(03-05-2012 06:13 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 05:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 04:43 PM)omniorange Wrote:  The ACC is hampered by two factors - its lack of Football Kings (which has held it back from the 90s onward) and its lack of not owning its markets in two key states - Florida and Georgia.

I would like to know how those who are anti-Swofford think he could have or should have addressed these two issues?

Cheers,
Neil

Not sure what you mean by "owning" a state. When Ga Tech first joined the ACC they were superior to Georgia (though it was close). When FSU joined the ACC they were superior to Florida (and it was not that close).

As for the commissioner - whomever that happens to be - I see his job as maximizing TV and gate, and I think his primary tools are TV contract negotiation and scheduling. I do not think he has maximized those 2 tools.

I agree that part of the commissioner's job is to maximize TV revenue. But you really didn't respond as to the 2 factors that make it conceivable that the ACC has indeed maximized its TV revenues. I sometimes think a few ACC fans don't realize that the conference has been paid on "potential" in terms of football the past two contracts and not on actual on-the-field results or even on TV interest and viewership (which are correlated).

The ACC's lack of Kings is a detriment to its TV contracts as its geographic issues which is partly explained by the following:

By owning the "state" I'm talking about followers in the state for TV purposes. The SEC's football following in Florida and Georgia is >>>> ACC's football following in those two states. Maybe back in the late 80s or early 90s this was not the case. But all that matters in terms of TV revenue is what has been the case since the early to mid part of the last decade. The ACC has never had and likely never will receive full credit in their TV package for those two states.

The ACC basically "owns" three states - North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. All three of those states are great to have, but in addition to Florida and Georgia, the SEC has Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. They will soon have a piece of Texas now as well as Missouri.

Not sure I agree that it is up to the Commissioner's office to "maximize" gate. They are responsible for setting up a schedule but what may "maximize" gate for one school may hurt gate for another. It's a balancing act.

Cheers,
Neil

That's why returning South Carolina to the ACC is so important.

(03-06-2012 09:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 06:13 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 05:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 04:43 PM)omniorange Wrote:  The ACC is hampered by two factors - its lack of Football Kings (which has held it back from the 90s onward) and its lack of not owning its markets in two key states - Florida and Georgia.

I would like to know how those who are anti-Swofford think he could have or should have addressed these two issues?

Cheers,
Neil

Not sure what you mean by "owning" a state. When Ga Tech first joined the ACC they were superior to Georgia (though it was close). When FSU joined the ACC they were superior to Florida (and it was not that close).

As for the commissioner - whomever that happens to be - I see his job as maximizing TV and gate, and I think his primary tools are TV contract negotiation and scheduling. I do not think he has maximized those 2 tools.

I agree that part of the commissioner's job is to maximize TV revenue. But you really didn't respond as to the 2 factors that make it conceivable that the ACC has indeed maximized its TV revenues. I sometimes think a few ACC fans don't realize that the conference has been paid on "potential" in terms of football the past two contracts and not on actual on-the-field results or even on TV interest and viewership (which are correlated).

The ACC's lack of Kings is a detriment to its TV contracts as its geographic issues which is partly explained by the following:

By owning the "state" I'm talking about followers in the state for TV purposes. The SEC's football following in Florida and Georgia is >>>> ACC's football following in those two states. Maybe back in the late 80s or early 90s this was not the case. But all that matters in terms of TV revenue is what has been the case since the early to mid part of the last decade. The ACC has never had and likely never will receive full credit in their TV package for those two states.

The ACC basically "owns" three states - North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. All three of those states are great to have, but in addition to Florida and Georgia, the SEC has Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. They will soon have a piece of Texas now as well as Missouri.

Not sure I agree that it is up to the Commissioner's office to "maximize" gate. They are responsible for setting up a schedule but what may "maximize" gate for one school may hurt gate for another. It's a balancing act.

Cheers,
Neil

That's why returning South Carolina to the ACC is so important.

Why? They aren't a King, not even a Baron, and I'm not sure the state of South Carolina is that important in the grand scheme of things. A nice state to have, but hardly a game-changer.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-06-2012 09:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 06:13 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 05:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 04:43 PM)omniorange Wrote:  The ACC is hampered by two factors - its lack of Football Kings (which has held it back from the 90s onward) and its lack of not owning its markets in two key states - Florida and Georgia.

I would like to know how those who are anti-Swofford think he could have or should have addressed these two issues?

Cheers,
Neil

Not sure what you mean by "owning" a state. When Ga Tech first joined the ACC they were superior to Georgia (though it was close). When FSU joined the ACC they were superior to Florida (and it was not that close).

As for the commissioner - whomever that happens to be - I see his job as maximizing TV and gate, and I think his primary tools are TV contract negotiation and scheduling. I do not think he has maximized those 2 tools.

