(08-25-2019 03:47 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 02:40 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The "destruction" of the Big East was not triggered by the ACC, it was triggered by the Big 10 taking Penn State. At the moment that Penn State is no longer out there to join the quioxit Eastern league, the Big East became just a resting point as formerly independent schools migrated to a more natural home.

Big East schools have won half of the last half-dozen National Championships and will finish the decade with a minimum of four overall. Just sayin....

Nobody doubts the Big East in hoops ans roughly half of that hoops league lives on together with roughly half annexed onto the ACC.

In the sport that pays the majority of a school’s contribution to a power conference revenue split they haven’t won since 2001 or played in one since 2002. Basically since current recruits were being born.

Miami is always strangely underrated on this board.

I know that they aren’t at their peak right now, but when they are playing well, they are among the best TV draws of any school in the country. At the same time, they are located directly in the best football recruiting region in the country in terms of quantity of top level prospects.

The critique on this thread of the ACC adding Miami seems to be based on the ACC adding them at their highest point, yet those same critiques would be engaging in the opposite problem of selling them at a low point. That makes no sense.

I know that if I was running the Big Ten, I’d take Miami in a heartbeat. That’s an *extremely* valuable property. Too many people are being way too shortsighted here.

Good grief, might as well get on this trading teams as well: Georgia State for Southern Miss.

Let’s put it this way: even if Miami is terrible on the field, it still provides a school directly in arguably the best pound-for-pound recruiting area in the country, a huge TV market that is among the fastest growing in the country, and excellent academics.

Then, when Miami actually does play well on the field, they’re one of the top drawing teams for TV ratings out of anyone in the country.

Plus, for conference governance, this isn’t a school that pushes its weight around against the rest of the conference like Texas in the Big 12 or even Duke/UNC in the ACC. Frankly, what I just described (elite recruiting area, large TV market, excellent academics, great national TV ratings and low maintenance regarding conference governance) is basically the *perfect* school in terms of conference realignment value. You could plug Miami into an P5 conference besides the Pac-12 (only because of geography) and those conferences would be unbelievably happy.

I have zero ties to the Canes, so I have no dog in this fight, but any conference that would give up Miami for anything less than an Alabama/Ohio State-level program in return is absolutely insane.

(08-25-2019 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The corporations behind the networks would likely love to see the death of conferences altogether but killing the Big 10 and SEC will prove difficult.

The twist there is that from the networks' point of view, the Big Ten and SEC are the conferences they'd most want to break up. The financial inefficiency is paying *everyone* $40 or 50 million a year instead of just paying the most valuable programs. Let's say it becomes $50 million per school per year at some point -- that's $700 million/year paid out to one of those conferences.

If the networks could just pay the six most valuable in each league an average of $75 million each, for a total of $450 million/year, and pay the rest at a rate of, say, $10 million/year, the TV guys would save more than $300 million each year on rights fees compared to what they'd otherwise pay to the SEC and Big Ten combined. They'd save at least the same amount if they could find a way to create a single mega conference out of the most valuable halves of each of the Big Ten and SEC. Surely they have consultants figuring out how to make something like this happen if the opportunity ever arises.

(08-25-2019 03:51 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Nobody doubts the Big East in hoops ans roughly half of that hoops league lives on together with roughly half annexed onto the ACC.

Six of the original eight. Six of nine if you want to count Pitt as original, which I actually think it makes sense to do.

(08-25-2019 03:51 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  In the sport that pays the majority of a school’s contribution to a power conference revenue split they haven’t won since 2001 or played in one since 2002. Basically since current recruits were being born.

Big East was never meant to be a football-first conference (and initially didn't even sponsor the sport). It was an accommodation for certain valuable members, and the eventual split occured when the accommodation outlived its usefulness.

Took a long and twisting path to get there, but the net total is that the Big East lost three members and added five. The ACC lost two members and added eight. Big Eight lost three and added five.

(08-25-2019 04:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Let’s put it this way: even if Miami is terrible on the field, it still provides a school directly in arguably the best pound-for-pound recruiting area in the country, a huge TV market that is among the fastest growing in the country, and excellent academics.

Then, when Miami actually does play well on the field, they’re one of the top drawing teams for TV ratings out of anyone in the country.

Plus, for conference governance, this isn’t a school that pushes its weight around against the rest of the conference like Texas in the Big 12 or even Duke/UNC in the ACC. Frankly, what I just described (elite recruiting area, large TV market, excellent academics, great national TV ratings and low maintenance regarding conference governance) is basically the *perfect* school in terms of conference realignment value. You could plug Miami into an P5 conference besides the Pac-12 (only because of geography) and those conferences would be unbelievably happy.

I have zero ties to the Canes, so I have no dog in this fight, but any conference that would give up Miami for anything less than an Alabama/Ohio State-level program in return is absolutely insane.

