FSU joined the ACC in 1992 and stayed at BCS level for almost a decade, so it is hard to argue that ACC weakness sapped their strength.
[/quote]
You are correct in what you say but it was only a part of the decline of Seminole football. The growing disparity in income between the SEC and ACC contributed mightily in the football facilities arms race. The Bowden versus Paterno fight that prevented either of them from retiring when they should have is another. I thought they should have given them both a lance and a football helmet and let them tilt at each other from their scooter chairs to determine who the winningest coach was going to be.

The real lack of regard to build football competition among all of the ACC schools has also been a contributing factor in their decline. Virginia Tech and Clemson just hasn't been enough to keep them tough and sharp. I would have thrown in Miami but their decline has even been steeper than Miami's.

I know it won't happen, but of all the ACC teams Clemson is the best fit for the SEC in passion, pageantry, tradition, and desire to win. F.S.U. is number 2 in all of those. Take care. JR

(12-07-2012 09:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:54 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Why not? The ACC had better schools, the ACC had the better markets, and the Big 10's football prowess was slipping. What the ACC didn't have was vision, great leadership, and the wisdom to understand that athletically football is king in revenue.

The Big 10 has no reason to fear the ACC now. Does it?

I'll say this again: The Big Ten has a 25-year grant of rights agreement.

So they shouldn't have to worry about Penn State or anyone else leaving for 25 years, right?

Unless they think the grant of rights is just another piece of paper, like a 27-month waiting period or a ginormous exit fee, that you can get around by filing a lawsuit and then buying your way out of it with a monetary settlement.

Wedge, the threat wasn't to the Big 10 footprint, or even the unlikely threat to Penn State. The threat was that the ACC might eventually get monetarily strong enough to seize the only potential market that the Big 10 could move into, the Northeast, and in the process remove themselves (ACC) from coming into play by increasing their value and building their inventory for the most valuable product (football) for their markets.

The ACC failed, because they invaded the Northeast for basketball talent before they developed their football product. That's why they and their markets were so terribly undervalued.

There was nothing West for Delany to build upon, and they couldn't really go South because of the SEC. The Big East was always going to be the Big 10's play. If they had acquired it before the ACC developed its football product then the ACC would have opened the door South.

Because the football product was not developed both the Northeast and the South is now opened to Delany. No vision, no understanding of the dynamics surrounding them, and a false sense of insular security will be what destroys the ACC.

The commissioner got the acquisitions of FSU, Miami, and (accidentally) VT to make ACC football big-time. It wasn't enough because the ACC schools that think of themselves as "football schools" haven't delivered SEC-level football, and also because the ACC has many schools that don't think of themselves as football schools. The Big Ten also has many schools that no one would call "football factories", but the difference is that the Big Ten football powers have delivered much more in on-field results and in marketability than their counterparts in the ACC.

Exactly, that is what I mean when I say the ACC didn't develop their markets for football. My other point is that if they had developed those first then their additions in the Northeast with Pitt and Syracuse would have been a move of further strengthening an already strong brand, rather than a move of adding more basketball product for a market place that rewards football. It's the proverbial cart before the horse.

To your other point, both Miami and F.S.U. were competing at SEC levels upon their entry into the ACC. It was the lack of development of the conferences football product as a whole that weakened them. Then as the income disparity grew the gap widened.

The income disparity wasn't the result of conference/TV monies until very recently. In terms of conference payouts per team, the ACC was usually always at the top. Where the ACC has always lagged behind the SEC and BiG in terms of football $$$ is in terms of ticket attendance and donor $$$ for football.

So what's changed for FSU and Clemson? And why is Louisville making more than either? Why is Syracuse even close to either?

As for Miami, it was a cultural thing. I sincerely believe Shalala wanted the steady check so that they didn't need to cheat to do well (in the BE, the unbalanced payouts directly to Miami ended in 1997 and went instead to the BCS representative), and they still wound up cheating more while in the ACC but not doing well.

UNC, which is regarded as a basketball school by most posters on this board, wound up cheating to try and improve its football product.

To me, the desire was there to produce a good on field product. In terms of talent, they rank behind only the SEC in terms of NFL drafted players.

What precisely in the football product was lacking? To me it comes down to coaching and QB play.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-08-2012 12:42 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 09:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:54 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I'll say this again: The Big Ten has a 25-year grant of rights agreement.

So they shouldn't have to worry about Penn State or anyone else leaving for 25 years, right?

Unless they think the grant of rights is just another piece of paper, like a 27-month waiting period or a ginormous exit fee, that you can get around by filing a lawsuit and then buying your way out of it with a monetary settlement.

Wedge, the threat wasn't to the Big 10 footprint, or even the unlikely threat to Penn State. The threat was that the ACC might eventually get monetarily strong enough to seize the only potential market that the Big 10 could move into, the Northeast, and in the process remove themselves (ACC) from coming into play by increasing their value and building their inventory for the most valuable product (football) for their markets.

The ACC failed, because they invaded the Northeast for basketball talent before they developed their football product. That's why they and their markets were so terribly undervalued.

There was nothing West for Delany to build upon, and they couldn't really go South because of the SEC. The Big East was always going to be the Big 10's play. If they had acquired it before the ACC developed its football product then the ACC would have opened the door South.

Because the football product was not developed both the Northeast and the South is now opened to Delany. No vision, no understanding of the dynamics surrounding them, and a false sense of insular security will be what destroys the ACC.

The commissioner got the acquisitions of FSU, Miami, and (accidentally) VT to make ACC football big-time. It wasn't enough because the ACC schools that think of themselves as "football schools" haven't delivered SEC-level football, and also because the ACC has many schools that don't think of themselves as football schools. The Big Ten also has many schools that no one would call "football factories", but the difference is that the Big Ten football powers have delivered much more in on-field results and in marketability than their counterparts in the ACC.

Exactly, that is what I mean when I say the ACC didn't develop their markets for football. My other point is that if they had developed those first then their additions in the Northeast with Pitt and Syracuse would have been a move of further strengthening an already strong brand, rather than a move of adding more basketball product for a market place that rewards football. It's the proverbial cart before the horse.

To your other point, both Miami and F.S.U. were competing at SEC levels upon their entry into the ACC. It was the lack of development of the conferences football product as a whole that weakened them. Then as the income disparity grew the gap widened.

The income disparity wasn't the result of conference/TV monies until very recently. In terms of conference payouts per team, the ACC was usually always at the top. Where the ACC has always lagged behind the SEC and BiG in terms of football $$$ is in terms of ticket attendance and donor $$$ for football.

So what's changed for FSU and Clemson? And why is Louisville making more than either? Why is Syracuse even close to either?

As for Miami, it was a cultural thing. I sincerely believe Shalala wanted the steady check so that they didn't need to cheat to do well (in the BE, the unbalanced payouts directly to Miami ended in 1997 and went instead to the BCS representative), and they still wound up cheating more while in the ACC but not doing well.