I agree that part of the commissioner's job is to maximize TV revenue. But you really didn't respond as to the 2 factors that make it conceivable that the ACC has indeed maximized its TV revenues. I sometimes think a few ACC fans don't realize that the conference has been paid on "potential" in terms of football the past two contracts and not on actual on-the-field results or even on TV interest and viewership (which are correlated).

The ACC's lack of Kings is a detriment to its TV contracts as its geographic issues which is partly explained by the following:

By owning the "state" I'm talking about followers in the state for TV purposes. The SEC's football following in Florida and Georgia is >>>> ACC's football following in those two states. Maybe back in the late 80s or early 90s this was not the case. But all that matters in terms of TV revenue is what has been the case since the early to mid part of the last decade. The ACC has never had and likely never will receive full credit in their TV package for those two states.

The ACC basically "owns" three states - North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. All three of those states are great to have, but in addition to Florida and Georgia, the SEC has Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. They will soon have a piece of Texas now as well as Missouri.

Not sure I agree that it is up to the Commissioner's office to "maximize" gate. They are responsible for setting up a schedule but what may "maximize" gate for one school may hurt gate for another. It's a balancing act.

Cheers,
Neil

That's why returning South Carolina to the ACC is so important.

Will never happen.

(03-06-2012 09:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  That's why returning South Carolina to the ACC is so important.

USC-e leaving the ACC was one of the best things that ever happened to the ACC. It eliminated their market redundancies in one of the smallest states and opened up a spot for GT and the Atlanta market. To say nothing of the fact that they are the most under accomplished athletics program of all time considering their given advantages. Adding USC-e to the ACC now would be one of the most colossal f*ck ups of all time.

I did not realize Syracuse was on the ACC radar back in 1990. Looking back at Syracuse's football record which was very, very good back then, in addition to the very good basketball meant that the ACC would have been adding a powerhouse in both sports. I think the reaction from the Syracuse AD was understandable at the time. Syracuse was one of the founders of the Big East and I am not sure whether there was a sizable difference in TV money between the ACC and the Big East at the time.
It did not sound like the ACC had a clear plan for expanding the conference to 12 teams back in 1990 either.

(03-05-2012 06:13 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 05:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 04:43 PM)omniorange Wrote:  The ACC is hampered by two factors - its lack of Football Kings (which has held it back from the 90s onward) and its lack of not owning its markets in two key states - Florida and Georgia.

I would like to know how those who are anti-Swofford think he could have or should have addressed these two issues?

Cheers,
Neil

Not sure what you mean by "owning" a state. When Ga Tech first joined the ACC they were superior to Georgia (though it was close). When FSU joined the ACC they were superior to Florida (and it was not that close).

As for the commissioner - whomever that happens to be - I see his job as maximizing TV and gate, and I think his primary tools are TV contract negotiation and scheduling. I do not think he has maximized those 2 tools.

I agree that part of the commissioner's job is to maximize TV revenue. But you really didn't respond as to the 2 factors that make it conceivable that the ACC has indeed maximized its TV revenues. I sometimes think a few ACC fans don't realize that the conference has been paid on "potential" in terms of football the past two contracts and not on actual on-the-field results or even on TV interest and viewership (which are correlated).

The ACC's lack of Kings is a detriment to its TV contracts as its geographic issues which is partly explained by the following:

By owning the "state" I'm talking about followers in the state for TV purposes. The SEC's football following in Florida and Georgia is >>>> ACC's football following in those two states. Maybe back in the late 80s or early 90s this was not the case. But all that matters in terms of TV revenue is what has been the case since the early to mid part of the last decade. The ACC has never had and likely never will receive full credit in their TV package for those two states.

The ACC basically "owns" three states - North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. All three of those states are great to have, but in addition to Florida and Georgia, the SEC has Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. They will soon have a piece of Texas now as well as Missouri.

Not sure I agree that it is up to the Commissioner's office to "maximize" gate. They are responsible for setting up a schedule but what may "maximize" gate for one school may hurt gate for another. It's a balancing act.

Cheers,
Neil

This is the true reason that Va. Tech was added instead of Syracuse, the political story was just a clever ruse.

(03-06-2012 10:40 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 09:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 06:13 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 05:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 04:43 PM)omniorange Wrote:  The ACC is hampered by two factors - its lack of Football Kings (which has held it back from the 90s onward) and its lack of not owning its markets in two key states - Florida and Georgia.

I would like to know how those who are anti-Swofford think he could have or should have addressed these two issues?

Cheers,
Neil

Not sure what you mean by "owning" a state. When Ga Tech first joined the ACC they were superior to Georgia (though it was close). When FSU joined the ACC they were superior to Florida (and it was not that close).

As for the commissioner - whomever that happens to be - I see his job as maximizing TV and gate, and I think his primary tools are TV contract negotiation and scheduling. I do not think he has maximized those 2 tools.

