(04-07-2021 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding ND football is the only move that could improve the ACC’s value—only realistic move, that is.

It’s in ND’s best interest to improve the value of the ACC because if the ACC’s value doesn’t improve, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Big Ten or SEC, ushering a Big 2 and Even Bigger 2 Era, ND will only have one good option—Big Ten membership.

The lesson of the three legged stool may be in order. If you want centered balance three equal legs supporting the whole, which may be best for the game, but not necessarily what's best for the SEC or Big 10 you can do this:

Virginia and N.C. State to the Big 10, Duke and North Carolina to the SEC. The SEC picks up key basketball properties, but not really any added value. The Big 10 picks up 20 million in markets a top school and a next 5 in the AAU program which is a land grant school.

Then you create an 18 member Big 12:
Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, in the West

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia in the East.

Notre Dame keeps their partial if they desire to and attaches to the Big 12.
They essentially keep the same schools they wanted to play in the ACC and they add their 5 game value to the Big 12. Now you have 3 conferences close enough in media revenue to be worthwhile. What happens with the PAC is irrelevant. They are so far away as to make minor sports travel too expensive for membership there.

The Big 12 plays 8 divisional games and rotates 2 from the other division. They have a CCG where the two champions have more than likely not met during the regular season. They keep most of their football travel schedule close to home and neither the SEC or Big 10 gains an advantage over them or each other. You see by removing the Tobacco Road influence the others could stress what means most to them and UNC / Duke / Virginia / & N.C. State get the pay day and are in strong enough conferences to continue to focus on what they like most.

(04-07-2021 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding ND football is the only move that could improve the ACC’s value—only realistic move, that is.

It’s in ND’s best interest to improve the value of the ACC because if the ACC’s value doesn’t improve, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Big Ten or SEC, ushering a Big 2 and Even Bigger 2 Era, ND will only have one good option—Big Ten membership.

The lesson of the three legged stool may be in order. If you want centered balance three equal legs supporting the whole, which may be best for the game, but not necessarily what's best for the SEC or Big 10 you can do this:

Virginia and N.C. State to the Big 10, Duke and North Carolina to the SEC. The SEC picks up key basketball properties, but not really any added value. The Big 10 picks up 20 million in markets a top school and a next 5 in the AAU program which is a land grant school.

Then you create an 18 member Big 12:
Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, in the West

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia in the East.

Notre Dame keeps their partial if they desire to and attaches to the Big 12.
They essentially keep the same schools they wanted to play in the ACC and they add their 5 game value to the Big 12. Now you have 3 conferences close enough in media revenue to be worthwhile. What happens with the PAC is irrelevant. They are so far away as to make minor sports travel too expensive for membership there.

The Big 12 plays 8 divisional games and rotates 2 from the other division. They have a CCG where the two champions have more than likely not met during the regular season. They keep most of their football travel schedule close to home and neither the SEC or Big 10 gains an advantage over them or each other. You see by removing the Tobacco Road influence the others could stress what means most to them and UNC / Duke / Virginia / & N.C. State get the pay day and are in strong enough conferences to continue to focus on what they like most.

This could work, and I like the rivalries preserved (e.g. Virginia Tech gets to keep playing Pitt, Miami, and Georgia Tech, while adding WVU and more games with the other ACC (Atlantic division) teams. UVa would be an OOC rivalry game, and I wouldn't miss Duke (would miss UNC a little; never get to play NC State).

Combined with the Big XII teams you end up with a scrappy little conference. Not AS good at basketball (maybe), but IDK - those Big XII teams are pretty good at hoops!

(04-05-2021 02:26 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-05-2021 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2021 09:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-04-2021 09:33 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The economic pressure that ACC schools are already feeling will lead them to reconsider their priorities. Get enough of them to do that and you can open the door to a new arrangement.

Duke is the only one in the conference that flat out doesn't try at football. Jury is out on BC ... their former AD was just what the doctor ordered but he's now at UCLA. We'll see on the new guy.