Check the numbers Frank.

Miami averaged 61,464 in one of their best starts in years in 2018. That puts them in third place in the next to last last place conference in attendance.

Their gross total revenue for 2018 was 94,723,980 which was 43rd nationally and 7th in the ACC.

Their WSJ valuations were just under 200,000,000 which was 41st nationally.

Do they add value to the ACC? Yes

But we aren't in a market driven pay model anymore. We're entering for T1 & T2 more of a content model where national draw does mean more. Miami's national draw is still there but they aren't riding the wave of the 80's anymore and those days are a distant memory and that is for many reasons including demographic change in South Florida. Also the growth of UCF and USF have probably impacted them a bit more than they have UF and FSU.

Maybe the Big 10 would have interest in them, but I doubt they truly would add enough value anymore to a Big 10 at 54 million and approaching 60 million in per school payouts to justify the move. With the SEC already having a presence in Florida they don't add enough to us.

For them to have a dramatic impact on overall ACC valuation they are going to have to have consistency in being able to make a run, a feat heretofore that has alluded them.

Florida State would be the better addition for the Big 10 if % of market is what you were after, and they have 30% more value according to the WSJ and their average attendance is consistently higher. When Miami doesn't make a run their attendance suffers precipitously.

So while Miami is not a sell for the ACC my original points stands, they have declined since joining for whatever the reason.

(08-25-2019 04:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The corporations behind the networks would likely love to see the death of conferences altogether but killing the Big 10 and SEC will prove difficult.

The twist there is that from the networks' point of view, the Big Ten and SEC are the conferences they'd most want to break up. The financial inefficiency is paying *everyone* $40 or 50 million a year instead of just paying the most valuable programs. Let's say it becomes $50 million per school per year at some point -- that's $700 million/year paid out to one of those conferences.

If the networks could just pay the six most valuable in each league an average of $75 million each, for a total of $450 million/year, and pay the rest at a rate of, say, $10 million/year, the TV guys would save more than $300 million each year on rights fees compared to what they'd otherwise pay to the SEC and Big Ten combined. They'd save at least the same amount if they could find a way to create a single mega conference out of the most valuable halves of each of the Big Ten and SEC. Surely they have consultants figuring out how to make something like this happen if the opportunity ever arises.

That's a nice thought but it doesn't alter the fact that neither of those two conferences are likely to be persuaded to abandon their history and identity. They may however be open to forming the core of stronger groupings. And Wedge, they earn more because their core content is a lot stronger than that of the PAC or the ACC. In this regard the Big 12 (70% of whose brand value is wrapped up in 2 schools) is the tweener. The value being lost is more in the number of schools in the other 3 conferences that are earning 30 million plus for their associations than in the bottom 1/3 of the Big 10 and bottom 1/4 of the SEC.

Here's what I'd like to see traded:

Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State from Big 12 to Big Ten/16
Louisville and Wake Forest from ACC to SEC
Maryland, Penn State, and Rutgers from Big Ten to ACC
Missouri from SEC to Big Ten/16
Notre Dame from FBS Ind+ACC to Big Ten/16
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas Tech from Big 12 to Pac-12/16
TCU from Big 12 to SEC
West Virginia from Big 12 to ACC

Most of these moves would never happen, for obvious reasons, but this thread clearly isn't about being realistic.

(08-25-2019 03:04 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 12:54 PM)esayem Wrote:  Miami was coming off a title and a title game appearance.

Virginia Tech should have already been in the ACC.

BC peaked with Matt Ryan while in the ACC.

Syracuse and Louisville go to show the ACC is tougher than the Big East.

Next question.

B.C. peaked with Flutie and Phelan. Virginia Tech disappeared after joining the ACC. And I'd say that Syracuse and Louisville merely suffered from Carolina officiating.

And the fact that Miami was coming off of a title game stands out only to highlight my point.

Carolina fans? The poster children for collective delusion!

You’re wrong. BC made it to #2 while in the ACC and won three division titles. If they peaked in ‘85, I don’t think they would have achieved anything like that since.

Virginia Tech has also won division titles. They lost a title game, they may have peaked. I never said they didn’t, just that they are a natural fit so it made complete sense to invite them.

Why would any conference not want Miami? Sorry, the SEC failed to get them in 1990.

All your point proves is the ACC is a tougher league than people give it credit for.

Why would any conference not want Miami?? Take a good look at the SEC and compare how many private colleges/universities there are vs how many public schools there are and then do the same for the ACC. I'm sure Florida's president at the time remembered Miami football being on its deathbed, only to come back to life under Howard Schnellenburger. Howard had a lot of personal problems that wouldn't go over very well with SEC presidents. But without Howard, Miami really wouldn't be worth taking. That's probably why UF looked more at FSU than Miami. Alabama no doubt remembered GT's "ND of the South" flop and probably put Miami in the same category.

