(03-10-2017 03:26 PM)orangefan Wrote:  ESPN had a binding agreement with the ACC at $13m/school and would have no reason except charity to offer more

I've already said that the increase from $13 m to $17 m was a combination of three factors.

(03-10-2017 03:26 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  ESPN got three things from the extension negotiated after Syracuse and Pittsburgh joined: 1) additional inventory from adding Syracuse and Pittsburgh 2) a four year extension, and 3) the addition of three Friday night football games, one of which Syracuse agreed to host.

It was clearly a combination of all of these things. However, just the change in the market between 2010, when the ACC signed the $13 million/year/school deal , and 2012, when the P12 got $21 million/year per school that still left enough inventory for the P12 to be formed, meant that adding any quality school would have increased the average per school value of the ACC TV deal by a lot.

Let's say that the P12 deal implies a value per school of $25 million/year per school (FOX + ESPN + P12 Network). Adding two schools to the ACC with a value of $25 million/year would by itself raise the per school average of the ACC deal from $13 million to close to $15 million.

To be clear, I'm not saying as a general premise that Syracuse and Pittsburgh are worth around twice as much as the schools in the ACC ($25m vs. $13m). However, I am saying that the market changed so much in those two years, that the 2012 value of Syracuse and Pittsburgh was in fact twice as high as the 2010 per school average value of the ACC schools.

But that's apples and oranges. There is no way to "what if" what may have happened but didn't. I would imagine that by the time the ACC invited Pitt and Syracuse, ESPN was already willing to increase the average payout to existing schools to $17MM, and believed that those two schools would not dilute the value of the product they were buying. I don't believe that at any time ESPN assigned a valuation of $25 million dollars to either school.

And FWIW, the math is wrong at $25MM. If the ACC was worth $156MM before expansion (12 X $13MM) and $238MM after expansion (14 X $17MM) that would imply that Pitt and Syracuse were worth $82MM between them. If that were their true worth, I believe they would both be playing in the B1G tournament this week instead of the ACCT.

The only thing I am prepared to conclude is that ESPN believed that the ACC's value would not be diluted by adding these two schools.

I've already said that the increase from $13 m to $17 m was a combination of three factors. I agree, if it was just the expansion, then Syracuse and Pittsburgh would be implicitly worth $41 million a piece. I'm speculating that based on the value of the P12 deal, the implicit value of Syracuse and Pittsburgh was around $25 m/year, with the remaining increase due to the extension and the addition of Friday games. Of course, none of the existing member except BC were willing to commit to a home Friday game, so that increase is attributable in part to Syracuse as well. The $25 million is absolutely in line with what the P12 got per school so it should not be that difficult to believe that Syracuse and Pittsburgh were worth this much.

With respect to the possibility that ESPN would have offered an increase to $17m/school anyway, that is simply not plausible. ESPN had a binding agreement with the ACC at $13m/school and would have no reason except charity to offer more -- even though by 2012 it was definitely worth more based on changes in the market As I said, extending the contract and adding Friday games were part of the basis for the increase, so if the ACC were willing to do these things, those opportunities were available without expanding.

(03-10-2017 03:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:26 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  ESPN got three things from the extension negotiated after Syracuse and Pittsburgh joined: 1) additional inventory from adding Syracuse and Pittsburgh 2) a four year extension, and 3) the addition of three Friday night football games, one of which Syracuse agreed to host.

It was clearly a combination of all of these things. However, just the change in the market between 2010, when the ACC signed the $13 million/year/school deal , and 2012, when the P12 got $21 million/year per school that still left enough inventory for the P12 to be formed, meant that adding any quality school would have increased the average per school value of the ACC TV deal by a lot.

Let's say that the P12 deal implies a value per school of $25 million/year per school (FOX + ESPN + P12 Network). Adding two schools to the ACC with a value of $25 million/year would by itself raise the per school average of the ACC deal from $13 million to close to $15 million.

To be clear, I'm not saying as a general premise that Syracuse and Pittsburgh are worth around twice as much as the schools in the ACC ($25m vs. $13m). However, I am saying that the market changed so much in those two years, that the 2012 value of Syracuse and Pittsburgh was in fact twice as high as the 2010 per school average value of the ACC schools.

