, DC, and MD to Wilmington, DE. While the ACC lost this property, Pitt, VT, and UVa remain acceptable broadcast choices in those areas.

For a conference how many teams do they need in a particular area for that conference to achieve the ratings necessary to make money for ESPN, the networks, and the school? At least one? Two is nice. At three do you reach diminishing returns?

It's this phenomena that makes NC State or WF more potentially valuable to the SEC, B10, or B12 than they can be for the ACC. Same way that Michigan State or Purdue would generate more value for the SEC, ACC, or B12 than they do for the B10. K-State and Oklahoma State are certainly of more value to the SEC, than they are to the B12.

Oddly enough, West Virginia is right where they should be generating the most value for the B12 as their value is much less in the ACC due to Pitt, VT, Louisville, and UVa, or in the B10 due to Ohio State, Penn State and MD. That's why if the B12 breaks up, they have the highest net value to the SEC, same as if look at an Iowa State, which has no value to the B10, but would have value to the SEC or ACC - not a huge value, but value over their worth in the B10.

(06-05-2016 02:11 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 02:02 PM)Johnny Incognito Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Rutgers has value to the B10 only because of the way the B10 Network is structured. Rutgers was added for TV sets - nothing else. They would have added nothing to the ACC given the way the ACC's contract was structured, just another mouth to feed. And I think calling West Virginia a flagship public school is a bit of an exaggeration. West Va is a tiny state, and WVa's geographic location was also covered by UVa, VT, and MD at the time WVa received their B12 offer. The addition of Pitt with those three meant WVa would add next to nothing for the ACC.

Maryland was never going to allow West Virginia into the ACC and they had Virginia's and Duke's support on that point. It is also doubtful GT and WF would ever have voted for WVa, over MD's objections. WVa is to MD what UConn is to BC - an existential threat that is perceived as too close for comfort and MD's administration hated WVa's fans.

Sounds like you're saying that Rutgers wouldn't be beneficial to the ACC because geography not important to ACC's set up and WVU wouldn't be beneficial to the ACC because of geographic location. Which seems contradictory.

Rutgers does not add a substantial new geography that is not already hit by a combination of Syracuse, Duke, Notre Dame, and Pitt. New Jersey is essentially a suburb of Philadelphia and NYC as those media markets dominate the State. You don't have to have a physical presence if the boarder striding metropolitan area broadcasts into the state, as Charlotte does for Clemson into NC and UNC and NC State into SC. If the ACC received revenue based on cable tv boxes, things would be different regarding Rutgers. Also keep in mind that Rutgers sports are terrible and that FSU, Clemson, NC State, GT, and VT are not thrilled about playing them every year as NJ is not that great a recruiting hot bed.

UConn and Cincy have this same problem regarding the ACC.

All of this is best shown with the ESPN/ABC broadcast split maps. With rare exception what is on in Boston, is what is on in all of New England. What is on in NYC is on in the entire Tri-State area. What is on in Philly is on in NJ and PA.

What makes MD so lucrative for the B10 is that the geography of the area is such that MD is appealing in NOVA, the panhandle of WVa, Delmarva, DC, and MD to Wilmington, DE. While the ACC lost this property, Pitt, VT, and UVa remain acceptable broadcast choices in those areas.

For a conference how many teams do they need in a particular area for that conference to achieve the ratings necessary to make money for ESPN, the networks, and the school? At least one? Two is nice. At three do you reach diminishing returns?

It's this phenomena that makes NC State or WF more potentially valuable to the SEC, B10, or B12 than they can be for the ACC. Same way that Michigan State or Purdue would generate more value for the SEC, ACC, or B12 than they do for the B10. K-State and Oklahoma State are certainly of more value to the SEC, than they are to the B12.

