(07-25-2021 09:02 AM)esayem Wrote:  Hypotheticals aren’t facts.

One fact might be the ACC hasn’t invited Cincinnati and the people making that decision decided against it. You campaigning here changes nothing. It’s not worth it.

Yeaaahhhh... unless some of you guys are actually university presidents, I didn't really think anything was going to get done.

So as long as we're just talking here, I may as well throw my my side in.

The ACC needs to switch up football divisions and hopefully get a look-in. That’s the blatantly obvious thing we’ve been talking about for years. If the NCAA won’t let the ACC go division-less, then the ACC needs to stack the most high quality TV games on a yearly basis.

Cincinnati won’t do that. WVU won’t do that. Divisions need to be restructured or the schedule does, which is preferable and comes with the absence of divisions.

We’re the conference most handcuffed by divisions. THIS NEEDS to be addressed now.

(07-25-2021 03:13 PM)esayem Wrote:  The ACC needs to switch up football divisions and hopefully get a look-in. That’s the blatantly obvious thing we’ve been talking about for years. If the NCAA won’t let the ACC go division-less, then the ACC needs to stack the most high quality TV games on a yearly basis.

Cincinnati won’t do that. WVU won’t do that. Divisions need to be restructured or the schedule does, which is preferable and comes with the absence of divisions.

We’re the conference most handcuffed by divisions. THIS NEEDS to be addressed now.

North
BC
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Louisville
UVa
UNC
Duke

South
VT
NCSU
WF
Clemson
GT
FSU
Miami

BiggerTen
@BiggerTen
·
3h
According to
@TheWolverineMag
Penn State could be looking to leave the Big Ten for the ACC.


They need this to be reality (it is not).

(07-25-2021 03:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(07-25-2021 03:13 PM)esayem Wrote:  The ACC needs to switch up football divisions and hopefully get a look-in. That’s the blatantly obvious thing we’ve been talking about for years. If the NCAA won’t let the ACC go division-less, then the ACC needs to stack the most high quality TV games on a yearly basis.

Cincinnati won’t do that. WVU won’t do that. Divisions need to be restructured or the schedule does, which is preferable and comes with the absence of divisions.

We’re the conference most handcuffed by divisions. THIS NEEDS to be addressed now.

North
BC
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Louisville
UVa
UNC
Duke

South
VT
NCSU
WF
Clemson
GT
FSU
Miami

That North division is really soft.

The ACC needs more fan bases who are willing to pay for the ACC network. I think WVU is the only legitimate option. Sure the academics aren’t the best and they don’t have a huge tv market but what other markets is the ACC going to get in that it doesn’t already have a presence in? I think WVU would as value to the ACCN with a group of people willing to actually pay for it.

(07-25-2021 03:25 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  BiggerTen
@BiggerTen
·
3h
According to
@TheWolverineMag
Penn State could be looking to leave the Big Ten for the ACC.


They need this to be reality (it is not).

That would ONLY happen if Ohio State and Michigan really do jump to the SEC.
Penn State would rather play Pitt than Purdue.

(07-25-2021 03:35 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-25-2021 03:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(07-25-2021 03:13 PM)esayem Wrote:  The ACC needs to switch up football divisions and hopefully get a look-in. That’s the blatantly obvious thing we’ve been talking about for years. If the NCAA won’t let the ACC go division-less, then the ACC needs to stack the most high quality TV games on a yearly basis.

Cincinnati won’t do that. WVU won’t do that. Divisions need to be restructured or the schedule does, which is preferable and comes with the absence of divisions.

We’re the conference most handcuffed by divisions. THIS NEEDS to be addressed now.

North
BC
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Louisville
UVa
UNC
Duke

South
VT
NCSU
WF
Clemson
GT
FSU
Miami

That North division is really soft.

Yes, but the south division is packed with annual games that people actually want to watch on TV

There are only two things that can add value to the current TV contract - adding brand(s) or expanding into new geographic territory.