But that's apples and oranges. There is no way to "what if" what may have happened but didn't. I would imagine that by the time the ACC invited Pitt and Syracuse, ESPN was already willing to increase the average payout to existing schools to $17MM, and believed that those two schools would not dilute the value of the product they were buying. I don't believe that at any time ESPN assigned a valuation of $25 million dollars to either school.

And FWIW, the math is wrong at $25MM. If the ACC was worth $156MM before expansion (12 X $13MM) and $238MM after expansion (14 X $17MM) that would imply that Pitt and Syracuse were worth $82MM between them. If that were their true worth, I believe they would both be playing in the B1G tournament this week instead of the ACCT.

The only thing I am prepared to conclude is that ESPN believed that the ACC's value would not be diluted by adding these two schools.

I've already said that the increase from $13 m to $17 m was a combination of three factors. I agree, if it was just the expansion, then Syracuse and Pittsburgh would be implicitly worth $41 million a piece. I'm speculating that based on the value of the P12 deal, the implicit value of Syracuse and Pittsburgh was around $25 m/year, with the remaining increase due to the extension and the addition of Friday games. Of course, none of the existing member except BC were willing to commit to a home Friday game, so that increase is attributable in part to Syracuse as well. The $25 million is absolutely in line with what the P12 got per school so it should not be that difficult to believe that Syracuse and Pittsburgh were worth this much.

With respect to the possibility that ESPN would have offered an increase to $17m/school anyway, that is simply not plausible. ESPN had a binding agreement with the ACC at $13m/school and would have no reason except charity to offer more -- even though by 2012 it was definitely worth more based on changes in the market As I said, extending the contract and adding Friday games were part of the basis for the increase, so if the ACC were willing to do these things, those opportunities were available without expanding.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You seem to be suggesting that the long-term extension of the contract and GoR had little value to ESPN compared with adding Pitt and Syracuse. I guess if I were a Pitt or Syracuse fan I'd like to think that were true. But I'm not and I don't.

(03-10-2017 02:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  Syracuse and Pitt as a pair was the best basketball play available. It was seen around the 2009-10 time frame that the Pitt basketball program would was moving past UConn and as already mentioned, Syracuse was the best basketball program in the Northeast.
Also in the same time frame the ACCN was seen as a possibility IF we could get Notre Dame to partner with us. It was properly perceived that Notre Dame would prefer Pitt and Syracuse out of the other Big East possibilities because they were the two Big East schools that Notre Dame had the most and best ties with.
You might say that the ACC invited who ESPN told them to, but you could also use the argument that Swofford and his staff had a goal and had done excellent research and knew what the ACC needed.

(03-10-2017 03:41 PM)green Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:26 PM)orangefan Wrote:  ESPN had a binding agreement with the ACC at $13m/school and would have no reason except charity to offer more

I've already said that the increase from $13 m to $17 m was a combination of three factors.

The conference expanded last year, adding Syracuse and Pittsburgh, and a clause in the previous contract permitted the ACC to renegotiate if it grew by two or more teams.
-- bostonglobe.com May 10, 2012

nothing of the sort ...
espn contractually obligated to bump pay for additional members ...
also known as the escalation clause ...

VALUED OPINION

(03-10-2017 04:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC had several options on pairs of Big East teams. Each had their own pluses and drawbacks.
Syracuse and Rutgers
WVU and Pitt (this option did little to protect Boston because Pitt is too far west to be considered Northeastern)
Syracuse and UConn
Pitt and Rutgers
Syracuse and Pitt
WVU and Rutgers

These options were considered because the ACC had to protect the Boston market.

(03-10-2017 04:07 PM)orangefan Wrote:  The obligation to reopen negotiations did not assure any kind of an increase.

(03-10-2017 04:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 04:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC had several options on pairs of Big East teams. Each had their own pluses and drawbacks.
Syracuse and Rutgers
WVU and Pitt (this option did little to protect Boston because Pitt is too far west to be considered Northeastern)
Syracuse and UConn
Pitt and Rutgers
Syracuse and Pitt
WVU and Rutgers

These options were considered because the ACC had to protect the Boston market.