(04-04-2021 09:33 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  To me, here is how ESPN benefits from breaking up the ACC:

We've always talked about how some leagues are more competitive than others. Given that reality, culling too many members from the Power ranks will result in some schools being destabilized because they won't be as successful in a new paradigm.

Agree with that.

(04-04-2021 09:33 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If you're going to expand a conference then you need account for that. These leagues need cannon fodder and middle tier schools to balance out the numbers. Well, the ACC is loaded with those schools. There are a select few that could be nationally competitive with the right resources, but most of the league is lucky to win 10 games once a decade.

ESPN might have to pay a little more to a league like the SEC or the Big 12, they might have to increase what they're giving schools currently in the ACC; but with that money they will purchase greater stability on the whole.

I don't think the difference between (Ole Miss, Miss State, Vandy, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas) and (Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse) is that dramatic. Of those 12 teams I'd actually say Wake Forest is the one who tries the hardest. Missouri stands as my great vindicator of that hypothesis since they came into the SEC East as a middling meh in the Big 12 and then proceeded to own the SEC East for quite a while.

You're kind of missing the point. Those schools you listed as SEC bottom feeders exist in every conference. It's just the mathematics of winning and losing. The difference is that Miss State, Ole Miss, and usually Arkansas come close to filling their stadia. Missouri and Kentucky more than half fill there's, and the visiting strong teams (note the plural) fill Vandy's.

And instead of Clemson and one random other on a good year there is Georgia, Auburn, L.S.U., A&M, Florida trying to give Alabama a run on most years. And even down as they have been Tennessee averages better attendance in most years than any ACC school and South Carolina when mediocre comes close to staying full. While larger venues help, the issue is the ACC schools don't even fill their smallest venues.

There's the difference. Attendance is going down everywhere for many reasons, but when you can fill a 35 or 40 thousand seat venue you have bigger problems.

Attendance is already a thing of the past at Duke football and it's why Cameron Indoor is so small. UVa is about 10K overbuilt for the their cultural trend. Once a University turns the corner into becoming a "girls school" football attendance suffers. You start to run up against that when the student body gets to be about 55%. Once you get to 60 that's it. That's why UNC had to cut Kenan down from 63 to 50K.

NC State and Clemson are the only ACC schools that can still expand and fill the seats. Everyone else is past peak. However the cost of the expansions versus the revenue gained might be questionable.

So FSU can't expand or fill the seats??

(04-07-2021 03:44 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  Don't count on Notre Dame to save the conference. They sat by and watched the Big East sink while telling university presidents they were committed to rebuilding the conference. The ACC didn't (at least publicly) use the leverage they had over ND by granting them shelter last season. FWIW I don't think ND would of capitulated and an ultimatum may have driven them from the conference all together.

Accepting the reality that ND will not join as a FB member the ACC only has a couple options available.
1. Expand to 16 and have all members commit to strongly investing in their football programs. As a conference market the hell out of the regions in your footprint. It take a while to realize the results but fortunately the ACC tv contract runs through 2035.
2. Restructure the same way the SWC did when forming the Big 12. Focus on football first schools and southern schools. However the membership winds up the conference must keep FSU, Clemson, NC State & Virginia Tech and must drop WF, Duke & BC. I don't think there's any saving those programs or that they even want to be saved.

You can't drop full members, especially charter members!! What could be done is this: encourage Wake Forest to expand their stadium and stay competitive, tell Duke and BC, if they want to drop football, that's fine, but you had better bring your "A" game for olympic sports!!

(04-07-2021 06:21 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 03:44 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  Don't count on Notre Dame to save the conference. They sat by and watched the Big East sink while telling university presidents they were committed to rebuilding the conference. The ACC didn't (at least publicly) use the leverage they had over ND by granting them shelter last season. FWIW I don't think ND would of capitulated and an ultimatum may have driven them from the conference all together.