The SEC is looking at adding brands with Texas and OU. A&M already puts the SEC in Texas and allows it to charge in market subscription rates there.

When the B1G added Maryland and Rutgers, it was all about getting in market rates for the BTN in the NYC and DC TV markets. It also added inventory, but it was not high value inventory.

The obvious TV market for the ACC to target would be Texas. It may not make geographic sense, but Texas does have a population of 30 million. Unfortunately, only Texas and TAMU have sufficient local fan bases as stand alone members to achieve this goal. It would likely take 2-3 other Texas schools to achieve sufficient presence to allow the ACCN to charge in market subscription rates there, presumably TTU, TCU and Baylor as a package. Indeed, I fully expect the P12 to pursue this strategy and this group of schools as its response to the SEC's move, likely with Oklahoma St. as a fourth member of the group.

The "Brand" play is obvious - Notre Dame. It is the only school on the board with any ability to move the needle.

(07-26-2021 08:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  There are only two things that can add value to the current TV contract - adding brand(s) or expanding into new geographic territory.

The SEC is looking at adding brands with Texas and OU. A&M already puts the SEC in Texas and allows it to charge in market subscription rates there.

When the B1G added Maryland and Rutgers, it was all about getting in market rates for the BTN in the NYC and DC TV markets. It also added inventory, but it was not high value inventory.

The obvious TV market for the ACC to target would be Texas. It may not make geographic sense, but Texas does have a population of 30 million. Unfortunately, only Texas and TAMU have sufficient local fan bases as stand alone members to achieve this goal. It would likely take 2-3 other Texas schools to achieve sufficient presence to allow the ACCN to charge in market subscription rates there, presumably TTU, TCU and Baylor as a package. Indeed, I fully expect the P12 to pursue this strategy and this group of schools as its response to the SEC's move, likely with Oklahoma St. as a fourth member of the group.

The "Brand" play is obvious - Notre Dame. It is the only school on the board with any ability to move the needle.

I’ll say this again: Miami and FSU need to be top 10 programs on a yearly basis. NIL will help. Miami is a dormant juggernaut brand. Their merch is everywhere when they’re good.

An adjusted schedule would deserve a look-in as well, which I cannot believe ESPN hasn’t pushed for. Just shuffle the divisions around a bit. I don’t hate the “strong” “weak” division setup really, as long as we have more compelling games week-in and week-out. That said, getting rid of divisions helps no conference more than the ACC.

(07-26-2021 08:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  There are only two things that can add value to the current TV contract - adding brand(s) or expanding into new geographic territory.

The SEC is looking at adding brands with Texas and OU. A&M already puts the SEC in Texas and allows it to charge in market subscription rates there.

When the B1G added Maryland and Rutgers, it was all about getting in market rates for the BTN in the NYC and DC TV markets. It also added inventory, but it was not high value inventory.

The obvious TV market for the ACC to target would be Texas. It may not make geographic sense, but Texas does have a population of 30 million. Unfortunately, only Texas and TAMU have sufficient local fan bases as stand alone members to achieve this goal. It would likely take 2-3 other Texas schools to achieve sufficient presence to allow the ACCN to charge in market subscription rates there, presumably TTU, TCU and Baylor as a package. Indeed, I fully expect the P12 to pursue this strategy and this group of schools as its response to the SEC's move, likely with Oklahoma St. as a fourth member of the group.

The "Brand" play is obvious - Notre Dame. It is the only school on the board with any ability to move the needle.

Set aside the fact that there are other ways to increase TV revenue, let's consider the market option. Texas is the best CFB market, but there's another high-saturation market contiguous to the ACC - Ohio. It also happens to have a top 25 team in both sports which the ACC could get tomorrow...

Brand is always better, but like you said there's only one of those left and the ACC is already working on it...

(07-26-2021 08:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  There are only two things that can add value to the current TV contract - adding brand(s) or expanding into new geographic territory.