The ACC's options for pairs of teams consisted of Syracuse and Pitt and Pitt and Syracuse.

If the conference only looked past UL's academic baggage due to a conference-defining crisis, WVU wasn't a serious option during a time of relative peace and stability.

Rutgers never really had a shot. The same goes for UConn.

(03-10-2017 04:15 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 04:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 04:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC had several options on pairs of Big East teams. Each had their own pluses and drawbacks.
Syracuse and Rutgers
WVU and Pitt (this option did little to protect Boston because Pitt is too far west to be considered Northeastern)
Syracuse and UConn
Pitt and Rutgers
Syracuse and Pitt
WVU and Rutgers

These options were considered because the ACC had to protect the Boston market.

The ACC's options for pairs of teams consisted of Syracuse and Pitt and Pitt and Syracuse.

If the conference only looked past UL's academic baggage due to a conference-defining crisis, WVU wasn't a serious option during a time of relative peace and stability.

Rutgers never really had a shot. The same goes for UConn.

I recall reports that ten schools applied for ACC membership as part of its expansion process and that UConn was the ACC's third choice at the time. UConn status as runner up was reinforced by the ACC's process to select a replacement for Maryland, in which UConn and UL appeared to be the only schools considered seriously (despite Cincinnati's active efforts).

(03-10-2017 04:14 PM)green Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 04:07 PM)orangefan Wrote:  The obligation to reopen negotiations did not assure any kind of an increase.

why expand without a guarantee of a pay raise ...

CIRCULAR REASONING

(03-10-2017 04:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  Syracuse and Pitt as a pair was the best basketball play available. It was seen around the 2009-10 time frame that the Pitt basketball program would was moving past UConn and as already mentioned, Syracuse was the best basketball program in the Northeast.
Also in the same time frame the ACCN was seen as a possibility IF we could get Notre Dame to partner with us. It was properly perceived that Notre Dame would prefer Pitt and Syracuse out of the other Big East possibilities because they were the two Big East schools that Notre Dame had the most and best ties with.
You might say that the ACC invited who ESPN told them to, but you could also use the argument that Swofford and his staff had a goal and had done excellent research and knew what the ACC needed.

The latter part of this post is correct, but the first paragraph is debatable regarding Pitt being on the verge of supplanting UConn in men's basketball - though they certainly were formidable considering the recruiting gap between Pitt and UConn and SU when they were all in the Big East together.

But to what you correctly wrote in the latter part of the above post, it all goes back to expansion thinking from as far back as the late 90s, when conference sports networks were at best a far-future type concept.

There is a reason why the Big Ten expanded to 11 with PSU and desperately sought ND as number 12 for almost two decades afterward. And it goes back to things I have posted over the years as well as what Crazy Paco has posted in this actual thread.

Crazy Paco, "The overarching purpose of the ACC having moved the tournament to NYC was to help push the conference brand into the large, wealthy, northeastern media markets. This is the entire purpose of the ACC's growth strategy for the past 15 years going back to 2003 when it tried to take Syracuse, Boston College, and Miami. The 2011 expansion was a continuation of that. If you haven't noticed, the Big Ten is pursuing the exact same strategy."

Any conference with both ND and PSU has the college athletics fan base of the large wealthy, northeastern media markets in football (NYC, DC, Philly, and Boston) and while that college football fan base may be the smallest of the various regions, it is still a formidable one in terms of both $$$ and marketing.

That reach can be extended to basketball if the conference also has the likes of Syracuse and at least one of UConn, Duke or UNC (all top 10 favorite bb programs in the areas of NYC and DC for the latter two and Boston for the first one). And unlike college football, the northeast is one of the better regions in terms of that sport.

The B1G believes that having the likes of Michigan and Ohio State along with Rutgers and Maryland is the next best thing to not getting ND, at least in terms of football.

The ACC, not having either ND or PSU as full members, is hoping that one day the Irish will join as a full member and having them along with FSU, a revitalized Miami (both once being a Top 10 favorite football program in the northeast, but replaced by Florida in the late 00s), Pitt, BC, SU, and VT will resonate along the NYC-Philly-DC-Boston corridor in football more so than PSU-Michigan-Ohio State-Maryland-Rutgers.