Oddly enough, West Virginia is right where they should be generating the most value for the B12 as their value is much less in the ACC due to Pitt, VT, Louisville, and UVa, or in the B10 due to Ohio State, Penn State and MD. That's why if the B12 breaks up, they have the highest net value to the SEC, same as if look at an Iowa State, which has no value to the B10, but would have value to the SEC or ACC - not a huge value, but value over their worth in the B10.

You are correct LP4. Which is why it was so painful to the Big 12 for the ACC to add Louisville. On the other hand Louisville was lucrative for the ACC as well since it opened a new demographic area for the conference.

(06-05-2016 01:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:44 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 12:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  FSU and Clemson got screwed by the timing of realignment.

I think, with hindsight, they'd bolt. The Big XII would have been a good landing spot. But they had to decide while the Big XII was going through its extreme instability period.

The ACC was quite smart to make the GOR long term and strong. Other good moves. They boxed the Big XII in by taking Louisville. They offered ND a deal that prevented them from going to the B1G. They only lost Maryland to the B1G and lost no one to the SEC. Syracuse and Pitt were questionable adds (from a P5 football perspective) but better than Rutgers.

But at the end of the GOR/Day, the ACC is stuck with Wake, BC, Pitt, Virginia, NC State, Duke, and Syracuse. Some of them are okay for football, but that's a lot of historically poorly performing football schools (again from a P5 perspective). They had better watch their backs in 5 or so years. Because the Big XII if they survive could grab FSU and Clemson (or Miami). If I'm the Big XII, I'd be holding spots open for them.

The ACC should've targeted flagship public schools first, especially those that have no FBS competition. To that end, I would've taken Rutgers and West Virginia first but also Syracuse and Pitt to get to 16.

Rutgers has value to the B10 only because of the way the B10 Network is structured. Rutgers was added for TV sets - nothing else. They would have added nothing to the ACC given the way the ACC's contract was structured, just another mouth to feed. And I think calling West Virginia a flagship public school is a bit of an exaggeration. West Va is a tiny state, and WVa's geographic location was also covered by UVa, VT, and MD at the time WVa received their B12 offer. The addition of Pitt with those three meant WVa would add next to nothing for the ACC.

Maryland was never going to allow West Virginia into the ACC and they had Virginia's and Duke's support on that point. It is also doubtful GT and WF would ever have voted for WVa, over MD's objections. WVa is to MD what UConn is to BC - an existential threat that is perceived as too close for comfort and MD's administration hated WVa's fans.

Wait so Cuse and Pitt are worth more to the ACC than Rutgers who sits actually in the countries #1 media market? Really? Then why is the ACC the lowest paid P5 conference and locked out of the NYC TV market?

(06-05-2016 03:36 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:44 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 12:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  FSU and Clemson got screwed by the timing of realignment.

I think, with hindsight, they'd bolt. The Big XII would have been a good landing spot. But they had to decide while the Big XII was going through its extreme instability period.

The ACC was quite smart to make the GOR long term and strong. Other good moves. They boxed the Big XII in by taking Louisville. They offered ND a deal that prevented them from going to the B1G. They only lost Maryland to the B1G and lost no one to the SEC. Syracuse and Pitt were questionable adds (from a P5 football perspective) but better than Rutgers.

But at the end of the GOR/Day, the ACC is stuck with Wake, BC, Pitt, Virginia, NC State, Duke, and Syracuse. Some of them are okay for football, but that's a lot of historically poorly performing football schools (again from a P5 perspective). They had better watch their backs in 5 or so years. Because the Big XII if they survive could grab FSU and Clemson (or Miami). If I'm the Big XII, I'd be holding spots open for them.

The ACC should've targeted flagship public schools first, especially those that have no FBS competition. To that end, I would've taken Rutgers and West Virginia first but also Syracuse and Pitt to get to 16.

Rutgers has value to the B10 only because of the way the B10 Network is structured. Rutgers was added for TV sets - nothing else. They would have added nothing to the ACC given the way the ACC's contract was structured, just another mouth to feed. And I think calling West Virginia a flagship public school is a bit of an exaggeration. West Va is a tiny state, and WVa's geographic location was also covered by UVa, VT, and MD at the time WVa received their B12 offer. The addition of Pitt with those three meant WVa would add next to nothing for the ACC.