Accepting the reality that ND will not join as a FB member the ACC only has a couple options available.
1. Expand to 16 and have all members commit to strongly investing in their football programs. As a conference market the hell out of the regions in your footprint. It take a while to realize the results but fortunately the ACC tv contract runs through 2035.
2. Restructure the same way the SWC did when forming the Big 12. Focus on football first schools and southern schools. However the membership winds up the conference must keep FSU, Clemson, NC State & Virginia Tech and must drop WF, Duke & BC. I don't think there's any saving those programs or that they even want to be saved.

You can't drop full members, especially charter members!! What could be done is this: encourage Wake Forest to expand their stadium and stay competitive, tell Duke and BC, if they want to drop football, that's fine, but you had better bring your "A" game for olympic sports!!

I thought Wake Forest and Boston College where left out not Duke, Boston College and Wake Forest.
Wake Forest, by the way, only has around 5,000 UG students and very few of them continue to reside in Winston-Salem or the surrounding area after graduation. Their 30,000 seat stadium is sized perfectly for their student body size and is a great venue to watch a football game.

I assume that Carolina and Duke's division ( of 8) would also include Kentucky, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Auburn?

(04-07-2021 06:21 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 03:44 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  Don't count on Notre Dame to save the conference. They sat by and watched the Big East sink while telling university presidents they were committed to rebuilding the conference. The ACC didn't (at least publicly) use the leverage they had over ND by granting them shelter last season. FWIW I don't think ND would of capitulated and an ultimatum may have driven them from the conference all together.

Accepting the reality that ND will not join as a FB member the ACC only has a couple options available.
1. Expand to 16 and have all members commit to strongly investing in their football programs. As a conference market the hell out of the regions in your footprint. It take a while to realize the results but fortunately the ACC tv contract runs through 2035.
2. Restructure the same way the SWC did when forming the Big 12. Focus on football first schools and southern schools. However the membership winds up the conference must keep FSU, Clemson, NC State & Virginia Tech and must drop WF, Duke & BC. I don't think there's any saving those programs or that they even want to be saved.

You can't drop full members, especially charter members!! What could be done is this: encourage Wake Forest to expand their stadium and stay competitive, tell Duke and BC, if they want to drop football, that's fine, but you had better bring your "A" game for olympic sports!!

You're not kicking them out. You're leaving to form a new conference without them. SWC --> Big 12. Sorry TCU, SMU, Houston & Rice.

The ACC is in a real bind. They have to much dead weight and a partial member who will never join. The gap is growing so large that eventually discord will take root.

(04-07-2021 03:44 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  Don't count on Notre Dame to save the conference. They sat by and watched the Big East sink while telling university presidents they were committed to rebuilding the conference. The ACC didn't (at least publicly) use the leverage they had over ND by granting them shelter last season. FWIW I don't think ND would of capitulated and an ultimatum may have driven them from the conference all together.

I have seen this idea of ND "saving" conferences for twenty years and regarding two separate conferences (Big East and ACC).

Then, there is hostility generated towards ND for not being that "savior".

In both cases, ND fully disclosed from the beginning that football would never be included.

Those conferences signed contracts with ND anyway. ND has lived up to those terms.

If a 16 and a 14 member conference cannot survive on its own merits/accord, why would it be ND's duty to "save" those conferences by doing something that ND believes is fundamentally against its best interests and to its detriment?

It is a curious notion to me.

(04-08-2021 12:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 03:44 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  Don't count on Notre Dame to save the conference. They sat by and watched the Big East sink while telling university presidents they were committed to rebuilding the conference. The ACC didn't (at least publicly) use the leverage they had over ND by granting them shelter last season. FWIW I don't think ND would of capitulated and an ultimatum may have driven them from the conference all together.

I have seen this idea of ND "saving" conferences for twenty years and regarding two separate conferences (Big East and ACC).

Then, there is hostility generated towards ND for not being that "savior".

In both cases, ND fully disclosed from the beginning that football would never be included.

Those conferences signed contracts with ND anyway. ND has lived up to those terms.

If a 16 and a 14 member conference cannot survive on its own merits/accord, why would it be ND's duty to "save" those conferences by doing something that ND believes is fundamentally against its best interests and to its detriment?

