Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
ken d Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,955
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 362
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #101
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-10-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  
(03-10-2017 08:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  You Big East guys are all alike.
It's just like the new kid in the neighborhood that moved in from somewhere else where everything was bigger and better than it is here. We all know this attitude is born out of insecurity. Sometimes that kid grows up, adapts, and learns to appreciate where he is.
That's my hope for you Syracuse and Pitt guys.

I, for one, absolutely do appreciate the opportunity to play in the ACC. However, for anyone to suggest that the ACC "rescued" our basketball, is completely false. The realignment has been mutually beneficial in basketball for the reasons that I have described. It was not bigger and better there than it is here now. It was bigger and better there than it was here then. In fact, the new ACC looks like it will be bigger and better than it was there then.

It would be fair to say, though, that the ACC did rescue our football. However, at the time the ACC started the recent realignment process, it was in desperate need to renegotiate it long term, under market television deal. The initial addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh immediately increased the annual payout for every school in the conference from $13 million to $17 million and laid the ground work for later improvements to the TV deal. This was all masterfully managed by Swofford and the ACC team, but needed the right additions to make it work. Pittsburgh, at least, was actively talking to the Big 12, so there was never a guarantee that the ACC could even get the schools it wanted or needed (imagine if the B12 now had Pittsburgh, Louisville and Notre Dame along with WVU).

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.
03-10-2017 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user
green Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,907
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 118
I Root For: Miami
Location:
Post: #102
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-09-2017 12:04 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Message board arguments really don't matter because the conference's position on NYC is already clear. The actual leadership of the conference and its media partners apparently disagree with the people stuck using the "because we done it this way before" argument. ...which by the way, would get you fired at a lot of places.

If MSG ever becomes available for a long-term contract, which is unlikely due to the Big East, I highly suspect the ACC would strongly consider moving the tournament there permanently.

We fully expect it to be very successful, as it has been anywhere we've taken the ACC men's basketball tournament. My guess is with our current footprint and the importance of this city both in a tangible and intangible way to the ACC. I would guess New York would be in our rotation for the long-term.

Our league is 15 schools. It's not eight schools as it once was. It's not nine schools as it was once was. It's not 12 schools as it was for a short while. It's 15 schools and we need to have a presence in every part of our footprint. And one way to do that is to move our signature event around to those locales.
-- Commissioner John Swofford

from on high ...

DREAM DASHED
03-10-2017 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user
CrazyPaco Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,248
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 104
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #103
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
Some of you are missing the forest for the trees. It's not just playing where recruits are and it is not just local coverage, it is compilation of these and additional things, and it doesn't happen as a one hit wonder. You can't just pop in an leave and not return for a decade. There is a reason the ACC paid off the Atlantic 10 for two seasons in Brooklyn, and it wasn't because Boeheim's whining broke everyone down.

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.

Brand is brand, whether you are talking about cable network rates or having a larger profile in front of the prep basketball community. They tie together. NY is both the nation's largest media market and just so happens that it is also the largest producer of prep talent. I wonder, and would be disappointed, if NY AAU and prep coaches weren't are getting comped tickets to some of these sessions. It is a combination of things that add up.

There is a reason companies, even high tech companies like Apple, still buy billboard space and put advertising copy on bus stops. Marquees with your name in Times Square, or even Brooklyn, get seen by a lot more people than those in Pittsburgh. Where do you think NYLife would more like its logo to be splashed about? The ACC Tournament is a giant f'en metaphorical billboard.

When ESPN is negotiating rates with cable companies for the ACC Network, it wants to go into NY and DC and say this is a brand your customers have an interest in, despite having the handicap of having no actual schools in the physical metro areas of those cities. Same thing with the Big Ten.

This is about sales...sales of your product to media, but that also turns in to sales pitches to recruits, corporate sponsors, displaced alumni bases, and who knows what else. It's why the ACC didn't take a poll of fans before moving the tournament; its not about nostalgia and its not about convenience. It is about $ and strategy to position itself in the future for more $.
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2017 12:27 PM by CrazyPaco.)
03-10-2017 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user
CrazyPaco Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,248
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 104
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #104
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-10-2017 12:11 PM)green Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 12:04 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Message board arguments really don't matter because the conference's position on NYC is already clear. The actual leadership of the conference and its media partners apparently disagree with the people stuck using the "because we done it this way before" argument. ...which by the way, would get you fired at a lot of places.

If MSG ever becomes available for a long-term contract, which is unlikely due to the Big East, I highly suspect the ACC would strongly consider moving the tournament there permanently.