Maryland was never going to allow West Virginia into the ACC and they had Virginia's and Duke's support on that point. It is also doubtful GT and WF would ever have voted for WVa, over MD's objections. WVa is to MD what UConn is to BC - an existential threat that is perceived as too close for comfort and MD's administration hated WVa's fans.

Wait so Cuse and Pitt are worth more to the ACC than Rutgers who sits actually in the countries #1 media market? Really? Then why is the ACC the lowest paid P5 conference and locked out of the NYC TV market?

B1G and ACC used different methodologies in determining which schools would be the most valuable additions to their respective conferences.

(06-05-2016 02:11 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 02:02 PM)Johnny Incognito Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Rutgers has value to the B10 only because of the way the B10 Network is structured. Rutgers was added for TV sets - nothing else. They would have added nothing to the ACC given the way the ACC's contract was structured, just another mouth to feed. And I think calling West Virginia a flagship public school is a bit of an exaggeration. West Va is a tiny state, and WVa's geographic location was also covered by UVa, VT, and MD at the time WVa received their B12 offer. The addition of Pitt with those three meant WVa would add next to nothing for the ACC.

Maryland was never going to allow West Virginia into the ACC and they had Virginia's and Duke's support on that point. It is also doubtful GT and WF would ever have voted for WVa, over MD's objections. WVa is to MD what UConn is to BC - an existential threat that is perceived as too close for comfort and MD's administration hated WVa's fans.

Sounds like you're saying that Rutgers wouldn't be beneficial to the ACC because geography not important to ACC's set up and WVU wouldn't be beneficial to the ACC because of geographic location. Which seems contradictory.

Rutgers does not add a substantial new geography that is not already hit by a combination of Syracuse, Duke, Notre Dame, and Pitt. New Jersey is essentially a suburb of Philadelphia and NYC as those media markets dominate the State. You don't have to have a physical presence if the boarder striding metropolitan area broadcasts into the state, as Charlotte does for Clemson into NC and UNC and NC State into SC. If the ACC received revenue based on cable tv boxes, things would be different regarding Rutgers. Also keep in mind that Rutgers sports are terrible and that FSU, Clemson, NC State, GT, and VT are not thrilled about playing them every year as NJ is not that great a recruiting hot bed.

UConn and Cincy have this same problem regarding the ACC.

All of this is best shown with the ESPN/ABC broadcast split maps. With rare exception what is on in Boston, is what is on in all of New England. What is on in NYC is on in the entire Tri-State area. What is on in Philly is on in NJ and PA.

What makes MD so lucrative for the B10 is that the geography of the area is such that MD is appealing in NOVA, the panhandle of WVa, Delmarva, DC, and MD to Wilmington, DE. While the ACC lost this property, Pitt, VT, and UVa remain acceptable broadcast choices in those areas.

For a conference how many teams do they need in a particular area for that conference to achieve the ratings necessary to make money for ESPN, the networks, and the school? At least one? Two is nice. At three do you reach diminishing returns?

It's this phenomena that makes NC State or WF more potentially valuable to the SEC, B10, or B12 than they can be for the ACC. Same way that Michigan State or Purdue would generate more value for the SEC, ACC, or B12 than they do for the B10. K-State and Oklahoma State are certainly of more value to the SEC, than they are to the B12.

Oddly enough, West Virginia is right where they should be generating the most value for the B12 as their value is much less in the ACC due to Pitt, VT, Louisville, and UVa, or in the B10 due to Ohio State, Penn State and MD. That's why if the B12 breaks up, they have the highest net value to the SEC, same as if look at an Iowa State, which has no value to the B10, but would have value to the SEC or ACC - not a huge value, but value over their worth in the B10.