It is a curious notion to me.

Not when you think about it as a broader representation of a very well known individual act. They crucified him too for not saving their groups, but rather reaching out individually. Notre Dame is just a school, an individual school, and isn't about preserving anything but Notre Dame. Shame on you for not fulfilling everyone's dreams. But then that seems to be a way of thinking that is in a greater global epidemic than COVID 19.

(04-07-2021 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding ND football is the only move that could improve the ACC’s value—only realistic move, that is.

It’s in ND’s best interest to improve the value of the ACC because if the ACC’s value doesn’t improve, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Big Ten or SEC, ushering a Big 2 and Even Bigger 2 Era, ND will only have one good option—Big Ten membership.

The Big Ten, It's where the Irish really belong if Notre Dame needs to join a conference.
Notre Dame is not a cultural fit for the core of the ACC. They have proven to be well behaved guests for the last several years and haven't done anything to embarrass the conference.
But alumni interaction is rare.
I will say, however, that I did have a Notre Dame alumni in my Saturday foursome for about 20 years.

(04-08-2021 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding ND football is the only move that could improve the ACC’s value—only realistic move, that is.

It’s in ND’s best interest to improve the value of the ACC because if the ACC’s value doesn’t improve, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Big Ten or SEC, ushering a Big 2 and Even Bigger 2 Era, ND will only have one good option—Big Ten membership.

The Big Ten, It's where the Irish really belong if Notre Dame needs to join a conference.
Notre Dame is not a cultural fit for the core of the ACC. They have proven to be well behaved guests for the last several years and haven't done anything to embarrass the conference.
But alumni interaction is rare.
I will say, however, that I did have a Notre Dame alumni in my Saturday foursome for about 20 years.

While not geographically aligned, I think ND likes the institutional mix:

They’ve traditionally like having a Northeastern presence (Pitt, Cuse, BC)

UVA, UNC, and GT are all highly regarded public schools

You’ve got some more fellow privates in Duke, WF, and Miami

And while not necessarily a match culturally, it helps to play some traditionally strong football schools like Florida St, Clemson, and VT.

It’s the right mix of variety for the Irish and gives them travel dates up and down the Eastern seaboard.

(04-08-2021 06:27 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding ND football is the only move that could improve the ACC’s value—only realistic move, that is.

It’s in ND’s best interest to improve the value of the ACC because if the ACC’s value doesn’t improve, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Big Ten or SEC, ushering a Big 2 and Even Bigger 2 Era, ND will only have one good option—Big Ten membership.

The Big Ten, It's where the Irish really belong if Notre Dame needs to join a conference.
Notre Dame is not a cultural fit for the core of the ACC. They have proven to be well behaved guests for the last several years and haven't done anything to embarrass the conference.
But alumni interaction is rare.
I will say, however, that I did have a Notre Dame alumni in my Saturday foursome for about 20 years.

While not geographically aligned, I think ND likes the institutional mix:

They’ve traditionally like having a Northeastern presence (Pitt, Cuse, BC)

UVA, UNC, and GT are all highly regarded public schools

You’ve got some more fellow privates in Duke, WF, and Miami

And while not necessarily a match culturally, it helps to play some traditionally strong football schools like Florida St, Clemson, and VT.

It’s the right mix of variety for the Irish and gives them travel dates up and down the Eastern seaboard.

I'm not really concerned about what is "right" for Notre Dame. I'm more concerned with what is right for Carolina and the ACC.

(04-08-2021 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding ND football is the only move that could improve the ACC’s value—only realistic move, that is.

It’s in ND’s best interest to improve the value of the ACC because if the ACC’s value doesn’t improve, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Big Ten or SEC, ushering a Big 2 and Even Bigger 2 Era, ND will only have one good option—Big Ten membership.

