(05-06-2014 07:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 10:22 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 09:38 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 09:26 PM)ACCslater Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 07:29 PM)john01992 Wrote:  this is why the ACC needs to stop dicking around with greensboro. if you don't take full advantage of your east coast resources the b10 will.

^This

Gotta agree...need to take advantage of the entire East Coast...from Boston, NYC, DC, Atlanta along with the Carolina sites....

Why plural? Charlotte should suffice.

Why not throw Orlando/Tampa/Miami in there as well? What about Philadelphia?

Whether you like it or not Greensboro will always have a spot....no issue with Philadelphia...Boston, NYC, DC, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Charlotte, Orlando and Miami...

The question is "Why plural?" If it's going to be in NC and it "has" to be in Greensboro, there's no need for Charlotte.

chicago sucks

(05-06-2014 07:04 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I think a main rotation of DC/NYC is best with the occasional stop at other locations.

The reality is that after those two cities any other location is a steep downgrade. That is where the ACC needs to focus in an attempt to prevent the b10 from forming a regular rotation in those locations.

That's not possible to do though. There's only one ACC Tournament a year. You are not going to stop the Big Ten every year, especially when it only wants it occasionally.

I think for both conferences though there are compelling reasons for rotations with the traditional locations as the core. The heart of the Big Ten is more in Indianapolis/Chicago and the ACC is in the Mid-Atlantic. Those cities will go all out for the Big Ten/ACC Tournaments and will become the focal point for them for a week in a way that will likely never be true for New York and a Washington (ACC is stronger in New York than the Big Ten, but it's never going to be North Carolina in support).

Just as importantly, you want to give opportunities for a lots of different fans to come as they can develop into donating alumni. That means you often want a more central location for both.

I am not saying it will stop the b10, but leaving both NYC & DC open for the b10 in the same year is gonna burn the ACC more often than not

Identity, identity, identity.

The ACC wants to re-brand itself the Conference of the entire East Coast (which includes the Northeast).

The BiG wants to re-brand itself the Conference of the North (which includes the Northeast).

The gauntlet was thrown a while back.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Cheers,
Neil

So the B1G is going to grab UConn And UMass? The World is Watching ! LOL

(05-06-2014 11:19 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 07:04 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I think a main rotation of DC/NYC is best with the occasional stop at other locations.

The reality is that after those two cities any other location is a steep downgrade. That is where the ACC needs to focus in an attempt to prevent the b10 from forming a regular rotation in those locations.

That's not possible to do though. There's only one ACC Tournament a year. You are not going to stop the Big Ten every year, especially when it only wants it occasionally.

I think for both conferences though there are compelling reasons for rotations with the traditional locations as the core. The heart of the Big Ten is more in Indianapolis/Chicago and the ACC is in the Mid-Atlantic. Those cities will go all out for the Big Ten/ACC Tournaments and will become the focal point for them for a week in a way that will likely never be true for New York and a Washington (ACC is stronger in New York than the Big Ten, but it's never going to be North Carolina in support).

Just as importantly, you want to give opportunities for a lots of different fans to come as they can develop into donating alumni. That means you often want a more central location for both.

I am not saying it will stop the b10, but leaving both NYC & DC open for the b10 in the same year is gonna burn the ACC more often than not

How will it burn the ACC? Maryland did not carry the DC market and although those large land grant universities produce tons of alum, it still does not equate to attendance to a tourney that has never been seen as a better tourney than the grand daddy of bball tourneys (the ACC tournament).

Look at the line up for the Big 10, there is not one national brand that can contend with the brand of UNC, Duke, Cuse and U of L basketball. Semis with those four programs are practically a Final Four. Throw in Pitt, State, ND, UVa and their is still a large gap between bball tradition and interest.

It is a desperation move on the part of the Big Ten since the population has shifted.

yeah, its nice for the b10 alumni who live there and finally don't have to travel so far every year and its a nice bone for Md.
But how its at the expense of the acc right now, I'm not getting.

(05-07-2014 08:37 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 11:19 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 07:04 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I think a main rotation of DC/NYC is best with the occasional stop at other locations.

The reality is that after those two cities any other location is a steep downgrade. That is where the ACC needs to focus in an attempt to prevent the b10 from forming a regular rotation in those locations.

That's not possible to do though. There's only one ACC Tournament a year. You are not going to stop the Big Ten every year, especially when it only wants it occasionally.