What the heck are you talking about? Syracuse is 6 hours away from NYC by car and is not even close to carrying the market. ND has some band wagon fans but doesn't command the market, same with Duke and Pitt is pretty far from Philly and has little pull in that market as well. You are completely pulling these ideas from your rear end.

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index....lphia.html

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...1SNuBQrKRs

(06-05-2016 03:43 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 02:11 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 02:02 PM)Johnny Incognito Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Rutgers has value to the B10 only because of the way the B10 Network is structured. Rutgers was added for TV sets - nothing else. They would have added nothing to the ACC given the way the ACC's contract was structured, just another mouth to feed. And I think calling West Virginia a flagship public school is a bit of an exaggeration. West Va is a tiny state, and WVa's geographic location was also covered by UVa, VT, and MD at the time WVa received their B12 offer. The addition of Pitt with those three meant WVa would add next to nothing for the ACC.

Maryland was never going to allow West Virginia into the ACC and they had Virginia's and Duke's support on that point. It is also doubtful GT and WF would ever have voted for WVa, over MD's objections. WVa is to MD what UConn is to BC - an existential threat that is perceived as too close for comfort and MD's administration hated WVa's fans.

Sounds like you're saying that Rutgers wouldn't be beneficial to the ACC because geography not important to ACC's set up and WVU wouldn't be beneficial to the ACC because of geographic location. Which seems contradictory.

Rutgers does not add a substantial new geography that is not already hit by a combination of Syracuse, Duke, Notre Dame, and Pitt. New Jersey is essentially a suburb of Philadelphia and NYC as those media markets dominate the State. You don't have to have a physical presence if the boarder striding metropolitan area broadcasts into the state, as Charlotte does for Clemson into NC and UNC and NC State into SC. If the ACC received revenue based on cable tv boxes, things would be different regarding Rutgers. Also keep in mind that Rutgers sports are terrible and that FSU, Clemson, NC State, GT, and VT are not thrilled about playing them every year as NJ is not that great a recruiting hot bed.

UConn and Cincy have this same problem regarding the ACC.

All of this is best shown with the ESPN/ABC broadcast split maps. With rare exception what is on in Boston, is what is on in all of New England. What is on in NYC is on in the entire Tri-State area. What is on in Philly is on in NJ and PA.

What makes MD so lucrative for the B10 is that the geography of the area is such that MD is appealing in NOVA, the panhandle of WVa, Delmarva, DC, and MD to Wilmington, DE. While the ACC lost this property, Pitt, VT, and UVa remain acceptable broadcast choices in those areas.

For a conference how many teams do they need in a particular area for that conference to achieve the ratings necessary to make money for ESPN, the networks, and the school? At least one? Two is nice. At three do you reach diminishing returns?

It's this phenomena that makes NC State or WF more potentially valuable to the SEC, B10, or B12 than they can be for the ACC. Same way that Michigan State or Purdue would generate more value for the SEC, ACC, or B12 than they do for the B10. K-State and Oklahoma State are certainly of more value to the SEC, than they are to the B12.

Oddly enough, West Virginia is right where they should be generating the most value for the B12 as their value is much less in the ACC due to Pitt, VT, Louisville, and UVa, or in the B10 due to Ohio State, Penn State and MD. That's why if the B12 breaks up, they have the highest net value to the SEC, same as if look at an Iowa State, which has no value to the B10, but would have value to the SEC or ACC - not a huge value, but value over their worth in the B10.

What the heck are you talking about? Syracuse is 6 hours away from NYC by car and is not even close to carrying the market. ND has some band wagon fans but doesn't command the market, same with Duke and Pitt is pretty far from Philly and has little pull in that market as well. You are completely pulling these ideas from your rear end.

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index....lphia.html

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...1SNuBQrKRs

(06-05-2016 02:01 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:57 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:44 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 12:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  FSU and Clemson got screwed by the timing of realignment.