The Big Ten, It's where the Irish really belong if Notre Dame needs to join a conference.
Notre Dame is not a cultural fit for the core of the ACC. They have proven to be well behaved guests for the last several years and haven't done anything to embarrass the conference.
But alumni interaction is rare.
I will say, however, that I did have a Notre Dame alumni in my Saturday foursome for about 20 years.

Geography doesn't apply to ND.

Travel costs do not apply to ND.

"Regional rivals" does not apply to ND. When is the next ND/Michigan game, exactly ?? (It is set for 2033).

(Because its model is the exact opposite of those things)

Saying that the Irish "really belong" in the Big Ten is to ignore history and reality.

(The Big Ten would likely shove them into the Western Division to try to "Nebraska" them)

P.S. I will say that it is nice that the ACC hasn't done anything to really embarrass ND since 2013. I hope that continues.

P.P.S. If ND ever joined the ACC in football, it would team up with the football schools and use its clout and status to change the "core" of the ACC forever.

That is why XLance has changed his tune sung for years and now doesn't want ND football to join.

(He used to post that it was inevitable and that a "secret deal" was already cut. We even had a bet on whether ND football would join).

Last year showed him what ND could do and the impact it would have on the conference. That changed the leopard's spots.

(04-08-2021 07:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 06:27 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding ND football is the only move that could improve the ACC’s value—only realistic move, that is.

It’s in ND’s best interest to improve the value of the ACC because if the ACC’s value doesn’t improve, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Big Ten or SEC, ushering a Big 2 and Even Bigger 2 Era, ND will only have one good option—Big Ten membership.

The Big Ten, It's where the Irish really belong if Notre Dame needs to join a conference.
Notre Dame is not a cultural fit for the core of the ACC. They have proven to be well behaved guests for the last several years and haven't done anything to embarrass the conference.
But alumni interaction is rare.
I will say, however, that I did have a Notre Dame alumni in my Saturday foursome for about 20 years.

While not geographically aligned, I think ND likes the institutional mix:

They’ve traditionally like having a Northeastern presence (Pitt, Cuse, BC)

UVA, UNC, and GT are all highly regarded public schools

You’ve got some more fellow privates in Duke, WF, and Miami

And while not necessarily a match culturally, it helps to play some traditionally strong football schools like Florida St, Clemson, and VT.

It’s the right mix of variety for the Irish and gives them travel dates up and down the Eastern seaboard.

I'm not really concerned about what is "right" for Notre Dame. I'm more concerned with what is right for Carolina and the ACC.

We exactly cancel each other out, then. Take care.

(04-07-2021 06:01 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-05-2021 02:26 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-05-2021 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2021 09:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-04-2021 09:33 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The economic pressure that ACC schools are already feeling will lead them to reconsider their priorities. Get enough of them to do that and you can open the door to a new arrangement.

Duke is the only one in the conference that flat out doesn't try at football. Jury is out on BC ... their former AD was just what the doctor ordered but he's now at UCLA. We'll see on the new guy.

(04-04-2021 09:33 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  To me, here is how ESPN benefits from breaking up the ACC:

We've always talked about how some leagues are more competitive than others. Given that reality, culling too many members from the Power ranks will result in some schools being destabilized because they won't be as successful in a new paradigm.

Agree with that.

(04-04-2021 09:33 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If you're going to expand a conference then you need account for that. These leagues need cannon fodder and middle tier schools to balance out the numbers. Well, the ACC is loaded with those schools. There are a select few that could be nationally competitive with the right resources, but most of the league is lucky to win 10 games once a decade.

ESPN might have to pay a little more to a league like the SEC or the Big 12, they might have to increase what they're giving schools currently in the ACC; but with that money they will purchase greater stability on the whole.

I don't think the difference between (Ole Miss, Miss State, Vandy, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas) and (Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse) is that dramatic. Of those 12 teams I'd actually say Wake Forest is the one who tries the hardest. Missouri stands as my great vindicator of that hypothesis since they came into the SEC East as a middling meh in the Big 12 and then proceeded to own the SEC East for quite a while.