I think for both conferences though there are compelling reasons for rotations with the traditional locations as the core. The heart of the Big Ten is more in Indianapolis/Chicago and the ACC is in the Mid-Atlantic. Those cities will go all out for the Big Ten/ACC Tournaments and will become the focal point for them for a week in a way that will likely never be true for New York and a Washington (ACC is stronger in New York than the Big Ten, but it's never going to be North Carolina in support).

Just as importantly, you want to give opportunities for a lots of different fans to come as they can develop into donating alumni. That means you often want a more central location for both.

I am not saying it will stop the b10, but leaving both NYC & DC open for the b10 in the same year is gonna burn the ACC more often than not

How will it burn the ACC? Maryland did not carry the DC market and although those large land grant universities produce tons of alum, it still does not equate to attendance to a tourney that has never been seen as a better tourney than the grand daddy of bball tourneys (the ACC tournament).

Look at the line up for the Big 10, there is not one national brand that can contend with the brand of UNC, Duke, Cuse and U of L basketball. Semis with those four programs are practically a Final Four. Throw in Pitt, State, ND, UVa and their is still a large gap between bball tradition and interest.

It is a desperation move on the part of the Big Ten since the population has shifted.

Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan...., there are 9 NCAA titles there. Do they resonate in the East? No, except maybe Michigan, but they are major national brands.

(05-07-2014 05:12 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  So the B1G is going to grab UConn And UMass? The World is Watching ! LOL

The B1G would be smart to grab UConn (and I think that they eventually will). If you want to capture the attention of the New York City television market with college sports, basketball is the sport that they care about and is the way to get New Yorkers to care about your conference (which may eventually lead them to watch your conference in football). The closest big name basketball school to NYC is UConn. If the B1G picked up UConn, NYC would be a more logical spot to hold their basketball tournament as UConn fans flood NYC for games. The addition of UConn would also severely damage the ACC's play for NYC as BC and Syracuse are both 200+ miles from NYC and Rutgers and UConn are both much closer geographically to NYC. It would also possibly damage recruiting for BC and Syracuse.

(05-07-2014 09:33 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 08:37 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 11:19 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 07:04 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I think a main rotation of DC/NYC is best with the occasional stop at other locations.

The reality is that after those two cities any other location is a steep downgrade. That is where the ACC needs to focus in an attempt to prevent the b10 from forming a regular rotation in those locations.

That's not possible to do though. There's only one ACC Tournament a year. You are not going to stop the Big Ten every year, especially when it only wants it occasionally.

I think for both conferences though there are compelling reasons for rotations with the traditional locations as the core. The heart of the Big Ten is more in Indianapolis/Chicago and the ACC is in the Mid-Atlantic. Those cities will go all out for the Big Ten/ACC Tournaments and will become the focal point for them for a week in a way that will likely never be true for New York and a Washington (ACC is stronger in New York than the Big Ten, but it's never going to be North Carolina in support).

Just as importantly, you want to give opportunities for a lots of different fans to come as they can develop into donating alumni. That means you often want a more central location for both.

I am not saying it will stop the b10, but leaving both NYC & DC open for the b10 in the same year is gonna burn the ACC more often than not

How will it burn the ACC? Maryland did not carry the DC market and although those large land grant universities produce tons of alum, it still does not equate to attendance to a tourney that has never been seen as a better tourney than the grand daddy of bball tourneys (the ACC tournament).

Look at the line up for the Big 10, there is not one national brand that can contend with the brand of UNC, Duke, Cuse and U of L basketball. Semis with those four programs are practically a Final Four. Throw in Pitt, State, ND, UVa and their is still a large gap between bball tradition and interest.

It is a desperation move on the part of the Big Ten since the population has shifted.

Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan...., there are 9 NCAA titles there. Do they resonate in the East? No, except maybe Michigan, but they are major national brands.

UNC, Duke, Louisville & Syracuse > Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State and Michigan in regards to Basketball....

Syracuse brand is stronger in NYC than UConn's

TV ratings are better too for Cuse.

Attendance at away arenas is better in the old BE

The ACC would still be a major player in NYC in the small chance UConn gets invited on the life raft from the B1G

(05-07-2014 10:05 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Syracuse brand is stronger in NYC than UConn's

That is subjective. Do you have any links that back it up? Otherwise, it is just a "he said, she said" kind of thing. My impression is that UConn is now stronger in NYC.