UNC, which is regarded as a basketball school by most posters on this board, wound up cheating to try and improve its football product.

To me, the desire was there to produce a good on field product. In terms of talent, they rank behind only the SEC in terms of NFL drafted players.

What precisely in the football product was lacking? To me it comes down to coaching and QB play.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I can agree with most of that, but the desire to have a better product was either not sincerely followed up on, or the know how to make it happen was severely lacking among many ACC A.D.'s.

Bowl money was at a fairly high disparity as well. That too contributed to the funding differences. For most SEC teams who got a 1/13th share during that time the spillover was several million more a year plus. Perceptions of success to be sure played a part as well.

Shalala on the other hand was almost as corrosive at Wisconsin.

To be frank, I still see no concerted effort on the part of North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and other old core members to improve football. Even Virginia Tech would have a greater mountain to climb than Missouri to get up to SEC speed in facilities, capacity, and talent.

I guess if the realignment thing goes down we might pick up Duke and U.N.C. if the latest rumors are correct. I understand the markets, the solid boost in hoops, the academic bonanza, and the national quality of both, but to me this is where realignment is going to the twilight zone for the average fan. Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and F.S.U. would all be better fits for the SEC.

Even Pitt gets considered for new markets in realignment discussion down here.

Can you imagine Delany really talking about fit if he adds Georgia Tech and Florida State? It makes sense from a market perspective, but the public will never wrap their heads around that one.

Take care, I'll guess we'll know in a few months where things are headed. JR

(12-08-2012 12:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:42 AM)omniorange Wrote:  The income disparity wasn't the result of conference/TV monies until very recently. In terms of conference payouts per team, the ACC was usually always at the top. Where the ACC has always lagged behind the SEC and BiG in terms of football $$$ is in terms of ticket attendance and donor $$$ for football.

So what's changed for FSU and Clemson? And why is Louisville making more than either? Why is Syracuse even close to either?

As for Miami, it was a cultural thing. I sincerely believe Shalala wanted the steady check so that they didn't need to cheat to do well (in the BE, the unbalanced payouts directly to Miami ended in 1997 and went instead to the BCS representative), and they still wound up cheating more while in the ACC but not doing well.

UNC, which is regarded as a basketball school by most posters on this board, wound up cheating to try and improve its football product.

To me, the desire was there to produce a good on field product. In terms of talent, they rank behind only the SEC in terms of NFL drafted players.

What precisely in the football product was lacking? To me it comes down to coaching and QB play.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I can agree with most of that, but the desire to have a better product was either not sincerely followed up on, or the know how to make it happen was severely lacking among many ACC A.D.'s.

Bowl money was at a fairly high disparity as well. That too contributed to the funding differences. For most SEC teams who got a 1/13th share during that time the spillover was several million more a year plus. Perceptions of success to be sure played a part as well.

Shalala on the other hand was almost as corrosive at Wisconsin.

To be frank, I still see no concerted effort on the part of North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and other old core members to improve football. Even Virginia Tech would have a greater mountain to climb than Missouri to get up to SEC speed in facilities, capacity, and talent.

I guess if the realignment thing goes down we might pick up Duke and U.N.C. if the latest rumors are correct. I understand the markets, the solid boost in hoops, the academic bonanza, and the national quality of both, but to me this is where realignment is going to the twilight zone for the average fan. Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and F.S.U. would all be better fits for the SEC.

Even Pitt gets considered for new markets in realignment discussion down here.

Can you imagine Delany really talking about fit if he adds Georgia Tech and Florida State? It makes sense from a market perspective, but the public will never wrap their heads around that one.

Take care, I'll guess we'll know in a few months where things are headed. JR

I'll address one point in your post and then move on since other than a "feeling" or that their ADs were inept, you haven't really indicated any specifics as to where you think the ACC was definitely trying not to put a good product on the field.

Without including the Championship game revenue which is not truly a bowl, the net bowl revenue distributed by the conferences was hardly "fairly high"er and certainly nowhere near the several million more you claim.

From a post I did back in 2008 on the 2007 net bowl revenue, something I followed closely (along with NCAA funding back in the day) when the NCAA site used to post these on a regular basis up until 2010 Bowl season, there really wasn't much change.

SEC - $2,415,977 average per team
Big 10 - $2,217,664 average per team
Big 12 - $1,808,869 average per team
Big East - $1,774,628 average per team
Pac 10 - $1,764,701 average per team
ACC - $1,605,304 average per team

The difference between the ACC and the SEC here was about the same difference between the two leagues in terms of NCAA bb units, which again accounts for why the conference share the ACC distributed was as high, usually higher, than the SEC's.

With the Championship Game revenue added I'm sure the disparity was higher still, but then again, the ACC basketball tourney usually made way more money than the SEC basketball tourney, so once again they balanced it out.

Conference payouts were not the issue throughout most of the 00 decade.

I will agree that the SEC has the better facilities, but that was made possible by football attendance $$$ and more donor $$$ specifically targeted at football. Interestingly enough, in quickly going through hte aught decade, the 12-teams that now compose the ACC were 34-34 against SEC teams for that decade.

And the ACC has lesser facilities and football attendance than the BiG as well. Yet a case can be made that the overall talent was better. So again, while it's certainly advantage to have better facilities, having better facilities doesn't necessarily equate to recruiting better or on the field performance.

As always, JR

Cheers,
Neil

(12-07-2012 08:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 04:08 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...losing-psu

Quote:"Jim [Delany] felt that someday, if we didn’t have anyone else in that corridor, someday it wouldn't make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league. That they would go into a league somewhere on the east coast. By doing that, it keeps us in the northeast corridor."

The B1G was afraid of the ACC? Really? Really?

Why not? The ACC had better schools, the ACC had the better markets, and the Big 10's football prowess was slipping. What the ACC didn't have was vision, great leadership, and the wisdom to understand that athletically football is king in revenue.

The Big 10 has no reason to fear the ACC now. Does it?

I'll say this again: The Big Ten has a 25-year grant of rights agreement.

So they shouldn't have to worry about Penn State or anyone else leaving for 25 years, right?

Unless they think the grant of rights is just another piece of paper, like a 27-month waiting period or a ginormous exit fee, that you can get around by filing a lawsuit and then buying your way out of it with a monetary settlement.

You're focusing too much on the GOR. Unlike the Big 12, the Big Ten schools each own a part of the network that controls the GOR. Thus, Penn State would still own a 1/24 share of the rights to broadcast OSU, Michigan, Nebraska, etc. With that negotiating leverage, it would be easier to get out of the Big 10 GOR than the Big12 GOR.

(12-07-2012 09:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 09:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 09:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 09:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 09:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Exactly, that is what I mean when I say the ACC didn't develop their markets for football. My other point is that if they had developed those first then their additions in the Northeast with Pitt and Syracuse would have been a move of further strengthening an already strong brand, rather than a move of adding more basketball product for a market place that rewards football. It's the proverbial cart before the horse.

