I took all top 25 finishes from 1990 to 2011 seasons, then assigned points to each team (25 for finishing 1st, 24 for 2nd, ... 1 point for 25th), summed by conference (as of 2014) and graphed (details). What I got was this:



SEC had a slight lead until 1999, when the ACC jumped out in front. Then the ESPN contract went into effect for the SEC, and they've been out in front (and winning BCS championships) ever since. It looks like they must be draining talent from the ACC, because since 2004 the lines are virtually mirror images...

(04-22-2012 07:21 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I took all top 25 finishes from 1990 to 2011 seasons, then assigned points to each team (25 for finishing 1st, 24 for 2nd, ... 1 point for 25th), summed by conference (as of 2014) and graphed (details). What I got was this:



SEC had a slight lead until 1999, when the ACC jumped out in front. Then the ESPN contract went into effect for the SEC, and they've been out in front (and winning BCS championships) ever since. It looks like they must be draining talent from the ACC, because since 2004 the lines are virtually mirror images...

Not entirely surprising since the four best football programs in the ACC all compete with SEC teams as well as each other for southern talent. On the other hand, a review of that talent in terms of NFL draft picks would show that the ACC has had more talent than any other conference except for the SEC.

So even being SEC-lite, the talent has been there. Perhaps it is more a coaching issue? I think you have discussed this as well in one of your blogs.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-22-2012 11:48 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-22-2012 07:21 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I took all top 25 finishes from 1990 to 2011 seasons, then assigned points to each team (25 for finishing 1st, 24 for 2nd, ... 1 point for 25th), summed by conference (as of 2014) and graphed (details). What I got was this:



SEC had a slight lead until 1999, when the ACC jumped out in front. Then the ESPN contract went into effect for the SEC, and they've been out in front (and winning BCS championships) ever since. It looks like they must be draining talent from the ACC, because since 2004 the lines are virtually mirror images...

Not entirely surprising since the four best football programs in the ACC all compete with SEC teams as well as each other for southern talent. On the other hand, a review of that talent in terms of NFL draft picks would show that the ACC has had more talent than any other conference except for the SEC.

So even being SEC-lite, the talent has been there. Perhaps it is more a coaching issue? I think you have discussed this as well in one of your blogs.

Cheers,
Neil

I tend to agree with you on the coaching being the real difference. In addition to the ACC schools, WVU, Rutgers and Pitt have had similar talent levels, USF has had starters with similar talent, too. The difference shows in the coaching quality where each Big East school had mediocre coaching talent. The SEC and B1G have bought and paid for excellent coaches (same with some B12 and PAC 12 schools). All of them win regularly and win big games.

(04-22-2012 01:14 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  I tend to agree with you on the coaching being the real difference. In addition to the ACC schools, WVU, Rutgers and Pitt have had similar talent levels, USF has had starters with similar talent, too. The difference shows in the coaching quality where each Big East school had mediocre coaching talent. The SEC and B1G have bought and paid for excellent coaches (same with some B12 and PAC 12 schools). All of them win regularly and win big games.

And the gap is going to get wider when the financial gap gets wider. If that concerns you imagine what it's like for those of us who are smack dab in the middle of SEC country. Pretty soon we'll be taking a pocket knife to a gunfight.

The ACC needs a TV Network bad to narrow the gap w/ the rest of the BCS leagues.

Well, the SEC's deal didn't start until 2009-2010, so I don't think that has any bearing on the graph.

Also, I don't think the SEC's trend is any better now than it was in the 90's. It looks like they've stayed fairly constant with obvious fluctuations in either direction. The ACC remained relatively constant with the SEC for the 90's and early 00's before dropping precipitously. I think that's almost entirely due to FSU slipping in the waning years of Bowden's career.

The TV money gave the SEC an opportunity to invest in coaches, cheatin' strategies, and facilities -- giving them a supreme advantage over the ACC.

Hopefully, the ACC can land a lacrosse TV deal that'll help they close the gap. And, yes, I typed that with a complete straight face. Give lacrosse about 10 more years, and it'll be as close to a revenue sport as baseball, and the ACC will be in the best position to capitalize.

The ACC footprint produces more NFL players than any other conference, though not all attend ACC schools.
Notice these quotes:
"The fastest way for the Wolfpack to take the next step from 8- and 9-win seasons, Farrell said, is to keep the best players in-state."
"SEC programs ended up with the top five players from North Carolina and eight of the top 20."
"The state of North Carolina is getting raided by everybody else," Farrell said.
"To take it to the next level, the teams in state have to recruit the state better." - NC State
"Out of what everybody ranked as the top 10 kids, nine left the state," Fedora said of the Class of 2012.
"That's going to be our No. 1 objective. We've got to close the borders of the state." - Larry Fedora, UNC

(04-22-2012 05:12 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  The TV money gave the SEC an opportunity to invest in coaches, cheatin' strategies, and facilities -- giving them a supreme advantage over the ACC.

No it didn't. The deal didn't take effect until 2009-2010. The ACC starting dipping after 2002, WELL BEFORE the SEC's deal. Coincidentally enough, that's right when FSU started to fall off. The SEC hasn't even risen since 2002 but stayed pretty constant with pre-2002 numbers.