We fully expect it to be very successful, as it has been anywhere we've taken the ACC men's basketball tournament. My guess is with our current footprint and the importance of this city both in a tangible and intangible way to the ACC. I would guess New York would be in our rotation for the long-term.

Our league is 15 schools. It's not eight schools as it once was. It's not nine schools as it was once was. It's not 12 schools as it was for a short while. It's 15 schools and we need to have a presence in every part of our footprint. And one way to do that is to move our signature event around to those locales.
-- Commissioner John Swofford

from on high ...

DREAM DASHED

Sounds he is explaining why it is leaving Carolina more often, not why it is still in Carolina where there are 4 schools in the footprint. He's also talked alot about NYC being in the conference's footprint, and so far, this is the only event that the conference holds there apart from participating in the Pinstripe bowl. He's retiring soon too. But you are probably right in any case. Doesn't matter anyway, I don't think the Big East is going anywhere.
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2017 12:24 PM by CrazyPaco.)
03-10-2017 12:16 PM
Find all posts by this user
green Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,907
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 118
I Root For: Miami
Location:
Post: #105
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-09-2017 12:04 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  But the ACC has clearly been trying to become the conference of the East Coast since 2003, and it is in a heated competition with the Big Ten for that status

the big yeast met their demise ...
the battle is won ...
except in your runaway imagination ...
which would have us believe that a parochial league squiring hapless programs is on the precipice of world domination ...
runtgers ...
mary land ...
runtgers ...
mary land ...
said twice for emphasis ...

FEAR NOT BRAVE SOUL
03-10-2017 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user
CrazyPaco Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,248
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 104
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #106
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-10-2017 12:39 PM)green Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 12:04 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  But the ACC has clearly been trying to become the conference of the East Coast since 2003, and it is in a heated competition with the Big Ten for that status

the big yeast met their demise ...
the battle is won ...
except in your runaway imagination ...
which would have us believe that a parochial league squiring hapless programs is on the precipice of world domination ...
runtgers ...
mary land ...
runtgers ...
mary land ...
said twice for emphasis ...

FEAR NOT BRAVE SOUL

Can't follow you.

I do not see the Big East is not leaving Madison Square Garden any time in the near future. Their future as a major basketball conference seems fairly secure at the moment. They remain a major competitor for basketball mindshare in the Northeast for both the ACC and BigTen.

I see the biggest concern with them is the poor state of 2 of their three flagship programs.

You're talking about Maryland and Rutgers for football I guess. Syracuse and BC aren't exactly dominating football mindshare in the northeast either, and the Big Ten has Penn State and the million strong cult and 19 branch campuses. I'd say, the Big Ten has the advantage in the northeast for football at the moment. It would behoove the ACC to have an annually competitive Syracuse program...just like in basketball, to be good, but just not good enough to beat Pitt ;-)
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2017 01:04 PM by CrazyPaco.)
03-10-2017 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user
green Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,907
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 118
I Root For: Miami
Location:
Post: #107
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-10-2017 12:54 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Can't follow you.

I was referring to the B1G since that's who you referenced ...
a homogenous amalgamation whose brand identity screams midwest nice ...
follow the bouncing ball ...

NEW BOGEYMAN
03-10-2017 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #108
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-10-2017 10:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-10-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  
(03-10-2017 08:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  You Big East guys are all alike.
It's just like the new kid in the neighborhood that moved in from somewhere else where everything was bigger and better than it is here. We all know this attitude is born out of insecurity. Sometimes that kid grows up, adapts, and learns to appreciate where he is.
That's my hope for you Syracuse and Pitt guys.

I, for one, absolutely do appreciate the opportunity to play in the ACC. However, for anyone to suggest that the ACC "rescued" our basketball, is completely false. The realignment has been mutually beneficial in basketball for the reasons that I have described. It was not bigger and better there than it is here now. It was bigger and better there than it was here then. In fact, the new ACC looks like it will be bigger and better than it was there then.

It would be fair to say, though, that the ACC did rescue our football. However, at the time the ACC started the recent realignment process, it was in desperate need to renegotiate it long term, under market television deal. The initial addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh immediately increased the annual payout for every school in the conference from $13 million to $17 million and laid the ground work for later improvements to the TV deal. This was all masterfully managed by Swofford and the ACC team, but needed the right additions to make it work. Pittsburgh, at least, was actively talking to the Big 12, so there was never a guarantee that the ACC could even get the schools it wanted or needed (imagine if the B12 now had Pittsburgh, Louisville and Notre Dame along with WVU).

