DawgNBama
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
Posts: 8,375
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 456
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US |
RE: Southern Miss.....Yikes...Major Problems?
Interesting quote from the conference realignment board, and this is something that USM could learn from, IMO.
(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.
Where in the heck is USM's marketing??? Has Ole Miss & Misstake prevented us from doing that also???
|
|