I agree that part of the commissioner's job is to maximize TV revenue. But you really didn't respond as to the 2 factors that make it conceivable that the ACC has indeed maximized its TV revenues. I sometimes think a few ACC fans don't realize that the conference has been paid on "potential" in terms of football the past two contracts and not on actual on-the-field results or even on TV interest and viewership (which are correlated).

The ACC's lack of Kings is a detriment to its TV contracts as its geographic issues which is partly explained by the following:

By owning the "state" I'm talking about followers in the state for TV purposes. The SEC's football following in Florida and Georgia is >>>> ACC's football following in those two states. Maybe back in the late 80s or early 90s this was not the case. But all that matters in terms of TV revenue is what has been the case since the early to mid part of the last decade. The ACC has never had and likely never will receive full credit in their TV package for those two states.

The ACC basically "owns" three states - North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. All three of those states are great to have, but in addition to Florida and Georgia, the SEC has Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. They will soon have a piece of Texas now as well as Missouri.

Not sure I agree that it is up to the Commissioner's office to "maximize" gate. They are responsible for setting up a schedule but what may "maximize" gate for one school may hurt gate for another. It's a balancing act.

Cheers,
Neil

That's why returning South Carolina to the ACC is so important.

Why? They aren't a King, not even a Baron, and I'm not sure the state of South Carolina is that important in the grand scheme of things. A nice state to have, but hardly a game-changer.

Cheers,
Neil

Big stadium school, rabid fan base, fits in the footprint (located within a three hour drive of 6 ACC schools) and the culture is very close to some ACC schools. Plus, and the biggest reason, it gets the SEC out of a "core" ACC state. That is a game-changer.

(03-07-2012 08:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  That's why returning South Carolina to the ACC is so important.

(03-06-2012 09:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  Big stadium school, rabid fan base, fits in the footprint (located within a three hour drive of 6 ACC schools) and the culture is very close to some ACC schools. Plus, and the biggest reason, it gets the SEC out of a "core" ACC state. That is a game-changer.

Booting the SEC out of SC would indeed be a "game changer", but alas, not likely to ever happen. If you told me I could raid one school from the SEC though I'd take Florida -- talk about changing the game! If I could take another school from any conference it would be Penn State (again, kicking the Big Ten out of PA). All of this will happen when Clemson basketball breaks the streak at Chapel Hill, wins the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament, and Duke Football are BCS champs all in the same year (i.e. never).

Florida would be great....but it is unlike any school in the ACC. Massive student body 55-60,000. Ag functions and professional schools located on the same campus.
BTW, Dook has enough money that they could have a championship football team if they wanted to. And the odds of Dook winning at football are better than Clemson ever winning a basketball game in Chapel Hill.

(03-05-2012 06:13 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 05:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 04:43 PM)omniorange Wrote:  The ACC is hampered by two factors - its lack of Football Kings (which has held it back from the 90s onward) and its lack of not owning its markets in two key states - Florida and Georgia.

I would like to know how those who are anti-Swofford think he could have or should have addressed these two issues?

Cheers,
Neil

Not sure what you mean by "owning" a state. When Ga Tech first joined the ACC they were superior to Georgia (though it was close). When FSU joined the ACC they were superior to Florida (and it was not that close).

As for the commissioner - whomever that happens to be - I see his job as maximizing TV and gate, and I think his primary tools are TV contract negotiation and scheduling. I do not think he has maximized those 2 tools.

I agree that part of the commissioner's job is to maximize TV revenue. But you really didn't respond as to the 2 factors that make it conceivable that the ACC has indeed maximized its TV revenues. I sometimes think a few ACC fans don't realize that the conference has been paid on "potential" in terms of football the past two contracts and not on actual on-the-field results or even on TV interest and viewership (which are correlated).

The ACC's lack of Kings is a detriment to its TV contracts as its geographic issues which is partly explained by the following:

By owning the "state" I'm talking about followers in the state for TV purposes. The SEC's football following in Florida and Georgia is >>>> ACC's football following in those two states. Maybe back in the late 80s or early 90s this was not the case. But all that matters in terms of TV revenue is what has been the case since the early to mid part of the last decade. The ACC has never had and likely never will receive full credit in their TV package for those two states.

The ACC basically "owns" three states - North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. All three of those states are great to have, but in addition to Florida and Georgia, the SEC has Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. They will soon have a piece of Texas now as well as Missouri.

Not sure I agree that it is up to the Commissioner's office to "maximize" gate. They are responsible for setting up a schedule but what may "maximize" gate for one school may hurt gate for another. It's a balancing act.

Cheers,
Neil

Perhaps when the ACC renegotiates with ESPN it will get credit for having New York, Massachusetts and part of Pennsylania. The demographics for some of these areas are very good from a financial standpoint. It also helps that the ACC is in another area of the country (Northeast) that will be attractive to advertisers in this area. For businesses in the ACC region then it would be attractive to advertise during ACC broadcasts as they would reach a large geographic area.