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
03-10-2017 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user
orangefan Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,994
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 197
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #109
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-10-2017 10:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-10-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  
(03-10-2017 08:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  You Big East guys are all alike.
It's just like the new kid in the neighborhood that moved in from somewhere else where everything was bigger and better than it is here. We all know this attitude is born out of insecurity. Sometimes that kid grows up, adapts, and learns to appreciate where he is.
That's my hope for you Syracuse and Pitt guys.

I, for one, absolutely do appreciate the opportunity to play in the ACC. However, for anyone to suggest that the ACC "rescued" our basketball, is completely false. The realignment has been mutually beneficial in basketball for the reasons that I have described. It was not bigger and better there than it is here now. It was bigger and better there than it was here then. In fact, the new ACC looks like it will be bigger and better than it was there then.

It would be fair to say, though, that the ACC did rescue our football. However, at the time the ACC started the recent realignment process, it was in desperate need to renegotiate it long term, under market television deal. The initial addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh immediately increased the annual payout for every school in the conference from $13 million to $17 million and laid the ground work for later improvements to the TV deal. This was all masterfully managed by Swofford and the ACC team, but needed the right additions to make it work. Pittsburgh, at least, was actively talking to the Big 12, so there was never a guarantee that the ACC could even get the schools it wanted or needed (imagine if the B12 now had Pittsburgh, Louisville and Notre Dame along with WVU).

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.

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.
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2017 02:23 PM by orangefan.)
03-10-2017 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,712
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 193
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #110
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-10-2017 01:54 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(03-10-2017 10:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-10-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  
(03-10-2017 08:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  You Big East guys are all alike.
It's just like the new kid in the neighborhood that moved in from somewhere else where everything was bigger and better than it is here. We all know this attitude is born out of insecurity. Sometimes that kid grows up, adapts, and learns to appreciate where he is.
That's my hope for you Syracuse and Pitt guys.

I, for one, absolutely do appreciate the opportunity to play in the ACC. However, for anyone to suggest that the ACC "rescued" our basketball, is completely false. The realignment has been mutually beneficial in basketball for the reasons that I have described. It was not bigger and better there than it is here now. It was bigger and better there than it was here then. In fact, the new ACC looks like it will be bigger and better than it was there then.

It would be fair to say, though, that the ACC did rescue our football. However, at the time the ACC started the recent realignment process, it was in desperate need to renegotiate it long term, under market television deal. The initial addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh immediately increased the annual payout for every school in the conference from $13 million to $17 million and laid the ground work for later improvements to the TV deal. This was all masterfully managed by Swofford and the ACC team, but needed the right additions to make it work. Pittsburgh, at least, was actively talking to the Big 12, so there was never a guarantee that the ACC could even get the schools it wanted or needed (imagine if the B12 now had Pittsburgh, Louisville and Notre Dame along with WVU).

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.
03-10-2017 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user
green Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,907
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 118
I Root For: Miami
Location:
Post: #111
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-10-2017 12:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Some of you are missing the forest for the trees. It's not just playing where recruits are and it is not just local coverage, it is compilation of these and additional things, and it doesn't happen as a one hit wonder. You can't just pop in an leave and not return for a decade.

definitionally ...
so is the annual tourney ...

HERE TODAY, GONE TOMORROW
03-10-2017 02:27 PM
Find all posts by this user
orangefan Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,994
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 197
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #112
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-10-2017 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  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.

I'm sure they invited the schools that ESPN told them to invite.
03-10-2017 02:30 PM
Find all posts by this user
green Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,907
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 118
I Root For: Miami
Location:
Post: #113
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-10-2017 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  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.

runtgers "success" was illusory ...
schiano scheduled drek out of conference ...
by winning just half of the intra-conference games ...
diluted because of the absence of Miami, vt, bc ...
suddenly, he's a freaking genius ...
and the moribund school is on the come ...

VOILA
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2017 05:37 PM by green.)
03-10-2017 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user
ken d Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,955
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 362
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #114
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-10-2017 02:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  
(03-10-2017 10:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-10-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  
(03-10-2017 08:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  You Big East guys are all alike.
It's just like the new kid in the neighborhood that moved in from somewhere else where everything was bigger and better than it is here. We all know this attitude is born out of insecurity. Sometimes that kid grows up, adapts, and learns to appreciate where he is.
That's my hope for you Syracuse and Pitt guys.