I think, with hindsight, they'd bolt. The Big XII would have been a good landing spot. But they had to decide while the Big XII was going through its extreme instability period.

The ACC was quite smart to make the GOR long term and strong. Other good moves. They boxed the Big XII in by taking Louisville. They offered ND a deal that prevented them from going to the B1G. They only lost Maryland to the B1G and lost no one to the SEC. Syracuse and Pitt were questionable adds (from a P5 football perspective) but better than Rutgers.

But at the end of the GOR/Day, the ACC is stuck with Wake, BC, Pitt, Virginia, NC State, Duke, and Syracuse. Some of them are okay for football, but that's a lot of historically poorly performing football schools (again from a P5 perspective). They had better watch their backs in 5 or so years. Because the Big XII if they survive could grab FSU and Clemson (or Miami). If I'm the Big XII, I'd be holding spots open for them.

The ACC should've targeted flagship public schools first, especially those that have no FBS competition. To that end, I would've taken Rutgers and West Virginia first but also Syracuse and Pitt to get to 16.

Penn State wanted Rutgers.

I would not say that. Penn State wanted company in the east. They "wanted" MD and UVa. Rutgers and UConn was all that was left as UNC, UVa, Duke, VT, and NC State were not interested. Penn State did not want to give oxygen to Syracuse or Pitt.

You really are a huge ACC homer who doesn't deal with reality well.

(06-05-2016 03:41 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 03:36 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:44 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 12:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  FSU and Clemson got screwed by the timing of realignment.

I think, with hindsight, they'd bolt. The Big XII would have been a good landing spot. But they had to decide while the Big XII was going through its extreme instability period.

The ACC was quite smart to make the GOR long term and strong. Other good moves. They boxed the Big XII in by taking Louisville. They offered ND a deal that prevented them from going to the B1G. They only lost Maryland to the B1G and lost no one to the SEC. Syracuse and Pitt were questionable adds (from a P5 football perspective) but better than Rutgers.

But at the end of the GOR/Day, the ACC is stuck with Wake, BC, Pitt, Virginia, NC State, Duke, and Syracuse. Some of them are okay for football, but that's a lot of historically poorly performing football schools (again from a P5 perspective). They had better watch their backs in 5 or so years. Because the Big XII if they survive could grab FSU and Clemson (or Miami). If I'm the Big XII, I'd be holding spots open for them.

The ACC should've targeted flagship public schools first, especially those that have no FBS competition. To that end, I would've taken Rutgers and West Virginia first but also Syracuse and Pitt to get to 16.

Rutgers has value to the B10 only because of the way the B10 Network is structured. Rutgers was added for TV sets - nothing else. They would have added nothing to the ACC given the way the ACC's contract was structured, just another mouth to feed. And I think calling West Virginia a flagship public school is a bit of an exaggeration. West Va is a tiny state, and WVa's geographic location was also covered by UVa, VT, and MD at the time WVa received their B12 offer. The addition of Pitt with those three meant WVa would add next to nothing for the ACC.

Maryland was never going to allow West Virginia into the ACC and they had Virginia's and Duke's support on that point. It is also doubtful GT and WF would ever have voted for WVa, over MD's objections. WVa is to MD what UConn is to BC - an existential threat that is perceived as too close for comfort and MD's administration hated WVa's fans.

Wait so Cuse and Pitt are worth more to the ACC than Rutgers who sits actually in the countries #1 media market? Really? Then why is the ACC the lowest paid P5 conference and locked out of the NYC TV market?

B1G and ACC used different methodologies in determining which schools would be the most valuable additions to their respective conferences.

Thats why the B1G is about to become the highest paid conference and the ACC is the lowest paid P5 conference.

(06-05-2016 03:47 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 03:41 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 03:36 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:44 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  The ACC should've targeted flagship public schools first, especially those that have no FBS competition. To that end, I would've taken Rutgers and West Virginia first but also Syracuse and Pitt to get to 16.