Yeah. The Big Ten would always have an advantage in the sense that even its "non-football" schools are large public universities with huge alumni bases and they don't share their footprint with the SEC. But the ACC would be in a far better position if, football-wise, FSU+Miami+VT+Clemson = OSU+Michigan+PSU+Nebraska.

Or, and more easily accomplished, if Virginia, North Carolina, N.C. State, and Maryland > Purdue, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota.

Maybe "and", but not "or". The Big Ten's top dogs are football kings, the ACC's are, at best, rooks who have the potential to be kings but don't rise up to that potential. I think you could argue that the Va/UNC/NCSU/Md group is about the same as the Big Ten group. Only Iowa out of that group is ever much better than the cycle of "four blah years, get a new coach, repeat", and no one would take a visitor to Purdue, Indiana, or Minnesota on game day and say, "This is a great Big Ten football place."

I'm talking markets here Wedge not football per se. If the large markets of Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina had intentionally developed and cultivated football as a popular event to attend then the ACC would have earned a lot more and that would have put them on more of an equal footing basis with the Big 10. Those are the markets that are underdeveloped. Clemson may have one of the smallest population bases in the ACC but they lead the conference in attendance at 80,000 plus. That's more like Big 10 football. F.S.U. is second with 73,000 plus, and Virginia Tech with 64,000 plus. Nobody in the ACC is going to average the 100,000 plus of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State. But if North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia and Maryland who average about 50,000 could get their figures up to just Virginia Tech levels it would have made a huge difference. The rest of the ACC pulls the real figure down so far that without Clemson and F.S.U. they average less than 50,000 for a conference.

Developing means cultivation of markets as well as good football additions.

The lower Big 10 schools are much more desirable than the lower ACC schools. They are HUGE. True, they're not great football schools now, but their alumni bases alone make them much, much more desirable than ACC schools:

Living Alumni
Illinois (653,000)
Penn State (560,000)
Indiana (555,000)
Michigan State (529,000)
Michigan (500,000)
OSU (465,000)
Purdue (392,000)
Rutgers (390,000)
Wisconsin (387,000)
Minnesota (375,000)
Maryland (240,000)
Iowa (201,000)


Pitt (294,000)
FSU (290,000)
UNC (286,000)
Syracuse (241,000)
Virginia Tech (214,000)
Virginia (200,000)
NC State (170,000)
Miami (160,000)
Duke (145,000)
Georgia Tech (126,000)
Clemson (115,000)
Louisville (103,000)


Couldn't find Nebraska, Wake, or Boston College.

Clemson's alumni base is smaller than Duke's? Link please

(12-08-2012 12:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:42 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 09:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:54 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Wedge, the threat wasn't to the Big 10 footprint, or even the unlikely threat to Penn State. The threat was that the ACC might eventually get monetarily strong enough to seize the only potential market that the Big 10 could move into, the Northeast, and in the process remove themselves (ACC) from coming into play by increasing their value and building their inventory for the most valuable product (football) for their markets.

The ACC failed, because they invaded the Northeast for basketball talent before they developed their football product. That's why they and their markets were so terribly undervalued.

There was nothing West for Delany to build upon, and they couldn't really go South because of the SEC. The Big East was always going to be the Big 10's play. If they had acquired it before the ACC developed its football product then the ACC would have opened the door South.

Because the football product was not developed both the Northeast and the South is now opened to Delany. No vision, no understanding of the dynamics surrounding them, and a false sense of insular security will be what destroys the ACC.

The commissioner got the acquisitions of FSU, Miami, and (accidentally) VT to make ACC football big-time. It wasn't enough because the ACC schools that think of themselves as "football schools" haven't delivered SEC-level football, and also because the ACC has many schools that don't think of themselves as football schools. The Big Ten also has many schools that no one would call "football factories", but the difference is that the Big Ten football powers have delivered much more in on-field results and in marketability than their counterparts in the ACC.

Exactly, that is what I mean when I say the ACC didn't develop their markets for football. My other point is that if they had developed those first then their additions in the Northeast with Pitt and Syracuse would have been a move of further strengthening an already strong brand, rather than a move of adding more basketball product for a market place that rewards football. It's the proverbial cart before the horse.

To your other point, both Miami and F.S.U. were competing at SEC levels upon their entry into the ACC. It was the lack of development of the conferences football product as a whole that weakened them. Then as the income disparity grew the gap widened.

The income disparity wasn't the result of conference/TV monies until very recently. In terms of conference payouts per team, the ACC was usually always at the top. Where the ACC has always lagged behind the SEC and BiG in terms of football $$$ is in terms of ticket attendance and donor $$$ for football.

So what's changed for FSU and Clemson? And why is Louisville making more than either? Why is Syracuse even close to either?

As for Miami, it was a cultural thing. I sincerely believe Shalala wanted the steady check so that they didn't need to cheat to do well (in the BE, the unbalanced payouts directly to Miami ended in 1997 and went instead to the BCS representative), and they still wound up cheating more while in the ACC but not doing well.

UNC, which is regarded as a basketball school by most posters on this board, wound up cheating to try and improve its football product.

To me, the desire was there to produce a good on field product. In terms of talent, they rank behind only the SEC in terms of NFL drafted players.

What precisely in the football product was lacking? To me it comes down to coaching and QB play.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I can agree with most of that, but the desire to have a better product was either not sincerely followed up on, or the know how to make it happen was severely lacking among many ACC A.D.'s.

Bowl money was at a fairly high disparity as well. That too contributed to the funding differences. For most SEC teams who got a 1/13th share during that time the spillover was several million more a year plus. Perceptions of success to be sure played a part as well.

Shalala on the other hand was almost as corrosive at Wisconsin.

To be frank, I still see no concerted effort on the part of North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and other old core members to improve football. Even Virginia Tech would have a greater mountain to climb than Missouri to get up to SEC speed in facilities, capacity, and talent.

I guess if the realignment thing goes down we might pick up Duke and U.N.C. if the latest rumors are correct. I understand the markets, the solid boost in hoops, the academic bonanza, and the national quality of both, but to me this is where realignment is going to the twilight zone for the average fan. Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and F.S.U. would all be better fits for the SEC.

Even Pitt gets considered for new markets in realignment discussion down here.

Can you imagine Delany really talking about fit if he adds Georgia Tech and Florida State? It makes sense from a market perspective, but the public will never wrap their heads around that one.

Take care, I'll guess we'll know in a few months where things are headed. JR

This couldn't be further from the truth.
Carolina has increased seating capacity from 48,000 to 63,200 in the last 15 years. Similar upgrades at UVa., NC State, Maryland, Wake Forest, and Georgia Tech have taken place. Even Duke has started on a project to increase their seating over 30%.
A number of schools in the ACC have had coaching upgrades in the last few years (Neil is correct in that ACC coaching in the recent past has not been good).
ACC football is trending up, the real question is will it get to where it needs to be in time.