It's all about IDENTITY. The ACC supposedly wants to re-brand itself as the Eastern athletics conference in the same way the PAC is the Western athletics conference. The B1G supposedly wants to re-brand itself as the Northern athletics conference in the same way the SEC is branded as the Southern athletics conference - I believe there is a good article/post about this by FrankTheTank.

The B1G will be fine whether they successfully re-brand themselves as the Northern college athletics conference or if they remain the Mid-West athletics conference.

But, imho, the ACC can't stay branded as the Mid-Atlantic conference because it is simply too small in scope in comparison to the other three and puts the ACC more in line with the Big 12 which is basically the Texas conference and friends.

The ACC currently has a permanent (or semi-permanent) connection with the states of North Carolina and Florida with the ACC football championship in Charlotte and its contract bowl with the Orange.

It needs more exposure in the states of New York, Georgia, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Pennsylvania - and the only place to get this in terms of post-season exposure is in men's basketball. Unfortunately, BC's lack of prowess makes Boston not viable at this time and Pitt is not Philly - meaning NYC, Atlanta, and DC are the best options for the men's basketball tourney rotation while acknowledging the history of ACC basketball and the contributions made by the greatest basketball duo ever in one conference, means that Greensboro should have a place as well in that rotation. Just make it an even rotation is all I ask.


Cheers,
Neil

(03-10-2017 04:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 04:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC had several options on pairs of Big East teams. Each had their own pluses and drawbacks.
Syracuse and Rutgers
WVU and Pitt (this option did little to protect Boston because Pitt is too far west to be considered Northeastern)
Syracuse and UConn
Pitt and Rutgers
Syracuse and Pitt
WVU and Rutgers

These options were considered because the ACC had to protect the Boston market.

The ACC's options for pairs of teams consisted of Syracuse and Pitt and Pitt and Syracuse

If the conference only looked past UL's academic baggage due to a conference-defining crisis, WVU wasn't a serious option during a time of relative peace and stability.

Rutgers never really had a shot. The same goes for UConn.

Like it or not, neither side had an option but to help the other, and we're both intertwined. And, so far for the better, both sides are forever changed. The NE schools lost our NE-centric conference, and the ACC schools lost your quiet, country club conference. We're both on the big stage together, and, it's my opinion that the ACC will perform best if it mixes the best of the old ACC and the old Big East.

(03-10-2017 04:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 04:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 04:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC had several options on pairs of Big East teams. Each had their own pluses and drawbacks.
Syracuse and Rutgers
WVU and Pitt (this option did little to protect Boston because Pitt is too far west to be considered Northeastern)
Syracuse and UConn
Pitt and Rutgers
Syracuse and Pitt
WVU and Rutgers

These options were considered because the ACC had to protect the Boston market.

The ACC's options for pairs of teams consisted of Syracuse and Pitt and Pitt and Syracuse

If the conference only looked past UL's academic baggage due to a conference-defining crisis, WVU wasn't a serious option during a time of relative peace and stability.

Rutgers never really had a shot. The same goes for UConn.

Like it or not, neither side had an option but to help the other, and we're both intertwined. And, so far for the better, both sides are forever changed. The NE schools lost our NE-centric conference, and the ACC schools lost your quiet, country club conference. We're both on the big stage together, and, it's my opinion that the ACC will perform best if it mixes the best of the old ACC and the old Big East.

Pitt should be sending notes and flowers to Notre Dame every day, because without them..........

(03-10-2017 03:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 01:54 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 10:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  Your phrasing makes it sound as if Syracuse and Pitt were the cause of that increased payout from ESPN. That is, that it wouldn't have happened otherwise. The arithmetic of that suggests that Pitt and Syracuse were each worth three times what the other schools in the ACC were. I'm not buying that.

Understand your point. But the ACC wasn't getting anywhere near the increase they got without any expansion at all. Perhaps it didn't need to be Syracuse and Pitt, it might very well have been Rutgers and WVU (as Woad Blue once advocated), though I doubt the raise would have been as high with those two teams.