Rutgers has value to the B10 only because of the way the B10 Network is structured. Rutgers was added for TV sets - nothing else. They would have added nothing to the ACC given the way the ACC's contract was structured, just another mouth to feed. And I think calling West Virginia a flagship public school is a bit of an exaggeration. West Va is a tiny state, and WVa's geographic location was also covered by UVa, VT, and MD at the time WVa received their B12 offer. The addition of Pitt with those three meant WVa would add next to nothing for the ACC.

Maryland was never going to allow West Virginia into the ACC and they had Virginia's and Duke's support on that point. It is also doubtful GT and WF would ever have voted for WVa, over MD's objections. WVa is to MD what UConn is to BC - an existential threat that is perceived as too close for comfort and MD's administration hated WVa's fans.

Wait so Cuse and Pitt are worth more to the ACC than Rutgers who sits actually in the countries #1 media market? Really? Then why is the ACC the lowest paid P5 conference and locked out of the NYC TV market?

B1G and ACC used different methodologies in determining which schools would be the most valuable additions to their respective conferences.

Thats why the B1G is about to become the highest paid conference and the ACC is the lowest paid P5 conference.

In 2003 the ACC voted to add Miami and VT. In 2004 they voted to add BC. In 2011 they voted to add Syracuse and Pitt. In 2012 they voted to add ND.

At what point was Rutgers EVER contacted by the ACC? Six expansion teams, no invite to Rutgers. No official visit to campus. Not even an unofficial visit by WF, the conferences skullduggery folks.

Adding Rutgers adds nothing for an ACC with schools that will easily be on television in NYC - Syracuse, BC, ND, Pitt, FSU in football and Duke, Syracuse, Louisville, and UNC in basketball. If adding you added something, you would have been contacted in 2011.

The reason the B10 makes so much money is that the alumni and fans of Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Indiana, Purdue, and Michigan State heavily saturate the northeast and they have over twice as many alums as the ACC, and have had more alums for the past 100 years. The Big 10 gets more money not because of anything that happened this year, last year, or the decade before - the Big 10 gets more money due to socioeconomic factors that developed in hand with industrialization, and World Wars I and II. The reason they can support a 100K seat football stadium is because of the number of alumni and students in addition to the "quality" of their football.

(06-05-2016 03:58 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The reason the B10 makes so much money is that the alumni and fans of Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Indiana, Purdue, and Michigan State heavily saturate the northeast and they have over twice as many alums as the ACC, and have had more alums for the past 100 years. The Big 10 gets more money not because of anything that happened this year, last year, or the decade before - the Big 10 gets more money due to socioeconomic factors that developed in hand with industrialization, and World Wars I and II. The reason they can support a 100K seat football stadium is because of the number of alumni and students in addition to the "quality" of their football.

You think the ACC makes more money in basketball than the B1G regardless of NCAA Tournament and TV $. ?

(06-05-2016 03:58 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The reason the B10 makes so much money is that the alumni and fans of Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Indiana, Purdue, and Michigan State heavily saturate the northeast and they have over twice as many alums as the ACC, and have had more alums for the past 100 years. The Big 10 gets more money not because of anything that happened this year, last year, or the decade before - the Big 10 gets more money due to socioeconomic factors that developed in hand with industrialization, and World Wars I and II. The reason they can support a 100K seat football stadium is because of the number of alumni and students in addition to the "quality" of their football.

Those same socio-economic factors (investment, business climate, migration, educated and skilled work force) that favored the Northeast and the Midwest 100 years ago should now favor the South. I imagine in 50 years the large public schools in the South (primarily the Southeast) will be on par with the Big Ten schools in terms of enrollment, endowment and academic status.