(12-08-2012 07:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:42 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 09:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:54 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The commissioner got the acquisitions of FSU, Miami, and (accidentally) VT to make ACC football big-time. It wasn't enough because the ACC schools that think of themselves as "football schools" haven't delivered SEC-level football, and also because the ACC has many schools that don't think of themselves as football schools. The Big Ten also has many schools that no one would call "football factories", but the difference is that the Big Ten football powers have delivered much more in on-field results and in marketability than their counterparts in the ACC.

Exactly, that is what I mean when I say the ACC didn't develop their markets for football. My other point is that if they had developed those first then their additions in the Northeast with Pitt and Syracuse would have been a move of further strengthening an already strong brand, rather than a move of adding more basketball product for a market place that rewards football. It's the proverbial cart before the horse.

To your other point, both Miami and F.S.U. were competing at SEC levels upon their entry into the ACC. It was the lack of development of the conferences football product as a whole that weakened them. Then as the income disparity grew the gap widened.

The income disparity wasn't the result of conference/TV monies until very recently. In terms of conference payouts per team, the ACC was usually always at the top. Where the ACC has always lagged behind the SEC and BiG in terms of football $$$ is in terms of ticket attendance and donor $$$ for football.

So what's changed for FSU and Clemson? And why is Louisville making more than either? Why is Syracuse even close to either?

As for Miami, it was a cultural thing. I sincerely believe Shalala wanted the steady check so that they didn't need to cheat to do well (in the BE, the unbalanced payouts directly to Miami ended in 1997 and went instead to the BCS representative), and they still wound up cheating more while in the ACC but not doing well.

UNC, which is regarded as a basketball school by most posters on this board, wound up cheating to try and improve its football product.

To me, the desire was there to produce a good on field product. In terms of talent, they rank behind only the SEC in terms of NFL drafted players.

What precisely in the football product was lacking? To me it comes down to coaching and QB play.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I can agree with most of that, but the desire to have a better product was either not sincerely followed up on, or the know how to make it happen was severely lacking among many ACC A.D.'s.

Bowl money was at a fairly high disparity as well. That too contributed to the funding differences. For most SEC teams who got a 1/13th share during that time the spillover was several million more a year plus. Perceptions of success to be sure played a part as well.

Shalala on the other hand was almost as corrosive at Wisconsin.

To be frank, I still see no concerted effort on the part of North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and other old core members to improve football. Even Virginia Tech would have a greater mountain to climb than Missouri to get up to SEC speed in facilities, capacity, and talent.

I guess if the realignment thing goes down we might pick up Duke and U.N.C. if the latest rumors are correct. I understand the markets, the solid boost in hoops, the academic bonanza, and the national quality of both, but to me this is where realignment is going to the twilight zone for the average fan. Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and F.S.U. would all be better fits for the SEC.

Even Pitt gets considered for new markets in realignment discussion down here.

Can you imagine Delany really talking about fit if he adds Georgia Tech and Florida State? It makes sense from a market perspective, but the public will never wrap their heads around that one.

Take care, I'll guess we'll know in a few months where things are headed. JR

This couldn't be further from the truth.
Carolina has increased seating capacity from 48,000 to 63,200 in the last 15 years. Similar upgrades at UVa., NC State, Maryland, Wake Forest, and Georgia Tech have taken place. Even Duke has started on a project to increase their seating over 30%.
A number of schools in the ACC have had coaching upgrades in the last few years (Neil is correct in that ACC coaching in the recent past has not been good).
ACC football is trending up, the real question is will it get to where it needs to be in time.

Adding more seats is quite different from putting real backsides in them. Outside of Clemson and F.S.U. the ACC average attendance is less that 50,000 as a conference. And, if we are talking about quality of performance it is only getting worse. We will see about hoops this year, and I'm certainly not claiming that is an SEC strong suit, however in terms of actual National Championships our limited number of teams that actually know how to play basketball have managed more in the last couple of decades than the ACC has.

The real issue is that for the largest population centers in the Southeast, the ACC has done a poor job of marketing its football product. True part of a good marketing strategy is in building a product that is compelling, but the other part is in creating an atmosphere that people want to participate in.

Adding seats is a form of preparation in that it facilitates physically the attainment of the goal, but it does little to either improve the product, or inspire the public. Forget that the SEC has added Texas to its footprint for a moment. We share two of the most populated states in the Southeast, Georgia and Florida. We share one of the smaller in population with South Carolina. Other than that most of our states in the SEC are less populated than those of the Eastern Seaboard. We are certainly less dense than many of the Big 10 states. Yet we lead attendance by appx. 5,000 more than the Big 10 who fills four of the largest stadiums in the nation every time Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Nebraska play. The SEC averages nearly 20,000 more per game than the ACC in attendance.

The product has only been significantly superior for the last decade and a half. Marketing, building a brand, public perception of the quality of the product, and creating an atmosphere the public wishes to be a part of are the biggest reasons our smaller states outdraw your larger ones. That is why I say you haven't really tried.

(12-08-2012 02:00 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:42 AM)omniorange Wrote:  The income disparity wasn't the result of conference/TV monies until very recently. In terms of conference payouts per team, the ACC was usually always at the top. Where the ACC has always lagged behind the SEC and BiG in terms of football $$$ is in terms of ticket attendance and donor $$$ for football.

So what's changed for FSU and Clemson? And why is Louisville making more than either? Why is Syracuse even close to either?

As for Miami, it was a cultural thing. I sincerely believe Shalala wanted the steady check so that they didn't need to cheat to do well (in the BE, the unbalanced payouts directly to Miami ended in 1997 and went instead to the BCS representative), and they still wound up cheating more while in the ACC but not doing well.

UNC, which is regarded as a basketball school by most posters on this board, wound up cheating to try and improve its football product.

To me, the desire was there to produce a good on field product. In terms of talent, they rank behind only the SEC in terms of NFL drafted players.

What precisely in the football product was lacking? To me it comes down to coaching and QB play.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I can agree with most of that, but the desire to have a better product was either not sincerely followed up on, or the know how to make it happen was severely lacking among many ACC A.D.'s.

Bowl money was at a fairly high disparity as well. That too contributed to the funding differences. For most SEC teams who got a 1/13th share during that time the spillover was several million more a year plus. Perceptions of success to be sure played a part as well.

Shalala on the other hand was almost as corrosive at Wisconsin.

To be frank, I still see no concerted effort on the part of North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and other old core members to improve football. Even Virginia Tech would have a greater mountain to climb than Missouri to get up to SEC speed in facilities, capacity, and talent.