You're kind of missing the point. Those schools you listed as SEC bottom feeders exist in every conference. It's just the mathematics of winning and losing. The difference is that Miss State, Ole Miss, and usually Arkansas come close to filling their stadia. Missouri and Kentucky more than half fill there's, and the visiting strong teams (note the plural) fill Vandy's.

And instead of Clemson and one random other on a good year there is Georgia, Auburn, L.S.U., A&M, Florida trying to give Alabama a run on most years. And even down as they have been Tennessee averages better attendance in most years than any ACC school and South Carolina when mediocre comes close to staying full. While larger venues help, the issue is the ACC schools don't even fill their smallest venues.

There's the difference. Attendance is going down everywhere for many reasons, but when you can fill a 35 or 40 thousand seat venue you have bigger problems.

Attendance is already a thing of the past at Duke football and it's why Cameron Indoor is so small. UVa is about 10K overbuilt for the their cultural trend. Once a University turns the corner into becoming a "girls school" football attendance suffers. You start to run up against that when the student body gets to be about 55%. Once you get to 60 that's it. That's why UNC had to cut Kenan down from 63 to 50K.

NC State and Clemson are the only ACC schools that can still expand and fill the seats. Everyone else is past peak. However the cost of the expansions versus the revenue gained might be questionable.

So FSU can't expand or fill the seats??

I suppose they could, theoretically, expand. But they can't fill the seats they have now, and unless they return to their former status as football kingpin of the ACC and the State of Florida and a perennial national championship contender, they won't in the future.

(04-08-2021 07:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding ND football is the only move that could improve the ACC’s value—only realistic move, that is.

It’s in ND’s best interest to improve the value of the ACC because if the ACC’s value doesn’t improve, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Big Ten or SEC, ushering a Big 2 and Even Bigger 2 Era, ND will only have one good option—Big Ten membership.

The Big Ten, It's where the Irish really belong if Notre Dame needs to join a conference.
Notre Dame is not a cultural fit for the core of the ACC. They have proven to be well behaved guests for the last several years and haven't done anything to embarrass the conference.
But alumni interaction is rare.
I will say, however, that I did have a Notre Dame alumni in my Saturday foursome for about 20 years.

Geography doesn't apply to ND.

Travel costs do not apply to ND.

"Regional rivals" does not apply to ND. When is the next ND/Michigan game, exactly ??

(Because its model is the exact opposite of those things)

Saying that the Irish "really belong" in the Big Ten is to ignore history and reality.

(The Big Ten would likely shove them into the Western Division to try to "Nebraska" them)

P.S. I will say that it is nice that the ACC hasn't done anything to really embarrass ND since 2013. I hope that continues.

P.P.S. If ND ever joined the ACC in football, it would team up with the football schools and use its clout and status to change the "core" of the ACC forever.

That is why XLance has changed his tune sung for years and now doesn't want ND football to join. Last year showed him what ND could do and the impact it would have on the conference.

Not quite Terry. I have been consistent in saying I did not want Notre Dame in the ACC, but I still believe that we will eventually get stuck with the Irish on a full time basis.
We still have a bet.

(04-08-2021 08:16 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 06:01 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-05-2021 02:26 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-05-2021 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2021 09:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Duke is the only one in the conference that flat out doesn't try at football. Jury is out on BC ... their former AD was just what the doctor ordered but he's now at UCLA. We'll see on the new guy.



Agree with that.




I don't think the difference between (Ole Miss, Miss State, Vandy, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas) and (Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse) is that dramatic. Of those 12 teams I'd actually say Wake Forest is the one who tries the hardest. Missouri stands as my great vindicator of that hypothesis since they came into the SEC East as a middling meh in the Big 12 and then proceeded to own the SEC East for quite a while.

You're kind of missing the point. Those schools you listed as SEC bottom feeders exist in every conference. It's just the mathematics of winning and losing. The difference is that Miss State, Ole Miss, and usually Arkansas come close to filling their stadia. Missouri and Kentucky more than half fill there's, and the visiting strong teams (note the plural) fill Vandy's.