(06-05-2016 04:15 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 03:58 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The reason the B10 makes so much money is that the alumni and fans of Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Indiana, Purdue, and Michigan State heavily saturate the northeast and they have over twice as many alums as the ACC, and have had more alums for the past 100 years. The Big 10 gets more money not because of anything that happened this year, last year, or the decade before - the Big 10 gets more money due to socioeconomic factors that developed in hand with industrialization, and World Wars I and II. The reason they can support a 100K seat football stadium is because of the number of alumni and students in addition to the "quality" of their football.

You think the ACC makes more money in basketball than the B1G regardless of NCAA Tournament and TV $. ?

You mean because of venue size? Syracuse, UNC, Louisville, NC State, UVa, and WF all have outsized basketball arenas, but there are historic factors at play that go back to the end of WWII and the construction of Reynolds Coliseum at 12K seats in 1946, segregation, etc. On the other end of the spectrum is GT, VT, Clemson, BC and they hemorrhage money in basketball. Then there is Duke which is a special situation based on the wealth of the alumni.

(06-05-2016 04:32 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 03:58 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The reason the B10 makes so much money is that the alumni and fans of Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Indiana, Purdue, and Michigan State heavily saturate the northeast and they have over twice as many alums as the ACC, and have had more alums for the past 100 years. The Big 10 gets more money not because of anything that happened this year, last year, or the decade before - the Big 10 gets more money due to socioeconomic factors that developed in hand with industrialization, and World Wars I and II. The reason they can support a 100K seat football stadium is because of the number of alumni and students in addition to the "quality" of their football.

Those same socio-economic factors (investment, business climate, migration, educated and skilled work force) that favored the Northeast and the Midwest 100 years ago should now favor the South. I imagine in 50 years the large public schools in the South (primarily the Southeast) will be on par with the Big Ten schools in terms of enrollment, endowment and academic status.

You got it, but par might take 75 years given the way the UVa, UNC, and SC have all done their best to hamstring their little brother. It might be same with Purdue and MSU, but I have never heard that.

(06-05-2016 04:32 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 04:15 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 03:58 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The reason the B10 makes so much money is that the alumni and fans of Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Indiana, Purdue, and Michigan State heavily saturate the northeast and they have over twice as many alums as the ACC, and have had more alums for the past 100 years. The Big 10 gets more money not because of anything that happened this year, last year, or the decade before - the Big 10 gets more money due to socioeconomic factors that developed in hand with industrialization, and World Wars I and II. The reason they can support a 100K seat football stadium is because of the number of alumni and students in addition to the "quality" of their football.

You think the ACC makes more money in basketball than the B1G regardless of NCAA Tournament and TV $. ?

You mean because of venue size? Syracuse, UNC, Louisville, NC State, UVa, and WF all have outsized basketball arenas, but there are historic factors at play that go back to the end of WWII and the construction of Reynolds Coliseum at 12K seats in 1946, segregation, etc. On the other end of the spectrum is GT, VT, Clemson, BC and they hemorrhage money in basketball. Then there is Duke which is a special situation based on the wealth of the alumni.

What is seating capacity of all ACC basketball arenas? What about B1G?

(06-05-2016 04:32 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 03:58 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The reason the B10 makes so much money is that the alumni and fans of Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Indiana, Purdue, and Michigan State heavily saturate the northeast and they have over twice as many alums as the ACC, and have had more alums for the past 100 years. The Big 10 gets more money not because of anything that happened this year, last year, or the decade before - the Big 10 gets more money due to socioeconomic factors that developed in hand with industrialization, and World Wars I and II. The reason they can support a 100K seat football stadium is because of the number of alumni and students in addition to the "quality" of their football.

Those same socio-economic factors (investment, business climate, migration, educated and skilled work force) that favored the Northeast and the Midwest 100 years ago should now favor the South. I imagine in 50 years the large public schools in the South (primarily the Southeast) will be on par with the Big Ten schools in terms of enrollment, endowment and academic status.