I guess if the realignment thing goes down we might pick up Duke and U.N.C. if the latest rumors are correct. I understand the markets, the solid boost in hoops, the academic bonanza, and the national quality of both, but to me this is where realignment is going to the twilight zone for the average fan. Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and F.S.U. would all be better fits for the SEC.

Even Pitt gets considered for new markets in realignment discussion down here.

Can you imagine Delany really talking about fit if he adds Georgia Tech and Florida State? It makes sense from a market perspective, but the public will never wrap their heads around that one.

Take care, I'll guess we'll know in a few months where things are headed. JR

I'll address one point in your post and then move on since other than a "feeling" or that their ADs were inept, you haven't really indicated any specifics as to where you think the ACC was definitely trying not to put a good product on the field.

Without including the Championship game revenue which is not truly a bowl, the net bowl revenue distributed by the conferences was hardly "fairly high"er and certainly nowhere near the several million more you claim.

From a post I did back in 2008 on the 2007 net bowl revenue, something I followed closely (along with NCAA funding back in the day) when the NCAA site used to post these on a regular basis up until 2010 Bowl season, there really wasn't much change.

SEC - $2,415,977 average per team
Big 10 - $2,217,664 average per team
Big 12 - $1,808,869 average per team
Big East - $1,774,628 average per team
Pac 10 - $1,764,701 average per team
ACC - $1,605,304 average per team

The difference between the ACC and the SEC here was about the same difference between the two leagues in terms of NCAA bb units, which again accounts for why the conference share the ACC distributed was as high, usually higher, than the SEC's.

With the Championship Game revenue added I'm sure the disparity was higher still, but then again, the ACC basketball tourney usually made way more money than the SEC basketball tourney, so once again they balanced it out.

Conference payouts were not the issue throughout most of the 00 decade.

I will agree that the SEC has the better facilities, but that was made possible by football attendance $$$ and more donor $$$ specifically targeted at football. Interestingly enough, in quickly going through hte aught decade, the 12-teams that now compose the ACC were 34-34 against SEC teams for that decade.

And the ACC has lesser facilities and football attendance than the BiG as well. Yet a case can be made that the overall talent was better. So again, while it's certainly advantage to have better facilities, having better facilities doesn't necessarily equate to recruiting better or on the field performance.

As always, JR

Cheers,
Neil

You have the larger markets, but fewer people in the seats, much fewer. You argue that the product was relatively equivalent for the first decade of the new century so logically you have removed the argument that talent was the difference. If you have equal talent, and less participation it might be deduced that you did a much poorer job in marketing. That in College Football is to be laid at the feet of AD's and Conference executives. If it was poor coaching, since you say we were 34 and 34 then ours must have been equally bad so eliminate that from the equation too.

No matter how you cut it Neal the answer is leadership and since the universities stuck by the decisions of their leaders they weren't holding them accountable for the results in support through attendance and contributions, which means they were satisfied with the efforts that were obviously lagging behind those of their competitors. That translates to me as not really trying. That's more than just a feeling. That's reality!

(12-07-2012 04:17 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Wait! They want to "avoid" losing Penn State?! Good to hear.

Seriously, I am not buying what he's selling. They wanted to expand their reach without regard to PSU, so that's just an excuse. What's next? Adding Virginia and UConn so Maryland and Rutgers don't get lonely?

Not Uconn. Virginia and North Carolina or Georgia Tech. Never Uconn.

Penn State was never going to leave the B-10. The new additions were purely TV market driven and to let ND know that there are only 2 openings left in the B-10 once the B-12 takes a couple more slices from the ACC pie. If the conferences go to 16 teams with Conference Championship Games as a lead in to the National Championship play off system, ND is going to be left high and dry with a 12 game schedule and no conference Championship Game to play in as an independent. The ND administration has to have that in the back of their minds behind closed doors as they fight to remain independent (the course they really choose to follow as long as possible).

Word of a long-time, respected B10 AD < Internet theories

This place never ceases to amaze...

(12-08-2012 08:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 07:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:42 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 09:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Exactly, that is what I mean when I say the ACC didn't develop their markets for football. My other point is that if they had developed those first then their additions in the Northeast with Pitt and Syracuse would have been a move of further strengthening an already strong brand, rather than a move of adding more basketball product for a market place that rewards football. It's the proverbial cart before the horse.

To your other point, both Miami and F.S.U. were competing at SEC levels upon their entry into the ACC. It was the lack of development of the conferences football product as a whole that weakened them. Then as the income disparity grew the gap widened.

The income disparity wasn't the result of conference/TV monies until very recently. In terms of conference payouts per team, the ACC was usually always at the top. Where the ACC has always lagged behind the SEC and BiG in terms of football $$$ is in terms of ticket attendance and donor $$$ for football.

So what's changed for FSU and Clemson? And why is Louisville making more than either? Why is Syracuse even close to either?

As for Miami, it was a cultural thing. I sincerely believe Shalala wanted the steady check so that they didn't need to cheat to do well (in the BE, the unbalanced payouts directly to Miami ended in 1997 and went instead to the BCS representative), and they still wound up cheating more while in the ACC but not doing well.

UNC, which is regarded as a basketball school by most posters on this board, wound up cheating to try and improve its football product.

To me, the desire was there to produce a good on field product. In terms of talent, they rank behind only the SEC in terms of NFL drafted players.

What precisely in the football product was lacking? To me it comes down to coaching and QB play.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I can agree with most of that, but the desire to have a better product was either not sincerely followed up on, or the know how to make it happen was severely lacking among many ACC A.D.'s.

Bowl money was at a fairly high disparity as well. That too contributed to the funding differences. For most SEC teams who got a 1/13th share during that time the spillover was several million more a year plus. Perceptions of success to be sure played a part as well.

Shalala on the other hand was almost as corrosive at Wisconsin.

To be frank, I still see no concerted effort on the part of North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and other old core members to improve football. Even Virginia Tech would have a greater mountain to climb than Missouri to get up to SEC speed in facilities, capacity, and talent.

I guess if the realignment thing goes down we might pick up Duke and U.N.C. if the latest rumors are correct. I understand the markets, the solid boost in hoops, the academic bonanza, and the national quality of both, but to me this is where realignment is going to the twilight zone for the average fan. Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and F.S.U. would all be better fits for the SEC.

Even Pitt gets considered for new markets in realignment discussion down here.

Can you imagine Delany really talking about fit if he adds Georgia Tech and Florida State? It makes sense from a market perspective, but the public will never wrap their heads around that one.

Take care, I'll guess we'll know in a few months where things are headed. JR

This couldn't be further from the truth.
Carolina has increased seating capacity from 48,000 to 63,200 in the last 15 years. Similar upgrades at UVa., NC State, Maryland, Wake Forest, and Georgia Tech have taken place. Even Duke has started on a project to increase their seating over 30%.
A number of schools in the ACC have had coaching upgrades in the last few years (Neil is correct in that ACC coaching in the recent past has not been good).
ACC football is trending up, the real question is will it get to where it needs to be in time.