Also around this same time, the SEC was getting "Texas fever," and wanted the Texas public schools desperately. This is what killed Miami to the SEC.

(08-25-2019 04:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 04:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The corporations behind the networks would likely love to see the death of conferences altogether but killing the Big 10 and SEC will prove difficult.

The twist there is that from the networks' point of view, the Big Ten and SEC are the conferences they'd most want to break up. The financial inefficiency is paying *everyone* $40 or 50 million a year instead of just paying the most valuable programs. Let's say it becomes $50 million per school per year at some point -- that's $700 million/year paid out to one of those conferences.

If the networks could just pay the six most valuable in each league an average of $75 million each, for a total of $450 million/year, and pay the rest at a rate of, say, $10 million/year, the TV guys would save more than $300 million each year on rights fees compared to what they'd otherwise pay to the SEC and Big Ten combined. They'd save at least the same amount if they could find a way to create a single mega conference out of the most valuable halves of each of the Big Ten and SEC. Surely they have consultants figuring out how to make something like this happen if the opportunity ever arises.

That's a nice thought but it doesn't alter the fact that neither of those two conferences are likely to be persuaded to abandon their history and identity. They may however be open to forming the core of stronger groupings. And Wedge, they earn more because their core content is a lot stronger than that of the PAC or the ACC. In this regard the Big 12 (70% of whose brand value is wrapped up in 2 schools) is the tweener. The value being lost is more in the number of schools in the other 3 conferences that are earning 30 million plus for their associations than in the bottom 1/3 of the Big 10 and bottom 1/4 of the SEC.

The core content is stronger -- which means there's more value to be gained, from the broadcasters' perspective, if they can find a way to pay only for the core, instead of paying everyone top dollar just to get access to the core.

Another way to do that, even without breaking up conferences, is to put a price on each game. Maybe the king programs would still agree to divide the TV money from each game 50-50, but the broadcasters would pay the most for games where both teams are big draws (e.g., Ohio State vs. Michigan), a lesser but still significant amount for games where one team is a big draw (e.g., Ohio State vs. Minnesota), and leave all the rest to be bundled at a far lower price point on conference networks or ESPN+ or another streaming service.

(08-25-2019 04:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Let’s put it this way: even if Miami is terrible on the field, it still provides a school directly in arguably the best pound-for-pound recruiting area in the country, a huge TV market that is among the fastest growing in the country, and excellent academics.

Then, when Miami actually does play well on the field, they’re one of the top drawing teams for TV ratings out of anyone in the country.

Plus, for conference governance, this isn’t a school that pushes its weight around against the rest of the conference like Texas in the Big 12 or even Duke/UNC in the ACC. Frankly, what I just described (elite recruiting area, large TV market, excellent academics, great national TV ratings and low maintenance regarding conference governance) is basically the *perfect* school in terms of conference realignment value. You could plug Miami into an P5 conference besides the Pac-12 (only because of geography) and those conferences would be unbelievably happy.

I have zero ties to the Canes, so I have no dog in this fight, but any conference that would give up Miami for anything less than an Alabama/Ohio State-level program in return is absolutely insane.

Based on recent TV ratings, when the Canes have been good but not great in football: Miami provides well above average TV value for an ACC football team, so it was unquestionably a good move for the ACC to add them. In the Big Ten, their TV value would be roughly equivalent to Michigan State; in the SEC they'd be at about the same value level as Tennessee.

What we now have is a mess.
As we move into playoff football there are changes that need to me made so that the entire country can stay involved.

If we have to get bigger in order to divide again, so be it. I'm not sold that just 4 conferences can keep everyone involved. Two leagues for college may be too NFLish to promote regionalism. If we can divide in half north/south and then divide those halves into thirds to get back to 6 major conferences with 10-12 schools each would seem to be the most workable. Eight team playoff with conference champions and two wild cards (one north one south) , should keep all of the fans tuned in until we have to start playing two hand tag.

(08-25-2019 12:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  It was bad enough for ACC fans to be embarrassed by Miami's turnover chain last year, but now we are further red-faced at having to endure "touchdown rings".
Enough is enough, it's time to trade Miami for Kentucky.

Miami fans attacked Florida band, slamming Gator Band Director’s head into concrete and sending him to hospital.
https://www.collegemarching.com/content/...um=ios_app

(08-25-2019 05:29 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 12:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  It was bad enough for ACC fans to be embarrassed by Miami's turnover chain last year, but now we are further red-faced at having to endure "touchdown rings".
Enough is enough, it's time to trade Miami for Kentucky.