Most of the ACC schools already superior to B1G schools in academic status. But as far as enrollment, it just will never happen.
Just after WWII, Carolina had fewer than 6,000 students. When I graduated in 1971 just under 11,000. Now there are about 18,000 UG students. None of us will ever live to see the day when there are as many living Carolina alumni as there are alumni from Wisconsin, Michigan or Ohio State.
Carolina, UVa, Clemson, Georgia Tech which are small public Universities that operate like privates will never have the alumni base of any B1G school (except Northwestern).

(06-05-2016 03:43 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 02:11 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 02:02 PM)Johnny Incognito Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 01:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Rutgers has value to the B10 only because of the way the B10 Network is structured. Rutgers was added for TV sets - nothing else. They would have added nothing to the ACC given the way the ACC's contract was structured, just another mouth to feed. And I think calling West Virginia a flagship public school is a bit of an exaggeration. West Va is a tiny state, and WVa's geographic location was also covered by UVa, VT, and MD at the time WVa received their B12 offer. The addition of Pitt with those three meant WVa would add next to nothing for the ACC.

Maryland was never going to allow West Virginia into the ACC and they had Virginia's and Duke's support on that point. It is also doubtful GT and WF would ever have voted for WVa, over MD's objections. WVa is to MD what UConn is to BC - an existential threat that is perceived as too close for comfort and MD's administration hated WVa's fans.

Sounds like you're saying that Rutgers wouldn't be beneficial to the ACC because geography not important to ACC's set up and WVU wouldn't be beneficial to the ACC because of geographic location. Which seems contradictory.

Rutgers does not add a substantial new geography that is not already hit by a combination of Syracuse, Duke, Notre Dame, and Pitt. New Jersey is essentially a suburb of Philadelphia and NYC as those media markets dominate the State. You don't have to have a physical presence if the boarder striding metropolitan area broadcasts into the state, as Charlotte does for Clemson into NC and UNC and NC State into SC. If the ACC received revenue based on cable tv boxes, things would be different regarding Rutgers. Also keep in mind that Rutgers sports are terrible and that FSU, Clemson, NC State, GT, and VT are not thrilled about playing them every year as NJ is not that great a recruiting hot bed.

UConn and Cincy have this same problem regarding the ACC.

All of this is best shown with the ESPN/ABC broadcast split maps. With rare exception what is on in Boston, is what is on in all of New England. What is on in NYC is on in the entire Tri-State area. What is on in Philly is on in NJ and PA.

What makes MD so lucrative for the B10 is that the geography of the area is such that MD is appealing in NOVA, the panhandle of WVa, Delmarva, DC, and MD to Wilmington, DE. While the ACC lost this property, Pitt, VT, and UVa remain acceptable broadcast choices in those areas.

For a conference how many teams do they need in a particular area for that conference to achieve the ratings necessary to make money for ESPN, the networks, and the school? At least one? Two is nice. At three do you reach diminishing returns?

It's this phenomena that makes NC State or WF more potentially valuable to the SEC, B10, or B12 than they can be for the ACC. Same way that Michigan State or Purdue would generate more value for the SEC, ACC, or B12 than they do for the B10. K-State and Oklahoma State are certainly of more value to the SEC, than they are to the B12.

Oddly enough, West Virginia is right where they should be generating the most value for the B12 as their value is much less in the ACC due to Pitt, VT, Louisville, and UVa, or in the B10 due to Ohio State, Penn State and MD. That's why if the B12 breaks up, they have the highest net value to the SEC, same as if look at an Iowa State, which has no value to the B10, but would have value to the SEC or ACC - not a huge value, but value over their worth in the B10.

What the heck are you talking about? Syracuse is 6 hours away from NYC by car and is not even close to carrying the market. ND has some band wagon fans but doesn't command the market, same with Duke and Pitt is pretty far from Philly and has little pull in that market as well. You are completely pulling these ideas from your rear end.

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index....lphia.html

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...1SNuBQrKRs

Syracuse is at most 3.5 hours away from NYC, depending on traffic. No one school carries NYC, but SU does have quite a few fans there and alumni.