And instead of Clemson and one random other on a good year there is Georgia, Auburn, L.S.U., A&M, Florida trying to give Alabama a run on most years. And even down as they have been Tennessee averages better attendance in most years than any ACC school and South Carolina when mediocre comes close to staying full. While larger venues help, the issue is the ACC schools don't even fill their smallest venues.

There's the difference. Attendance is going down everywhere for many reasons, but when you can fill a 35 or 40 thousand seat venue you have bigger problems.

Attendance is already a thing of the past at Duke football and it's why Cameron Indoor is so small. UVa is about 10K overbuilt for the their cultural trend. Once a University turns the corner into becoming a "girls school" football attendance suffers. You start to run up against that when the student body gets to be about 55%. Once you get to 60 that's it. That's why UNC had to cut Kenan down from 63 to 50K.

NC State and Clemson are the only ACC schools that can still expand and fill the seats. Everyone else is past peak. However the cost of the expansions versus the revenue gained might be questionable.

So FSU can't expand or fill the seats??

I suppose they could, theoretically, expand. But they can't fill the seats they have now, and unless they return to their former status as football kingpin of the ACC and the State of Florida and a perennial national championship contender, they won't in the future.

It would be really costly for FSU to expand their stadium, now that they have bricked up the outside perimeter.

(04-08-2021 08:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 08:16 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 06:01 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-05-2021 02:26 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-05-2021 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You're kind of missing the point. Those schools you listed as SEC bottom feeders exist in every conference. It's just the mathematics of winning and losing. The difference is that Miss State, Ole Miss, and usually Arkansas come close to filling their stadia. Missouri and Kentucky more than half fill there's, and the visiting strong teams (note the plural) fill Vandy's.

And instead of Clemson and one random other on a good year there is Georgia, Auburn, L.S.U., A&M, Florida trying to give Alabama a run on most years. And even down as they have been Tennessee averages better attendance in most years than any ACC school and South Carolina when mediocre comes close to staying full. While larger venues help, the issue is the ACC schools don't even fill their smallest venues.

There's the difference. Attendance is going down everywhere for many reasons, but when you can fill a 35 or 40 thousand seat venue you have bigger problems.

Attendance is already a thing of the past at Duke football and it's why Cameron Indoor is so small. UVa is about 10K overbuilt for the their cultural trend. Once a University turns the corner into becoming a "girls school" football attendance suffers. You start to run up against that when the student body gets to be about 55%. Once you get to 60 that's it. That's why UNC had to cut Kenan down from 63 to 50K.

NC State and Clemson are the only ACC schools that can still expand and fill the seats. Everyone else is past peak. However the cost of the expansions versus the revenue gained might be questionable.

So FSU can't expand or fill the seats??

I suppose they could, theoretically, expand. But they can't fill the seats they have now, and unless they return to their former status as football kingpin of the ACC and the State of Florida and a perennial national championship contender, they won't in the future.

It would be really costly for FSU to expand their stadium, now that they have bricked up the outside perimeter.

Unless you are under 75,000 occupancy there is not much reason to expand. Face it they aren't Alabama, Ohio State, or Michigan. Attendance only goes down from here in most places for a variety of reasons. They just need the product to fill what they have. In the last full year of football pre-COVID the SEC averaged 72,000 and the Big 10 averaged 66,000. The ACC just needs to get to 55,000 average to be competitive. You are low 40's now I think around 47,000.

With all due respect to UNC and Duke, you can’t run the ACC the way UNC and Duke want to run the conference and stand a chance at being financially competitive.

There needs to be an investment in football conference wide.

The trouble with the ACC right now is that you have programs like BC, WF, and Duke who simply aren’t built to compete in P5 football. It would be nice if they could somehow relegate some of these weaker sisters from full members in football to just part of a scheduling alliance. They’d still get to play each other and some football games with the regular ACC (of say 10 members) but get a smaller share of the tv revenue. It would give schools who are better built for G5 football a chance to stay in the ACC for Olympic sports but operate a G5 level football program.