Miami fans attacked Florida band, slamming Gator Band Director’s head into concrete and sending him to hospital.
https://www.collegemarching.com/content/...um=ios_app

Sounds like your average scumbag Miami fans who didn’t actually go to Miami.

(08-25-2019 05:29 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 12:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  It was bad enough for ACC fans to be embarrassed by Miami's turnover chain last year, but now we are further red-faced at having to endure "touchdown rings".
Enough is enough, it's time to trade Miami for Kentucky.

Miami fans attacked Florida band, slamming Gator Band Director’s head into concrete and sending him to hospital.
https://www.collegemarching.com/content/...um=ios_app

link didn't work

(08-25-2019 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 12:41 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  The odd thing is that the ACC resisted Miami for so long and finally took them when the Canes were still a relevant and consistent competitor. They haven’t looked the same since, and who knows if they ever will be again. This era would never tolerate the Miami teams and antics of the past (it was partially why the ACC wanted nothing to do with them; a NCAA investigation or punishment just waiting to happen), but what is the trajectory of the current program?

Was it worth it?

The ACC took Boston College in the wake of its relevance.
The ACC took Virginia Tech at the peak of its relevance.
The ACC took Miami in the wake of its relevance.
The ACC took Louisville at the peak of its relevance.
The ACC took Syracuse near the peak of its hoops relevance.

Might the problem not be with the school, rather with the conference? I mean look there is a common denominator for each of these situations.

Poor Pitt forgotten again.

(08-25-2019 04:51 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Why would any conference not want Miami?? Take a good look at the SEC and compare how many private colleges/universities there are vs how many public schools there are and then do the same for the ACC. I'm sure Florida's president at the time remembered Miami football being on its deathbed, only to come back to life under Howard Schnellenburger. Howard had a lot of personal problems that wouldn't go over very well with SEC presidents. But without Howard, Miami really wouldn't be worth taking. That's probably why UF looked more at FSU than Miami. Alabama no doubt remembered GT's "ND of the South" flop and probably put Miami in the same category.

Also around this same time, the SEC was getting "Texas fever," and wanted the Texas public schools desperately. This is what killed Miami to the SEC.

No, Miami killed “Miami to the SEC” when they decided to join the Big East. Does anyone seriously believe the SEC preferred South Carolina to Miami in 1990?

SEC expansion was not seen as an overwhelming success at the time missing out on Texas, TAMU, FSU, and Miami. Many SEC fans downplay it, but being snubbed by the FLA schools hurt their pride.

(08-25-2019 06:16 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 04:51 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Why would any conference not want Miami?? Take a good look at the SEC and compare how many private colleges/universities there are vs how many public schools there are and then do the same for the ACC. I'm sure Florida's president at the time remembered Miami football being on its deathbed, only to come back to life under Howard Schnellenburger. Howard had a lot of personal problems that wouldn't go over very well with SEC presidents. But without Howard, Miami really wouldn't be worth taking. That's probably why UF looked more at FSU than Miami. Alabama no doubt remembered GT's "ND of the South" flop and probably put Miami in the same category.

Also around this same time, the SEC was getting "Texas fever," and wanted the Texas public schools desperately. This is what killed Miami to the SEC.

No, Miami killed “Miami to the SEC” when they decided to join the Big East. Does anyone seriously believe the SEC preferred South Carolina to Miami in 1990?

SEC expansion was not seen as an overwhelming success at the time missing out on Texas, TAMU, FSU, and Miami. Many SEC fans downplay it, but being snubbed by the FLA schools hurt their pride.

Just no. I truly had family in on the 1990 realignment. Miami was only in a defensive list should the Big 10 make a move South. They were never in the original 4 or 6 that the SEC was willing to offer.

The six were officially at that time Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State, Clemson who declined and South Carolina took their place, and an unnamed friend of Texas (Oklahoma) who was strictly contingent upon what Texas did. Texas backed out and with them OU. F.S.U. opted for the ACC. Clemson who was only ever tepid did as well. That left Broyles wanting in because he knew Texas would be left out of the rumors they were beginning to hear about joining the Big 8. South Carolina applied and were taken as #12. Texas A&M didn't have the ability to disengage from Texas at the time.

That's the long and short of it. Miami said they were offered, they were not. They were contacted. So were other schools prior to the offers going out. West Virginia applied, Virginia Tech inquired but did not apply to my knowledge. The ones in the works who we were willing to offer are those named.

A few years ago Boren claimed he was issued an invitation he was not. The SEC spoke with him to see if OU wanted to accompany A&M. Boren wanted OSU included. There was no offer. These schools and presidents make public statements all the time for their own PR. Nothing new there as it has and will still go on.

I think I’ll believe all the articles citing primary sources that had Miami as one of the original six targets. Never have I read Clemson was. I just read a bunch of them and many in SEC country did not see expansion as a success.