Adding more seats is quite different from putting real backsides in them. Outside of Clemson and F.S.U. the ACC average attendance is less that 50,000 as a conference. And, if we are talking about quality of performance it is only getting worse. We will see about hoops this year, and I'm certainly not claiming that is an SEC strong suit, however in terms of actual National Championships our limited number of teams that actually know how to play basketball have managed more in the last couple of decades than the ACC has.

The real issue is that for the largest population centers in the Southeast, the ACC has done a poor job of marketing its football product. True part of a good marketing strategy is in building a product that is compelling, but the other part is in creating an atmosphere that people want to participate in.

Adding seats is a form of preparation in that it facilitates physically the attainment of the goal, but it does little to either improve the product, or inspire the public. Forget that the SEC has added Texas to its footprint for a moment. We share two of the most populated states in the Southeast, Georgia and Florida. We share one of the smaller in population with South Carolina. Other than that most of our states in the SEC are less populated than those of the Eastern Seaboard. We are certainly less dense than many of the Big 10 states. Yet we lead attendance by appx. 5,000 more than the Big 10 who fills four of the largest stadiums in the nation every time Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Nebraska play. The SEC averages nearly 20,000 more per game than the ACC in attendance.

The product has only been significantly superior for the last decade and a half. Marketing, building a brand, public perception of the quality of the product, and creating an atmosphere the public wishes to be a part of are the biggest reasons our smaller states outdraw your larger ones. That is why I say you haven't really tried.

As with most marketing PLANS, you must first have a plan. It wouldn't be prudent to be overrun by fans only for them to be disappointed with what they found.....why would the come back.
It's easy to say the ACC hasn't done this or hasn't done that to be up to SEC snuff, but a sound marketing plan takes time and planning and when dealing with public institutions good timing re: funding.
One of the real problems for the ACC is that most ACC schools have many more athletic programs than do the SEC. For instance, the most programs in any SEC school is 22 (Florida) which is below the average for ACC schools (Carolina has 28, BC has 32 ((the most in the ACC)) ).
Even if the income is even the SEC schools have more money to pour into football than ACC schools because the SEC schools have fewer sports to support. One is not right and the other wrong, it's just different philosophies of different schools, i.e. "fit".

The average for a SEC school is to derive 56% of their athletic department revenue from football (14 schools).
The average for an ACC school is to derive 40% of their athletic department revenue from football (14 schools with Louisville instead of Maryland).

(12-08-2012 10:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 08:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 07:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:42 AM)omniorange Wrote:  The income disparity wasn't the result of conference/TV monies until very recently. In terms of conference payouts per team, the ACC was usually always at the top. Where the ACC has always lagged behind the SEC and BiG in terms of football $$$ is in terms of ticket attendance and donor $$$ for football.

So what's changed for FSU and Clemson? And why is Louisville making more than either? Why is Syracuse even close to either?

As for Miami, it was a cultural thing. I sincerely believe Shalala wanted the steady check so that they didn't need to cheat to do well (in the BE, the unbalanced payouts directly to Miami ended in 1997 and went instead to the BCS representative), and they still wound up cheating more while in the ACC but not doing well.

UNC, which is regarded as a basketball school by most posters on this board, wound up cheating to try and improve its football product.

To me, the desire was there to produce a good on field product. In terms of talent, they rank behind only the SEC in terms of NFL drafted players.

What precisely in the football product was lacking? To me it comes down to coaching and QB play.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I can agree with most of that, but the desire to have a better product was either not sincerely followed up on, or the know how to make it happen was severely lacking among many ACC A.D.'s.

Bowl money was at a fairly high disparity as well. That too contributed to the funding differences. For most SEC teams who got a 1/13th share during that time the spillover was several million more a year plus. Perceptions of success to be sure played a part as well.

Shalala on the other hand was almost as corrosive at Wisconsin.

To be frank, I still see no concerted effort on the part of North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and other old core members to improve football. Even Virginia Tech would have a greater mountain to climb than Missouri to get up to SEC speed in facilities, capacity, and talent.

I guess if the realignment thing goes down we might pick up Duke and U.N.C. if the latest rumors are correct. I understand the markets, the solid boost in hoops, the academic bonanza, and the national quality of both, but to me this is where realignment is going to the twilight zone for the average fan. Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and F.S.U. would all be better fits for the SEC.

Even Pitt gets considered for new markets in realignment discussion down here.

Can you imagine Delany really talking about fit if he adds Georgia Tech and Florida State? It makes sense from a market perspective, but the public will never wrap their heads around that one.

Take care, I'll guess we'll know in a few months where things are headed. JR

This couldn't be further from the truth.
Carolina has increased seating capacity from 48,000 to 63,200 in the last 15 years. Similar upgrades at UVa., NC State, Maryland, Wake Forest, and Georgia Tech have taken place. Even Duke has started on a project to increase their seating over 30%.
A number of schools in the ACC have had coaching upgrades in the last few years (Neil is correct in that ACC coaching in the recent past has not been good).
ACC football is trending up, the real question is will it get to where it needs to be in time.

Adding more seats is quite different from putting real backsides in them. Outside of Clemson and F.S.U. the ACC average attendance is less that 50,000 as a conference. And, if we are talking about quality of performance it is only getting worse. We will see about hoops this year, and I'm certainly not claiming that is an SEC strong suit, however in terms of actual National Championships our limited number of teams that actually know how to play basketball have managed more in the last couple of decades than the ACC has.

The real issue is that for the largest population centers in the Southeast, the ACC has done a poor job of marketing its football product. True part of a good marketing strategy is in building a product that is compelling, but the other part is in creating an atmosphere that people want to participate in.

Adding seats is a form of preparation in that it facilitates physically the attainment of the goal, but it does little to either improve the product, or inspire the public. Forget that the SEC has added Texas to its footprint for a moment. We share two of the most populated states in the Southeast, Georgia and Florida. We share one of the smaller in population with South Carolina. Other than that most of our states in the SEC are less populated than those of the Eastern Seaboard. We are certainly less dense than many of the Big 10 states. Yet we lead attendance by appx. 5,000 more than the Big 10 who fills four of the largest stadiums in the nation every time Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Nebraska play. The SEC averages nearly 20,000 more per game than the ACC in attendance.

The product has only been significantly superior for the last decade and a half. Marketing, building a brand, public perception of the quality of the product, and creating an atmosphere the public wishes to be a part of are the biggest reasons our smaller states outdraw your larger ones. That is why I say you haven't really tried.