Either way, I am going to argue that the four time national champs have a stronger basketball brand nationally.

TV ratings, attendance at games vs SJU at MSG, clc rankings

TV Ratings? really are you questioning this?

http://www.clc.com/News/Archived-Ranking...-2013.aspx

(05-07-2014 10:33 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  TV ratings, attendance at games vs SJU at MSG, clc rankings

TV Ratings? really are you questioning this?

http://www.clc.com/News/Archived-Ranking...-2013.aspx

That link is for apparel licensing information, not TV ratings. I am questioning TV ratings. Without proof, it is merely one person's opinion. As we all know, opinions are like yachts... everybody's got one.

Anyway, I can't find much information on basketball fan base size in NYC. However, UConn has more football fans than Cuse in NYC. In order of fan base size in NYC, Rutgers is at the top followed by Notre Dame, Penn State, UConn, Michigan, and then Syracuse.

If the B1G took UConn, they would have four of the top five football schools in NYC:
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09...blogs&_r=0

(05-07-2014 09:50 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 09:33 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 08:37 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 11:19 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 07:04 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  That's not possible to do though. There's only one ACC Tournament a year. You are not going to stop the Big Ten every year, especially when it only wants it occasionally.

I think for both conferences though there are compelling reasons for rotations with the traditional locations as the core. The heart of the Big Ten is more in Indianapolis/Chicago and the ACC is in the Mid-Atlantic. Those cities will go all out for the Big Ten/ACC Tournaments and will become the focal point for them for a week in a way that will likely never be true for New York and a Washington (ACC is stronger in New York than the Big Ten, but it's never going to be North Carolina in support).

Just as importantly, you want to give opportunities for a lots of different fans to come as they can develop into donating alumni. That means you often want a more central location for both.

I am not saying it will stop the b10, but leaving both NYC & DC open for the b10 in the same year is gonna burn the ACC more often than not

How will it burn the ACC? Maryland did not carry the DC market and although those large land grant universities produce tons of alum, it still does not equate to attendance to a tourney that has never been seen as a better tourney than the grand daddy of bball tourneys (the ACC tournament).

Look at the line up for the Big 10, there is not one national brand that can contend with the brand of UNC, Duke, Cuse and U of L basketball. Semis with those four programs are practically a Final Four. Throw in Pitt, State, ND, UVa and their is still a large gap between bball tradition and interest.

It is a desperation move on the part of the Big Ten since the population has shifted.

Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan...., there are 9 NCAA titles there. Do they resonate in the East? No, except maybe Michigan, but they are major national brands.

UNC, Duke, Louisville & Syracuse > Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State and Michigan in regards to Basketball....

I certainly don't disagree, but the idea that there was "not one national brand that can contend" with them was a little over the top.

(05-07-2014 09:40 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 05:12 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  So the B1G is going to grab UConn And UMass? The World is Watching ! LOL

The B1G would be smart to grab UConn (and I think that they eventually will). If you want to capture the attention of the New York City television market with college sports, basketball is the sport that they care about and is the way to get New Yorkers to care about your conference (which may eventually lead them to watch your conference in football). The closest big name basketball school to NYC is UConn. If the B1G picked up UConn, NYC would be a more logical spot to hold their basketball tournament as UConn fans flood NYC for games. The addition of UConn would also severely damage the ACC's play for NYC as BC and Syracuse are both 200+ miles from NYC and Rutgers and UConn are both much closer geographically to NYC. It would also possibly damage recruiting for BC and Syracuse.

When you pin your expansion hopes on basketball, you've already lost.

It makes zero financial sense for the B10 to add UConn. The only way it will make sense for the ACC is if the ACC Network changes the financial equation for the conference.

(05-07-2014 08:37 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  How will it burn the ACC? Maryland did not carry the DC market and although those large land grant universities produce tons of alum, it still does not equate to attendance to a tourney that has never been seen as a better tourney than the grand daddy of bball tourneys (the ACC tournament).

I'll agree that it's not going to burn the ACC and I think of this ACC vs. Big Ten stuff is really more message board based than reality. Both want a strong presence in the upper Mid-Atlantic and northeast and odd as it might sound it's probably actually easier for both of them to get it together as rivals than for one to get it on their own.