I, for one, absolutely do appreciate the opportunity to play in the ACC. However, for anyone to suggest that the ACC "rescued" our basketball, is completely false. The realignment has been mutually beneficial in basketball for the reasons that I have described. It was not bigger and better there than it is here now. It was bigger and better there than it was here then. In fact, the new ACC looks like it will be bigger and better than it was there then.

It would be fair to say, though, that the ACC did rescue our football. However, at the time the ACC started the recent realignment process, it was in desperate need to renegotiate it long term, under market television deal. The initial addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh immediately increased the annual payout for every school in the conference from $13 million to $17 million and laid the ground work for later improvements to the TV deal. This was all masterfully managed by Swofford and the ACC team, but needed the right additions to make it work. Pittsburgh, at least, was actively talking to the Big 12, so there was never a guarantee that the ACC could even get the schools it wanted or needed (imagine if the B12 now had Pittsburgh, Louisville and Notre Dame along with WVU).

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.

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.
03-10-2017 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,712
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 193
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #115
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
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 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user
nole Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,166
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 76
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #116
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
Boeheim is correct.

It is little league having it in Greensboro, but it says everything about the mindset of the ACC.

Hell, the ACC baseball championship did great in Jacksonville, but they demanded it move back to Tobacco Road.

Standard issue for ACC.
03-10-2017 03:02 PM
Find all posts by this user
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,712
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 193
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #117
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(03-10-2017 03:02 PM)nole Wrote:  Boeheim is correct.

It is little league having it in Greensboro, but it says everything about the mindset of the ACC.

Hell, the ACC baseball championship did great in Jacksonville, but they demanded it move back to Tobacco Road.

Standard issue for ACC.

The baseball tournament did do well in Jacksonville, but not as well as it did in Greenville, SC.
03-10-2017 03:05 PM
Find all posts by this user
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #118
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(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:  
(03-10-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  
(03-10-2017 08:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  You Big East guys are all alike.
It's just like the new kid in the neighborhood that moved in from somewhere else where everything was bigger and better than it is here. We all know this attitude is born out of insecurity. Sometimes that kid grows up, adapts, and learns to appreciate where he is.
That's my hope for you Syracuse and Pitt guys.

I, for one, absolutely do appreciate the opportunity to play in the ACC. However, for anyone to suggest that the ACC "rescued" our basketball, is completely false. The realignment has been mutually beneficial in basketball for the reasons that I have described. It was not bigger and better there than it is here now. It was bigger and better there than it was here then. In fact, the new ACC looks like it will be bigger and better than it was there then.

It would be fair to say, though, that the ACC did rescue our football. However, at the time the ACC started the recent realignment process, it was in desperate need to renegotiate it long term, under market television deal. The initial addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh immediately increased the annual payout for every school in the conference from $13 million to $17 million and laid the ground work for later improvements to the TV deal. This was all masterfully managed by Swofford and the ACC team, but needed the right additions to make it work. Pittsburgh, at least, was actively talking to the Big 12, so there was never a guarantee that the ACC could even get the schools it wanted or needed (imagine if the B12 now had Pittsburgh, Louisville and Notre Dame along with WVU).

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 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
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2017 03:13 PM by omniorange.)
03-10-2017 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,712
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 193
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #119
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(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:  
(03-10-2017 10:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  I, for one, absolutely do appreciate the opportunity to play in the ACC. However, for anyone to suggest that the ACC "rescued" our basketball, is completely false. The realignment has been mutually beneficial in basketball for the reasons that I have described. It was not bigger and better there than it is here now. It was bigger and better there than it was here then. In fact, the new ACC looks like it will be bigger and better than it was there then.

It would be fair to say, though, that the ACC did rescue our football. However, at the time the ACC started the recent realignment process, it was in desperate need to renegotiate it long term, under market television deal. The initial addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh immediately increased the annual payout for every school in the conference from $13 million to $17 million and laid the ground work for later improvements to the TV deal. This was all masterfully managed by Swofford and the ACC team, but needed the right additions to make it work. Pittsburgh, at least, was actively talking to the Big 12, so there was never a guarantee that the ACC could even get the schools it wanted or needed (imagine if the B12 now had Pittsburgh, Louisville and Notre Dame along with WVU).

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.
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2017 03:20 PM by XLance.)
03-10-2017 03:18 PM
Find all posts by this user
orangefan Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,994
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 197
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #120
RE: Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
(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.
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2017 03:31 PM by orangefan.)
03-10-2017 03:26 PM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.