The reasons:

1) With the Big East trying to leave ESPN at that time (rejecting the deal the WWL in sports put on the table - and thereby creating the pool of money any ACC increase might get) ESPN was willing to pay more for an expansion that meant the death of the Big East as a hybrid conference of significance to reduce the overall value of the conference to a competitor. And as long as Syracuse (and Pitt to a certain degree) remained in the Big East, the football-centric schools and the basketball-centric schools were going to try and survive and make a go of it.

2) With Pitt on board (and Syracuse to a lesser degree) along with the ACC already having BC and the southern recruiting areas of Florida and Georgia, ESPN was anticipating that when the Big East eventually imploded ND would look to greener pastures for its olympic sports and turn toward the ACC with the conference getting a football scheduling agreement. ND football games mean $$$, as the ratings so far for these games on ABC has shown. (Although they could be monetized even more, but to do that the ACC would have to do something they will likely never do, for reasons I actually support).

So technically, maybe it didn't need to be Syracuse and Pitt, but I doubt no expansion or expansion with any other combo would have gotten the increase the ACC eventually received. So orangefan's point is also valid.

It was a gamble, but one that did pay off for both sides - the ACC and ESPN.

Cheers,
Neil

Rutgers and West Virginia would have been a pure football move. It would have combined the largest football fan base in the Big East and at the time the fan base that was growing fast into the second largest (Rutgers).
What the ACC opted for was the biggest name in basketball in the northeast and the historically best football program.

Disagree. The pure football move would have been either WVU and Pitt or WVU and Louisville.

The second largest football fan base after Miami and VT left the Big East belonged to Pitt. The second best on the field football program actually belonged to Cincinnati, with Louisville having the most upside giving them the edge in my eyes (having won a BCS caliber bowl game back in 2004 vs Boise and defeating Wake in the Orange).

Way back in 2006 when both the Knights and the Cardinals had great seasons, it was Louisville in my eyes that gave off the feel that I was witnessing the next WVU/VT program coming on the horizon. And I admit, I was envious it wasn't SU going through a renaissance of their 60s and late 80s through 90s form.

Back to the attendance factor, Louisville was third best except for the nadir years of CRAPthorpe whereas Rutgers' band-wagon fans had yet to be tested with either a dip back down to mediocrity or loss of Schiano (who no matter what one thinks of him as an actual coach, did get the most out of Rutgers) to see what increase their couple of good years actually yielded.

A test that still is meaningless today due to the influx of Michigan, PSU, Ohio State, Michigan State and Maryland fans in the NYC area to games at Rutgers as well as the Baltimore/DC area easy travel for Terps fans. Compare that to what Louisville attendance has done in a P5 conference with Papa John's Stadium filled with Cardinals fans and one can see why Rutgers was likely never going to surpass the Cardinals in terms of attendance potential attendance and fan support.

Rutgers was all about their proximity to NYC more so than their football fan base or actual football prowess - the same reason they were admitted to the B1G.

Not that I think your post was challenging it, but I stand by my above post as to the reasons why the additions of Syracuse and Pitt were done, and why it actually helped the ACC way more than any other realistic expansion combo possibly could have in terms of TV contract money.

As I have said many times over the years, I just wish the ACC had bit the bullet and invited WVU, Pitt, SU, and Louisville back in 2011 and then when Maryland left invited UConn to replace the Terps.

Notre Dame would still have come for all sports other than football.

Cheers,
Neil

We'll just have to disagree.

The media play would have been Syracuse and Rutgers.
I do agree that with Pitt and West Virginia the ACC would have gotten the best football rivalry and the best football name recognition. (but were located within the same market)
But remember that Rutgers had just completed a stadium expansion in 2009 and it looked like they would have to start another expansion upon completion.
The Rutgers football fan base was just more energized than Pitt in 2009-10 and it was growing.

(03-10-2017 04:53 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 01:54 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Understand your point. But the ACC wasn't getting anywhere near the increase they got without any expansion at all. Perhaps it didn't need to be Syracuse and Pitt, it might very well have been Rutgers and WVU (as Woad Blue once advocated), though I doubt the raise would have been as high with those two teams.