The SEC is looking at adding brands with Texas and OU. A&M already puts the SEC in Texas and allows it to charge in market subscription rates there.

When the B1G added Maryland and Rutgers, it was all about getting in market rates for the BTN in the NYC and DC TV markets. It also added inventory, but it was not high value inventory.

The obvious TV market for the ACC to target would be Texas. It may not make geographic sense, but Texas does have a population of 30 million. Unfortunately, only Texas and TAMU have sufficient local fan bases as stand alone members to achieve this goal. It would likely take 2-3 other Texas schools to achieve sufficient presence to allow the ACCN to charge in market subscription rates there, presumably TTU, TCU and Baylor as a package. Indeed, I fully expect the P12 to pursue this strategy and this group of schools as its response to the SEC's move, likely with Oklahoma St. as a fourth member of the group.

The "Brand" play is obvious - Notre Dame. It is the only school on the board with any ability to move the needle.

I think the ACC management team should look into the strengths of the ACC and try and build on them. College Football is not one of the strengths of the ACC but college basketball is. It is the best college basketball league in the US. They need to emphasize this by offering Kansas (and possibly may need another school for scheduling purposes). Then they would need to negotiate with one of the big internet streaming companies who have a worldwide audience and sell it to them. Some of them really need content like Apple and Amazon and they are loaded with $$$. The worldwide market for basketball is much bigger than Texas so there is your potential. I noticed most people are thinking in terms of the US for markets, that's not how Internet streaming works. With internet streaming the world is your potential market. American football has no worldwide interest but basketball has a lot of interest worldwide. All it takes is a little vision and some smarts by the ACC management team. They have the potential to blow the SEC and B1G away in revenues in the future, they just need to get a little confidence and be smart about it.

(07-26-2021 11:24 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(07-26-2021 08:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  There are only two things that can add value to the current TV contract - adding brand(s) or expanding into new geographic territory.

The SEC is looking at adding brands with Texas and OU. A&M already puts the SEC in Texas and allows it to charge in market subscription rates there.

When the B1G added Maryland and Rutgers, it was all about getting in market rates for the BTN in the NYC and DC TV markets. It also added inventory, but it was not high value inventory.

The obvious TV market for the ACC to target would be Texas. It may not make geographic sense, but Texas does have a population of 30 million. Unfortunately, only Texas and TAMU have sufficient local fan bases as stand alone members to achieve this goal. It would likely take 2-3 other Texas schools to achieve sufficient presence to allow the ACCN to charge in market subscription rates there, presumably TTU, TCU and Baylor as a package. Indeed, I fully expect the P12 to pursue this strategy and this group of schools as its response to the SEC's move, likely with Oklahoma St. as a fourth member of the group.

The "Brand" play is obvious - Notre Dame. It is the only school on the board with any ability to move the needle.

I think the ACC management team should look into the strengths of the ACC and try and build on them. College Football is not one of the strengths of the ACC but college basketball is. It is the best college basketball league in the US. They need to emphasize this by offering Kansas (and possibly may need another school for scheduling purposes). Then they would need to negotiate with one of the big internet streaming companies who have a worldwide audience and sell it to them. Some of them really need content like Apple and Amazon and they are loaded with $$$. The worldwide market for basketball is much bigger than Texas so there is your potential. I noticed most people are thinking in terms of the US for markets, that's not how Internet streaming works. With internet streaming the world is your potential market. American football has no worldwide interest but basketball has a lot of interest worldwide. All it takes is a little vision and some smarts by the ACC management team. They have the potential to blow the SEC and B1G away in revenues in the future, they just need to get a little confidence and be smart about it.

1. ESPN already owns the broadcast rights to ALL ACC basketball games, and has the right of first refusal for future streaming plans (that's what the look-ins are for: to discuss new ventures with ESPN).