Now with that said,

(05-07-2014 08:37 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  Look at the line up for the Big 10, there is not one national brand that can contend with the brand of UNC, Duke, Cuse and U of L basketball. Semis with those four programs are practically a Final Four. Throw in Pitt, State, ND, UVa and their is still a large gap between bball tradition and interest.

I'll grant North Carolina and Duke have about the best overall brand recognition in the country right now due to their rivalry with only Kentucky as having a shot being stronger. No way will I grant that Louisville is stronger national brand than any in the Big Ten though. They've been better recently than some, but I wouldn't rank them higher than several Big Ten programs in national recognition beyond the short term.

Overall, the ACC does have a somewhat stronger brand in basketball than the Big Ten (due mostly to expansion helping the ACC and hurting the Big Ten in the sport), but we're not talking some super-huge difference here. College basketball in incredibly regional. The entire Midwest will follow the Big Ten a lot closer. Most in the Mid-Atlantic will follow the ACC closer. Washington DC will be split. New York City will be split many different ways, but the ACC will be above the Big Ten there for sure due to Syracuse and Notre Dame. If we talk football, reverse that last statement.

(05-07-2014 11:53 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 08:37 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  How will it burn the ACC? Maryland did not carry the DC market and although those large land grant universities produce tons of alum, it still does not equate to attendance to a tourney that has never been seen as a better tourney than the grand daddy of bball tourneys (the ACC tournament).

I'll agree that it's not going to burn the ACC and I think of this ACC vs. Big Ten stuff is really more message board based than reality. Both want a strong presence in the upper Mid-Atlantic and northeast and odd as it might sound it's probably actually easier for both of them to get it together as rivals than for one to get it on their own.

Now with that said,

(05-07-2014 08:37 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  Look at the line up for the Big 10, there is not one national brand that can contend with the brand of UNC, Duke, Cuse and U of L basketball. Semis with those four programs are practically a Final Four. Throw in Pitt, State, ND, UVa and their is still a large gap between bball tradition and interest.

I'll grant North Carolina and Duke have about the best overall brand recognition in the country right now due to their rivalry with only Kentucky as having a shot being stronger. No way will I grant that Louisville is stronger national brand than any in the Big Ten though. They've been better recently than some, but I wouldn't rank them higher than several Big Ten programs in national recognition beyond the short term.

Overall, the ACC does have a somewhat stronger brand in basketball than the Big Ten (due mostly to expansion helping the ACC and hurting the Big Ten in the sport), but we're not talking some super-huge difference here. College basketball in incredibly regional. The entire Midwest will follow the Big Ten a lot closer. Most in the Mid-Atlantic will follow the ACC closer. Washington DC will be split. New York City will be split many different ways, but the ACC will be above the Big Ten there for sure due to Syracuse and Notre Dame. If we talk football, reverse that last statement.

Why would you reverse that last statement? Rutgers? ND is #1 in NYC, which is still well below the professional sports radar. SU and RU can fight it out for #2. Everyone else is just placed on how well they are doing. None of them are enough to move the needle. If they were, you wouldn't have added Rutgers.

(05-07-2014 11:53 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  No way will I grant that Louisville is stronger national brand than any in the Big Ten though. They've been better recently than some, but I wouldn't rank them higher than several Big Ten programs in national recognition beyond the short term.

You are talking about basketball, right? It's arguable that Indiana has a stronger basketball brand than Louisville, but who else in the B1G is even close to that level?

And "beyond the short term"? Really? So, you're argument is that there are "several" B1G basketball brands greater than Louisville's over the long term? Really?

wOw! You must be really cherry picking your data somehow.

(05-07-2014 01:04 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 11:53 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  No way will I grant that Louisville is stronger national brand than any in the Big Ten though. They've been better recently than some, but I wouldn't rank them higher than several Big Ten programs in national recognition beyond the short term.

You are talking about basketball, right? It's arguable that Indiana has a stronger basketball brand than Louisville, but who else in the B1G is even close to that level?

And "beyond the short term"? Really? So, you're argument is that there are "several" B1G basketball brands greater than Louisville's over the long term? Really?

wOw! You must be really cherry picking your data somehow.

Michigan State with Izzo is really the only program currently that could be considered near Louisville level of national cache.

Indiana historically perhaps, but not currently. Indiana certainly has little cache in the East.