The reasons:

1) With the Big East trying to leave ESPN at that time (rejecting the deal the WWL in sports put on the table - and thereby creating the pool of money any ACC increase might get) ESPN was willing to pay more for an expansion that meant the death of the Big East as a hybrid conference of significance to reduce the overall value of the conference to a competitor. And as long as Syracuse (and Pitt to a certain degree) remained in the Big East, the football-centric schools and the basketball-centric schools were going to try and survive and make a go of it.

2) With Pitt on board (and Syracuse to a lesser degree) along with the ACC already having BC and the southern recruiting areas of Florida and Georgia, ESPN was anticipating that when the Big East eventually imploded ND would look to greener pastures for its olympic sports and turn toward the ACC with the conference getting a football scheduling agreement. ND football games mean $$$, as the ratings so far for these games on ABC has shown. (Although they could be monetized even more, but to do that the ACC would have to do something they will likely never do, for reasons I actually support).

So technically, maybe it didn't need to be Syracuse and Pitt, but I doubt no expansion or expansion with any other combo would have gotten the increase the ACC eventually received. So orangefan's point is also valid.

It was a gamble, but one that did pay off for both sides - the ACC and ESPN.

Cheers,
Neil

Rutgers and West Virginia would have been a pure football move. It would have combined the largest football fan base in the Big East and at the time the fan base that was growing fast into the second largest (Rutgers).
What the ACC opted for was the biggest name in basketball in the northeast and the historically best football program.

Disagree. The pure football move would have been either WVU and Pitt or WVU and Louisville.

The second largest football fan base after Miami and VT left the Big East belonged to Pitt. The second best on the field football program actually belonged to Cincinnati, with Louisville having the most upside giving them the edge in my eyes (having won a BCS caliber bowl game back in 2004 vs Boise and defeating Wake in the Orange).

Way back in 2006 when both the Knights and the Cardinals had great seasons, it was Louisville in my eyes that gave off the feel that I was witnessing the next WVU/VT program coming on the horizon. And I admit, I was envious it wasn't SU going through a renaissance of their 60s and late 80s through 90s form.

Back to the attendance factor, Louisville was third best except for the nadir years of CRAPthorpe whereas Rutgers' band-wagon fans had yet to be tested with either a dip back down to mediocrity or loss of Schiano (who no matter what one thinks of him as an actual coach, did get the most out of Rutgers) to see what increase their couple of good years actually yielded.

A test that still is meaningless today due to the influx of Michigan, PSU, Ohio State, Michigan State and Maryland fans in the NYC area to games at Rutgers as well as the Baltimore/DC area easy travel for Terps fans. Compare that to what Louisville attendance has done in a P5 conference with Papa John's Stadium filled with Cardinals fans and one can see why Rutgers was likely never going to surpass the Cardinals in terms of attendance potential attendance and fan support.

Rutgers was all about their proximity to NYC more so than their football fan base or actual football prowess - the same reason they were admitted to the B1G.

Not that I think your post was challenging it, but I stand by my above post as to the reasons why the additions of Syracuse and Pitt were done, and why it actually helped the ACC way more than any other realistic expansion combo possibly could have in terms of TV contract money.

As I have said many times over the years, I just wish the ACC had bit the bullet and invited WVU, Pitt, SU, and Louisville back in 2011 and then when Maryland left invited UConn to replace the Terps.

Notre Dame would still have come for all sports other than football.

Cheers,
Neil

We'll just have to disagree.

The media play would have been Syracuse and Rutgers.
I do agree that with Pitt and West Virginia the ACC would have gotten the best football rivalry and the best football name recognition. (but were located within the same market)
But remember that Rutgers had just completed a stadium expansion in 2009 and it looked like they would have to start another expansion upon completion.
The Rutgers football fan base was just more energized than Pitt in 2009-10 and it was growing.

Agreed that the media play would have been Rutgers and Syracuse.

But you argued in your post that the football play (which to me means a combination of football reputation, on the field play, football potential, and fan support) would have been West Virginia and Rutgers.

In terms of football reputation it would have been Pitt and WVU, with Syracuse the only other option.