2. Focusing on basketball is what got the ACC so far behind in the first place. There may (or may not) be an international market for college basketball, but there is definitely a market for domestic college football.

(07-27-2021 07:02 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  2. Focusing on basketball is what got the ACC so far behind in the first place. There may (or may not) be an international market for college basketball, but there is definitely a market for domestic college football.

Give the answer I give to the basketball firsts. You want to keep focusing on basketball? Great. Before we can talk further, you need to go blow up the NCAA so that basketball money isn't siphoned away to fund the entirety of the NCAA to say nothing of scores of entire conferences that would flatly not exist at the Division 1 level without their welfare queen AQ distribution money. After you've stopped most of the basketball money being stolen or wasted we can see just how much impact you're really going to have relative to football.

So many in the ACC want to focus on basketball, but they want the football revenue.

The free ride is going to end one way or the other. The final result will be severe damage to the basketball programs they love so much.


The ACC has simply tried to go against the grain and it's blowing up in their faces.

Adds national game - Army vs Navy
Adds a sixth ND and national game - ND vs Navy

Brings back / Maintains significant series with northern schools
Top 10 Navy series - Army (121), ND (93), Duke (40), Pitt (40), UVA (39), BC (29), SU (27), GT (25)
Top 10 Army series - Navy (121), ND (51), BC (38), Pitt (27), Duke (26), SU (21)

Locks down mid-Atlantic and North-East regions

Establishes ACC as the top BB and Lacross conference

If ND goes all in, add WVU

(07-27-2021 09:55 AM)swardy76 Wrote:  Adds national game - Army vs Navy
Adds a sixth ND and national game - ND vs Navy

Brings back / Maintains significant series with northern schools
Top 10 Navy series - Army (121), ND (93), Duke (40), Pitt (40), UVA (39), BC (29), SU (27), GT (25)
Top 10 Army series - Navy (121), ND (51), BC (38), Pitt (27), Duke (26), SU (21)

Locks down mid-Atlantic and North-East regions

Establishes ACC as the top BB and Lacross conference

If ND goes all in, add WVU

Show me 70 million people willing to pay $10/month to watch Lacrosse and we'll talk.

...but, hey, BC looks to have a really good football team this year!

(07-26-2021 09:45 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-26-2021 08:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  There are only two things that can add value to the current TV contract - adding brand(s) or expanding into new geographic territory.

The SEC is looking at adding brands with Texas and OU. A&M already puts the SEC in Texas and allows it to charge in market subscription rates there.

When the B1G added Maryland and Rutgers, it was all about getting in market rates for the BTN in the NYC and DC TV markets. It also added inventory, but it was not high value inventory.

The obvious TV market for the ACC to target would be Texas. It may not make geographic sense, but Texas does have a population of 30 million. Unfortunately, only Texas and TAMU have sufficient local fan bases as stand alone members to achieve this goal. It would likely take 2-3 other Texas schools to achieve sufficient presence to allow the ACCN to charge in market subscription rates there, presumably TTU, TCU and Baylor as a package. Indeed, I fully expect the P12 to pursue this strategy and this group of schools as its response to the SEC's move, likely with Oklahoma St. as a fourth member of the group.

The "Brand" play is obvious - Notre Dame. It is the only school on the board with any ability to move the needle.

I’ll say this again: Miami and FSU need to be top 10 programs on a yearly basis. NIL will help. Miami is a dormant juggernaut brand. Their merch is everywhere when they’re good.

An adjusted schedule would deserve a look-in as well, which I cannot believe ESPN hasn’t pushed for. Just shuffle the divisions around a bit. I don’t hate the “strong” “weak” division setup really, as long as we have more compelling games week-in and week-out. That said, getting rid of divisions helps no conference more than the ACC.

If the ACC wants better football production (from anyone)....it should PAY for it.

Right now there is no incentive. That is a problem.

Honestly, right now, Clemson should get 3 shares instead of 1 for how they carry the ACC.