As with most marketing PLANS, you must first have a plan. It wouldn't be prudent to be overrun by fans only for them to be disappointed with what they found.....why would the come back.
It's easy to say the ACC hasn't done this or hasn't done that to be up to SEC snuff, but a sound marketing plan takes time and planning and when dealing with public institutions good timing re: funding.
One of the real problems for the ACC is that most ACC schools have many more athletic programs than do the SEC. For instance, the most programs in any SEC school is 22 (Florida) which is below the average for ACC schools (Carolina has 28, BC has 32 ((the most in the ACC)) ).
Even if the income is even the SEC schools have more money to pour into football than ACC schools because the SEC schools have fewer sports to support. One is not right and the other wrong, it's just different philosophies of different schools, i.e. "fit".

I accept that. Title 9 destroyed many of the other minor sports in the SEC. It was our choice to allow that to happen. Many won't remember this now, but Auburn once had a wrestling program that challenged Iowa's every year. We didn't win many national titles but were usually in the top ten, and frequently in the top 5. That disappeared in 1977 never to return.

I mention that to say that the job of an A.D. is to make difficult decisions. But that truly is the choice of the ACC programs to make. We can't always have the vision we would like to have. But, the growth of the SEC wasn't invisible to the eyes of those directing programs in the ACC. I would much rather have had the SEC partner with the ACC for the future, but for reasons out of our control it will not happen and the Big 12 will be the dance partner. The significance of that move indicated the direction the Big 10 and SEC would be taking.

(12-08-2012 12:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  FSU joined the ACC in 1992 and stayed at BCS level for almost a decade, so it is hard to argue that ACC weakness sapped their strength.

Quote:You are correct in what you say but it was only a part of the decline of Seminole football. The growing disparity in income between the SEC and ACC contributed mightily in the football facilities arms race. The Bowden versus Paterno fight that prevented either of them from retiring when they should have is another. I thought they should have given them both a lance and a football helmet and let them tilt at each other from their scooter chairs to determine who the winningest coach was going to be.

The real lack of regard to build football competition among all of the ACC schools has also been a contributing factor in their decline. Virginia Tech and Clemson just hasn't been enough to keep them tough and sharp. I would have thrown in Miami but their decline has even been steeper than Miami's.

I know it won't happen, but of all the ACC teams Clemson is the best fit for the SEC in passion, pageantry, tradition, and desire to win. F.S.U. is number 2 in all of those. Take care. JR

Good point about Bowden vs Paterno. That cost FSU at least 5 good years while he pursued his ego. Still, it also means you cannot blame the ACC for FSUs decline.

(12-08-2012 08:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 02:00 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:42 AM)omniorange Wrote:  The income disparity wasn't the result of conference/TV monies until very recently. In terms of conference payouts per team, the ACC was usually always at the top. Where the ACC has always lagged behind the SEC and BiG in terms of football $$$ is in terms of ticket attendance and donor $$$ for football.

So what's changed for FSU and Clemson? And why is Louisville making more than either? Why is Syracuse even close to either?

As for Miami, it was a cultural thing. I sincerely believe Shalala wanted the steady check so that they didn't need to cheat to do well (in the BE, the unbalanced payouts directly to Miami ended in 1997 and went instead to the BCS representative), and they still wound up cheating more while in the ACC but not doing well.

UNC, which is regarded as a basketball school by most posters on this board, wound up cheating to try and improve its football product.

To me, the desire was there to produce a good on field product. In terms of talent, they rank behind only the SEC in terms of NFL drafted players.

What precisely in the football product was lacking? To me it comes down to coaching and QB play.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I can agree with most of that, but the desire to have a better product was either not sincerely followed up on, or the know how to make it happen was severely lacking among many ACC A.D.'s.

Bowl money was at a fairly high disparity as well. That too contributed to the funding differences. For most SEC teams who got a 1/13th share during that time the spillover was several million more a year plus. Perceptions of success to be sure played a part as well.

Shalala on the other hand was almost as corrosive at Wisconsin.

To be frank, I still see no concerted effort on the part of North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and other old core members to improve football. Even Virginia Tech would have a greater mountain to climb than Missouri to get up to SEC speed in facilities, capacity, and talent.

I guess if the realignment thing goes down we might pick up Duke and U.N.C. if the latest rumors are correct. I understand the markets, the solid boost in hoops, the academic bonanza, and the national quality of both, but to me this is where realignment is going to the twilight zone for the average fan. Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and F.S.U. would all be better fits for the SEC.

Even Pitt gets considered for new markets in realignment discussion down here.

Can you imagine Delany really talking about fit if he adds Georgia Tech and Florida State? It makes sense from a market perspective, but the public will never wrap their heads around that one.

Take care, I'll guess we'll know in a few months where things are headed. JR

I'll address one point in your post and then move on since other than a "feeling" or that their ADs were inept, you haven't really indicated any specifics as to where you think the ACC was definitely trying not to put a good product on the field.

Without including the Championship game revenue which is not truly a bowl, the net bowl revenue distributed by the conferences was hardly "fairly high"er and certainly nowhere near the several million more you claim.

From a post I did back in 2008 on the 2007 net bowl revenue, something I followed closely (along with NCAA funding back in the day) when the NCAA site used to post these on a regular basis up until 2010 Bowl season, there really wasn't much change.

SEC - $2,415,977 average per team
Big 10 - $2,217,664 average per team
Big 12 - $1,808,869 average per team
Big East - $1,774,628 average per team
Pac 10 - $1,764,701 average per team
ACC - $1,605,304 average per team

The difference between the ACC and the SEC here was about the same difference between the two leagues in terms of NCAA bb units, which again accounts for why the conference share the ACC distributed was as high, usually higher, than the SEC's.

With the Championship Game revenue added I'm sure the disparity was higher still, but then again, the ACC basketball tourney usually made way more money than the SEC basketball tourney, so once again they balanced it out.

Conference payouts were not the issue throughout most of the 00 decade.

I will agree that the SEC has the better facilities, but that was made possible by football attendance $$$ and more donor $$$ specifically targeted at football. Interestingly enough, in quickly going through hte aught decade, the 12-teams that now compose the ACC were 34-34 against SEC teams for that decade.

And the ACC has lesser facilities and football attendance than the BiG as well. Yet a case can be made that the overall talent was better. So again, while it's certainly advantage to have better facilities, having better facilities doesn't necessarily equate to recruiting better or on the field performance.

As always, JR

Cheers,
Neil

You have the larger markets, but fewer people in the seats, much fewer. You argue that the product was relatively equivalent for the first decade of the new century so logically you have removed the argument that talent was the difference. If you have equal talent, and less participation it might be deduced that you did a much poorer job in marketing. That in College Football is to be laid at the feet of AD's and Conference executives. If it was poor coaching, since you say we were 34 and 34 then ours must have been equally bad so eliminate that from the equation too.

No matter how you cut it Neal the answer is leadership and since the universities stuck by the decisions of their leaders they weren't holding them accountable for the results in support through attendance and contributions, which means they were satisfied with the efforts that were obviously lagging behind those of their competitors. That translates to me as not really trying. That's more than just a feeling. That's reality!