In terms of actual on the field play at that time it would have been WVU and Cincinnati, mainly since the Bearcats were coming off back to back BCS bowl games while Louisville had a terrible three year run under CrapThorpe.

In terms of football potential (which I see as a combination of recent football history, fan support, and a record of athletic administration competence), then the choice should have been WVU and Louisville. While terrible under CrapThorpe the Cardinals had proven themselves in 2004 with a huge win over Boise which in a 5 BCS bowl game years likely would have been a BCS Bowl game, a win over the ACC champ Wake in the Orange Bowl, and had wins over the best Big East program in WVU - something Rutgers never accomplished in that time frame. And of course, the Cardinals athletic administration at the time was only equalled by Notre Dame (not in the league as a full member) and UConn's.

Lastly we come to fan support.

And in that regard, your choice is dubious at best. The Rutgers' expansion was indeed in 2009 to 52,454 but their average in 2009 and 2010 was 49,113 and 46,195 so any talk of further expansion at that time would have been delusional.

Pitt plays in a stadium that already seats 68,400, while the Cardinals expanded their stadium to 55,000 just a year after Rutgers.

2009 attendance:

Pitt - 53,446
Rutgers - 49,113 (expanded stadium opens - 8-4 record)
Louisville - 32,450 (CrapThorpe's last season)

2010 attendance:

Pitt - 52,165
Louisville - 50,648 (expanded stadium opens - 6-6 record)
Rutgers - 46,195

But it goes to show how powerful the marketing forces are that they fooled a relatively smart poster like you into believing that Rutgers' on the field upside and fan support was greater or would be greater than Pitt's or Louisville's. The majority of Big East fans outside of Rutgers didn't buy it.

Don't worry though, being fooled by media marketing happens to the best of us.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-10-2017 02:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  Syracuse and Pitt as a pair was the best basketball play available. It was seen around the 2009-10 time frame that the Pitt basketball program would was moving past UConn and as already mentioned, Syracuse was the best basketball program in the Northeast.
Also in the same time frame the ACCN was seen as a possibility IF we could get Notre Dame to partner with us. It was properly perceived that Notre Dame would prefer Pitt and Syracuse out of the other Big East possibilities because they were the two Big East schools that Notre Dame had the most and best ties with.
You might say that the ACC invited who ESPN told them to, but you could also use the argument that Swofford and his staff had a goal and had done excellent research and knew what the ACC needed.

(03-10-2017 04:00 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 03:26 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  ESPN got three things from the extension negotiated after Syracuse and Pittsburgh joined: 1) additional inventory from adding Syracuse and Pittsburgh 2) a four year extension, and 3) the addition of three Friday night football games, one of which Syracuse agreed to host.

It was clearly a combination of all of these things. However, just the change in the market between 2010, when the ACC signed the $13 million/year/school deal , and 2012, when the P12 got $21 million/year per school that still left enough inventory for the P12 to be formed, meant that adding any quality school would have increased the average per school value of the ACC TV deal by a lot.

Let's say that the P12 deal implies a value per school of $25 million/year per school (FOX + ESPN + P12 Network). Adding two schools to the ACC with a value of $25 million/year would by itself raise the per school average of the ACC deal from $13 million to close to $15 million.

To be clear, I'm not saying as a general premise that Syracuse and Pittsburgh are worth around twice as much as the schools in the ACC ($25m vs. $13m). However, I am saying that the market changed so much in those two years, that the 2012 value of Syracuse and Pittsburgh was in fact twice as high as the 2010 per school average value of the ACC schools.

But that's apples and oranges. There is no way to "what if" what may have happened but didn't. I would imagine that by the time the ACC invited Pitt and Syracuse, ESPN was already willing to increase the average payout to existing schools to $17MM, and believed that those two schools would not dilute the value of the product they were buying. I don't believe that at any time ESPN assigned a valuation of $25 million dollars to either school.

And FWIW, the math is wrong at $25MM. If the ACC was worth $156MM before expansion (12 X $13MM) and $238MM after expansion (14 X $17MM) that would imply that Pitt and Syracuse were worth $82MM between them. If that were their true worth, I believe they would both be playing in the B1G tournament this week instead of the ACCT.