(07-24-2021 02:53 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  I have been thinking about things and if you take a long term view, i actually think Kansas is a no brainer for the ACC to take. There are a few reasons why I think this:
1. Kansas is a blue blood basketball program. How often do blue blood basketball programs become available? The game has changed and the rules are different from the past. Cable cutting has made the old model of TV markets less and less important. The important thing to think about is where is the puck going (as hockey players like to say). We are moving to an internet streaming model and away from cable TV although Cable will still be there. The internet streaming model is based on IP networks so anybody around the world will be able to see sports. Have any of you seen the value on the stock market of companies like Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Disney, Comcast (NBC), Paramount+ (CBS), Youtube TV (Google), Warner Brothers Discovery? They are huge companies and some of them are valued in the trillions of $$. These companies are searching for content and need content. I think Basketball may be the 2nd most popular sport in the world so I think if the ACC got a team like Kansas, it would build the ACC network brand more and entice one of the streaming networks. Plenty of people around the world would probably like to see the feeder league to the NBA and other leagues around the world. This would help the streaming companies to drive subscribers around the world. In the short term the ACC might take a hit in revenue by bringing in Kansas but in the long term the ACC will have the best college basketball league in the US and once the streaming becomes more common place, there will be value there for the large streaming companies to sell ACC basketball to the rest of the world.

there is one major issue with this

ESPN owns 100% of the content so it is not available to be sold....it is sold...to ESPN

(07-24-2021 08:19 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The ACC is in a tough spot.

A few years ago it was The Big East. Today it’s The Big 12. If rumors are true The PAC may lose 4-6 teams to The Big Ten. Unless something unexpected happens The ACC will be picked apart just before the GOR ends.

What does The ACC do? I’m guessing not much.

UVa, UNC, Duke, Clemson, Florida State and Georgia Tech won’t sit by and watch The SEC and The Big Ten make $40 million a year more.

The truth is, if The ACC doesn’t expand, and I don’t expect them to, we’ll all just be waiting for the conference to be torn apart in a few years.

the GOR and media deal goes to 2036

that could be 2 more Big 10 contracts away after the new one in 2023-24

that is a long time to make $20 million less per year

(07-27-2021 10:39 AM)nole Wrote:  

(07-26-2021 09:45 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-26-2021 08:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  There are only two things that can add value to the current TV contract - adding brand(s) or expanding into new geographic territory.

The SEC is looking at adding brands with Texas and OU. A&M already puts the SEC in Texas and allows it to charge in market subscription rates there.

When the B1G added Maryland and Rutgers, it was all about getting in market rates for the BTN in the NYC and DC TV markets. It also added inventory, but it was not high value inventory.

The obvious TV market for the ACC to target would be Texas. It may not make geographic sense, but Texas does have a population of 30 million. Unfortunately, only Texas and TAMU have sufficient local fan bases as stand alone members to achieve this goal. It would likely take 2-3 other Texas schools to achieve sufficient presence to allow the ACCN to charge in market subscription rates there, presumably TTU, TCU and Baylor as a package. Indeed, I fully expect the P12 to pursue this strategy and this group of schools as its response to the SEC's move, likely with Oklahoma St. as a fourth member of the group.

The "Brand" play is obvious - Notre Dame. It is the only school on the board with any ability to move the needle.

I’ll say this again: Miami and FSU need to be top 10 programs on a yearly basis. NIL will help. Miami is a dormant juggernaut brand. Their merch is everywhere when they’re good.

An adjusted schedule would deserve a look-in as well, which I cannot believe ESPN hasn’t pushed for. Just shuffle the divisions around a bit. I don’t hate the “strong” “weak” division setup really, as long as we have more compelling games week-in and week-out. That said, getting rid of divisions helps no conference more than the ACC.

If the ACC wants better football production (from anyone)....it should PAY for it.

Right now there is no incentive. That is a problem.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way most things in life work.