Is lacrosse really that much closer to being a revenue sport over men's soccer?

(04-23-2012 12:54 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  

(04-22-2012 05:12 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  The TV money gave the SEC an opportunity to invest in coaches, cheatin' strategies, and facilities -- giving them a supreme advantage over the ACC.

No it didn't. The deal didn't take effect until 2009-2010. The ACC starting dipping after 2002, WELL BEFORE the SEC's deal. Coincidentally enough, that's right when FSU started to fall off. The SEC hasn't even risen since 2002 but stayed pretty constant with pre-2002 numbers.

Actually the ESPN deal was the 2nd TV contract... the first was with CBS in 1996 if I remember correctly. Also, my notes show that the SEC contract kicked in w/ ESPN in 2006 (and was actually signed before then), though apparently it was renegotiated in 2009 [am I wrong on this?]

Perhaps a bigger recruiting advantage was the fact that the SEC had a championship for many years while the ACC didn't.

(04-23-2012 01:02 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Is lacrosse really that much closer to being a revenue sport over men's soccer?

Yes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment...am/255690/

Quote:Today, lacrosse is considered the fastest growing team sport in America. According to an annual survey produced by the organization US Lacrosse, the number of lacrosse players increased from 253,931 in 2001 to 624,593 in 2010. That figure includes 324,673 youth players. To put those figures in perspective, in 2010 The New York Times reported that one million boys and girls play basketball, making it America's most popular youth sport. But basketball and other team sports cannot rival lacrosse's explosive growth over the past several decades, which has occurred at every level of competition. The NCAA Division I Men's lacrosse championship now regularly draws crowds that are smaller only than those at the men's basketball championship and certain bowl games.

But didn't soccer do the exact same thing in the 90's? The popularity of the college championship game is an important difference I suppose. But with the projected increase in Hispanic population in the US, it still seems like soccer would have a bigger market.

With an ACC network, I think the ACC could turn several sports into revenue generators lacrosse, soccer, baseball being the most likely to make the jump. I'd love to see the ACC add ice hockey as well.

(04-23-2012 02:05 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  But didn't soccer do the exact same thing in the 90's? The popularity of the college championship game is an important difference I suppose. But with the projected increase in Hispanic population in the US, it still seems like soccer would have a bigger market.

With an ACC network, I think the ACC could turn several sports into revenue generators lacrosse, soccer, baseball being the most likely to make the jump. I'd love to see the ACC add ice hockey as well.

I think timing will make a big difference. Right now, lacrosse is only competing with baseball for viewers.

The difference between soccer and lacrosse (IMHO) is:

1) Lacrosse has the "look" of a semi-violent sport that involves a) hands, and b) scoring. That's something collegiate soccer can't top in the USA. The only form of soccer that can top it is World Cup soccer.

2) I don't recall college soccer having its title game broadcast over ESPN in front of a capacity crowd on a holiday. That's lacrosse. If Gillette Stadium in Boston is full on Memorial Day for the NCAA title game, you'll see what I mean. The fact that the NCAA is staging the title game in Boston tells me they are expecting a full stadium.

Soccer championship games don't attract venues of that size.

3) ESPN is recognizing that Lacrosse is gaining in popularity along the east coast, too. How many collegiate "soccer events" do you see promoted on ESPN(U)? Now, do the same math with lacrosse.

If lacrosse becomes a semi-revenue sport -- and it has the regular season appeal to do so -- the ACC will be well positioned to capitalize.

FYI -- before I had to shutdown my old NCAAPalace site (personal reasons), I, along with my volunteer help, were focused on adding Lacrosse to our platform of schedules.

(04-23-2012 02:05 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  I'd love to see the ACC add ice hockey as well.

Then get ready for more MD flag craziness...

Decided to turn the above thoughts into a blog post...

Why Lacrosse could be the ACC's saving grace

(04-22-2012 05:12 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  The TV money gave the SEC an opportunity to invest in coaches, cheatin' strategies, and facilities -- giving them a supreme advantage over the ACC.

Hopefully, the ACC can land a lacrosse TV deal that'll help they close the gap. And, yes, I typed that with a complete straight face. Give lacrosse about 10 more years, and it'll be as close to a revenue sport as baseball, and the ACC will be in the best position to capitalize.

What the hell is lacrosse?

(04-23-2012 04:29 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(04-22-2012 05:12 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  The TV money gave the SEC an opportunity to invest in coaches, cheatin' strategies, and facilities -- giving them a supreme advantage over the ACC.

Hopefully, the ACC can land a lacrosse TV deal that'll help they close the gap. And, yes, I typed that with a complete straight face. Give lacrosse about 10 more years, and it'll be as close to a revenue sport as baseball, and the ACC will be in the best position to capitalize.

What the hell is lacrosse?

Hyperbole or serious?

Almost half of the ACC recruits better than Arkansas. But Arkansas finishes better than half the ACC every season. The reason for this is simple. Arkansas pays for good coaches.