I guess what I am getting at is that isn't it just possible that the people who reside in the states of Virginia and North Carolina will never be as rabid about football as the people who reside in the states in the SEC?

It seems to me efforts were made, and ones you ignore simply because it doesn't fit into your world view that somehow it's the school's fault and that things would be different if these school's were run more like SEC institutions.

My point is that some of them actually have attempted to run their programs like SEC institutions and it still hasn't resulted in SEC type attendance at their games. At a certain point in time, when does one start looking externally for why the difference instead of internally?

Cheers,
Neil

(12-08-2012 11:09 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 08:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 02:00 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:42 AM)omniorange Wrote:  The income disparity wasn't the result of conference/TV monies until very recently. In terms of conference payouts per team, the ACC was usually always at the top. Where the ACC has always lagged behind the SEC and BiG in terms of football $$$ is in terms of ticket attendance and donor $$$ for football.

So what's changed for FSU and Clemson? And why is Louisville making more than either? Why is Syracuse even close to either?

As for Miami, it was a cultural thing. I sincerely believe Shalala wanted the steady check so that they didn't need to cheat to do well (in the BE, the unbalanced payouts directly to Miami ended in 1997 and went instead to the BCS representative), and they still wound up cheating more while in the ACC but not doing well.

UNC, which is regarded as a basketball school by most posters on this board, wound up cheating to try and improve its football product.

To me, the desire was there to produce a good on field product. In terms of talent, they rank behind only the SEC in terms of NFL drafted players.

What precisely in the football product was lacking? To me it comes down to coaching and QB play.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I can agree with most of that, but the desire to have a better product was either not sincerely followed up on, or the know how to make it happen was severely lacking among many ACC A.D.'s.

Bowl money was at a fairly high disparity as well. That too contributed to the funding differences. For most SEC teams who got a 1/13th share during that time the spillover was several million more a year plus. Perceptions of success to be sure played a part as well.

Shalala on the other hand was almost as corrosive at Wisconsin.

To be frank, I still see no concerted effort on the part of North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and other old core members to improve football. Even Virginia Tech would have a greater mountain to climb than Missouri to get up to SEC speed in facilities, capacity, and talent.

I guess if the realignment thing goes down we might pick up Duke and U.N.C. if the latest rumors are correct. I understand the markets, the solid boost in hoops, the academic bonanza, and the national quality of both, but to me this is where realignment is going to the twilight zone for the average fan. Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and F.S.U. would all be better fits for the SEC.

Even Pitt gets considered for new markets in realignment discussion down here.

Can you imagine Delany really talking about fit if he adds Georgia Tech and Florida State? It makes sense from a market perspective, but the public will never wrap their heads around that one.

Take care, I'll guess we'll know in a few months where things are headed. JR

I'll address one point in your post and then move on since other than a "feeling" or that their ADs were inept, you haven't really indicated any specifics as to where you think the ACC was definitely trying not to put a good product on the field.

Without including the Championship game revenue which is not truly a bowl, the net bowl revenue distributed by the conferences was hardly "fairly high"er and certainly nowhere near the several million more you claim.

From a post I did back in 2008 on the 2007 net bowl revenue, something I followed closely (along with NCAA funding back in the day) when the NCAA site used to post these on a regular basis up until 2010 Bowl season, there really wasn't much change.

SEC - $2,415,977 average per team
Big 10 - $2,217,664 average per team
Big 12 - $1,808,869 average per team
Big East - $1,774,628 average per team
Pac 10 - $1,764,701 average per team
ACC - $1,605,304 average per team

The difference between the ACC and the SEC here was about the same difference between the two leagues in terms of NCAA bb units, which again accounts for why the conference share the ACC distributed was as high, usually higher, than the SEC's.

With the Championship Game revenue added I'm sure the disparity was higher still, but then again, the ACC basketball tourney usually made way more money than the SEC basketball tourney, so once again they balanced it out.

Conference payouts were not the issue throughout most of the 00 decade.

I will agree that the SEC has the better facilities, but that was made possible by football attendance $$$ and more donor $$$ specifically targeted at football. Interestingly enough, in quickly going through hte aught decade, the 12-teams that now compose the ACC were 34-34 against SEC teams for that decade.

And the ACC has lesser facilities and football attendance than the BiG as well. Yet a case can be made that the overall talent was better. So again, while it's certainly advantage to have better facilities, having better facilities doesn't necessarily equate to recruiting better or on the field performance.

As always, JR

Cheers,
Neil

You have the larger markets, but fewer people in the seats, much fewer. You argue that the product was relatively equivalent for the first decade of the new century so logically you have removed the argument that talent was the difference. If you have equal talent, and less participation it might be deduced that you did a much poorer job in marketing. That in College Football is to be laid at the feet of AD's and Conference executives. If it was poor coaching, since you say we were 34 and 34 then ours must have been equally bad so eliminate that from the equation too.

No matter how you cut it Neal the answer is leadership and since the universities stuck by the decisions of their leaders they weren't holding them accountable for the results in support through attendance and contributions, which means they were satisfied with the efforts that were obviously lagging behind those of their competitors. That translates to me as not really trying. That's more than just a feeling. That's reality!

I guess what I am getting at is that isn't it just possible that the people who reside in the states of Virginia and North Carolina will never be as rabid about football as the people who reside in the states in the SEC?

It seems to me efforts were made, and ones you ignore simply because it doesn't fit into your world view that somehow it's the school's fault and that things would be different if these school's were run more like SEC institutions.

My point is that some of them actually have attempted to run their programs like SEC institutions and it still hasn't resulted in SEC type attendance at their games. At a certain point in time, when does one start looking externally for why the difference instead of internally?

Cheers,
Neil

Okay Neil, I can agree with that. I do think there is a lot of truth in your summary.

(12-08-2012 09:02 AM)panite Wrote:  Penn State was never going to leave the B-10. The new additions were purely TV market driven and to let ND know that there are only 2 openings left in the B-10 once the B-12 takes a couple more slices from the ACC pie. If the conferences go to 16 teams with Conference Championship Games as a lead in to the National Championship play off system, ND is going to be left high and dry with a 12 game schedule and no conference Championship Game to play in as an independent. The ND administration has to have that in the back of their minds behind closed doors as they fight to remain independent (the course they really choose to follow as long as possible).

Notre Dame did just fine this year as an independent, hmmm? I don't see how that will change one bit whether conferences go to 16 teams or not. They are their own powerful entity and control networks more than you think.

And as a PSU fan, I don't believe one word Alavarez said either. Sure, like me most PSU fans absolutely HATE being in the Big 10 and miss all the regional rivalries (Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, BC, Notre Dame) that made Penn State and college football what it once was, but no way would PSU even consider bailing on the $$$ associated with the B10. Especially now since all of the sanctions and fines. No other conference will allow them to get back to prominence in a 5-10 year span. To even suggest or speculate they would consider leaving the B10 is ludicrous.