The only thing I am prepared to conclude is that ESPN believed that the ACC's value would not be diluted by adding these two schools.

I've already said that the increase from $13 m to $17 m was a combination of three factors. I agree, if it was just the expansion, then Syracuse and Pittsburgh would be implicitly worth $41 million a piece. I'm speculating that based on the value of the P12 deal, the implicit value of Syracuse and Pittsburgh was around $25 m/year, with the remaining increase due to the extension and the addition of Friday games. Of course, none of the existing member except BC were willing to commit to a home Friday game, so that increase is attributable in part to Syracuse as well. The $25 million is absolutely in line with what the P12 got per school so it should not be that difficult to believe that Syracuse and Pittsburgh were worth this much.

With respect to the possibility that ESPN would have offered an increase to $17m/school anyway, that is simply not plausible. ESPN had a binding agreement with the ACC at $13m/school and would have no reason except charity to offer more -- even though by 2012 it was definitely worth more based on changes in the market As I said, extending the contract and adding Friday games were part of the basis for the increase, so if the ACC were willing to do these things, those opportunities were available without expanding.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You seem to be suggesting that the long-term extension of the contract and GoR had little value to ESPN compared with adding Pitt and Syracuse. I guess if I were a Pitt or Syracuse fan I'd like to think that were true. But I'm not and I don't.

The GOR was not part of this extension, so yes with respect to that. The increase to $17m/school was announced May 9, 2012. The Grant of Rights was announced April 22, 2013, and was accompanied by a bump to $20 million/year, along with the addition of ND, the ND football deal, the addition of UL in place of UMD, and an agreement in principle to start an ACCN.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/hokies-journal/post/acc-espn-agree-to-15-year-extension/2012/05/09/gIQAoRkdDU_blog.html
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/acc-approves-grant-of-rights-deal/

I think the four year extension actually had a lot to do with the bump to $17m. That's why I am saying $25 m/year as a value for Pittsburgh and Syracuse rather than $41. That makes the extension and the Friday games worth 2/3 of the bump for the existing schools

(03-10-2017 05:30 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 02:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  Syracuse and Pitt as a pair was the best basketball play available. It was seen around the 2009-10 time frame that the Pitt basketball program would was moving past UConn and as already mentioned, Syracuse was the best basketball program in the Northeast.
Also in the same time frame the ACCN was seen as a possibility IF we could get Notre Dame to partner with us. It was properly perceived that Notre Dame would prefer Pitt and Syracuse out of the other Big East possibilities because they were the two Big East schools that Notre Dame had the most and best ties with.
You might say that the ACC invited who ESPN told them to, but you could also use the argument that Swofford and his staff had a goal and had done excellent research and knew what the ACC needed.

That's hilariously uninformed. No one, and I mean no one, thought Pitt was on track to surpass UConn in basketball. Pitt has no natural backyard recruiting base for hoops. Western PA is a hoops graveyard. Its history is pedestrian. Pitt was also largely dependent on a NY and Philly pipeline that was severely crippled when we switched conferences. It's the complete opposite for football.

What Pitt basketball actually had was a great coach and all it took was one AD hire to screw that up. You're see the results of that now. In football, we historically haven't been able to get out of our own way but there is much more potential there than for basketball.

Pitt was taken because it does extremely well in TV ratings for football compared to what you'd expect from its typically underachieving results or in the actual stands. Although it was a competitive program in the late 2000s, those eyeballs are also due to the Pittsburgh diaspora. Regardless of where they live, and there are Pittsburgh transplants everywhere, they will turn on Pitt because it is the "local" team, especially if we are good, and PSU and WVU fans will turn on Pitt to cheer against us. That's what ESPN knows, and I'm sure that's what they advised. Pitt's basketball was also competitive and it is a respectable schools academically. You get a chunk of Pennsylvania without having to take Temple. A relationship with ND in football may not have hurt, but you actually don't see ND playing in the ACC football conference do you. Pitt doesn't have that much sway with ND. It's not like we regularly played them in other sports before they joined the Big East. Syracuse has very little ties to ND. It's not like we are Navy or USC. You should go back and check the quotes of Swarbrick when we left the Big East.