(06-03-2019 03:48 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:20 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  If the Big Ten wanted football included, the answer would still be no and ND would embrace Tobacco Road or the Big 12 to keep football out of a conference.

As I said, failing all of that, it would be the Big East, not full membership in any conference.

It will never happen for a lot of reasons, but I always thought Notre Dame should have done a partial membership with the SEC instead of the ACC. Would have a lot more huge matchups, more fertile recruiting ground, and ND still gets the national schedule.

I dont know that you could say "a lot more huge matchups." The SEC has more teams that are in the running for a CFP every season. But really, is there a huge difference between the SEC top of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas AM, LSU and Auburn, as opposed to the ACC top group of Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, Louisville and GT? Of course the edge goes to the SEC, but the difference is not huge. The next grouping of Tennessee, MSU, Kentucky, Missouri and Mississippi is no more appealing than NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, BC and Wake Forest.

Then the difference in academic prestige is actually huge between the ACC and SEC. Not to mention the other revenue sport, men's basketball. The other difference is that Notre Dame enjoys playing in the northeast every year where they like to recruit for their students. The SEC cant do that for ND. I believe that if the SEC and ACC were both willing to allow ND partial membership to satisfy ND's quasi-independence desire, that ND would choose the ACC every time.
And I know none of this doesnt really matter to your point but its the off season. What else an I going to talk about?

Is there a huge difference in ACC football and SEC football? Yes and it won't even be close until there are 3 or 4 schools every year that can mount a challenge to your front runner (which is now Clemson). As for basketball the SEC actually earns very nearly what the ACC and Big 10 do. There's very little separation between basketball revenue totals. There's a gulf of difference for football earners.

You do realize that the SEC averaged 33 million more in Gross Total Revenue than the average ACC school last year? You do realize that we averaged 75,000 in attendance at our football venues as opposed to your 49,000 at yours while our basketball attendance was within a few thousand of yours. You do realize that the average cost of a 1 season ticket book in the SEC starts at $550 per each plus $20 dollars for handling and that to purchase 2 you must donate around $1200 more? There is virtually all of your revenue difference. Price of the tickets x number of seats + required donations to purchase said tickets = 70% of the revenue gap. Ad revenue for football which is figured into the rights deal is the other part of it.

If your basketball was so valuable the gap wouldn't be so large and we would be way behind in basketball attendance and revenue, but we aren't. Heck the Old Big East would never have folded had basketball been a true moneymaker. It was a great basketball conference!

It simply is what it is. If the ACC is to catch up it needs larger sold out venues, and brands like Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Louisville need to win every year at a higher level than 7-5 and 8-4.

As to the bottom grouping Tennessee averages 90,000 attendance even in bad years. Mississippi State, Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Missouri still out draw and out earn your bottom and Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State are in the mix most years and all win at a high level in other sports. Even Vanderbilt has won 3 national titles now and their baseball team looks strong this year.

The bottom is where the ACC actually gets swamped when it comes to revenue averages.

Look up the data. It gets posted every year.

And as for markets, we don't have many professional teams in the South outside of a few large cities. College Sports is king down here and our saturation numbers bear that out. We have the highest % of actual viewers to total possible viewers of any region. And that's part of the difference too.

LOL. Calm down JR, Relax. You took this way off the rails. WAAYY OFF. Gamecock mentioned the SEC providing way more huge matchups. I challenged him regarding that. Nobody mentioned revenue. If ND was interested in being in a conference with more revenue and that provided everything they needed, they wouldnt be dealing with the SEC or ACC. It would be the BIG. Whether the ACC provides more revenue in bb than the SEC doesnt matter in this context either since we are talking about better basketball, which is as clear as the vast difference that you think exists in football. Im also going to stick by my assertion that ND would choose the ACC over the SEC every time, regardless of all the advantages that the SEC has over the ACC. The reason being is that the ACC is a much better academic conference, which means something to ND, the ACC provides games for ND in the student rich northeast as well as the south. ND thinks of itself as a northeastern university.

I didn't take it off the rails, I put it back on the track. When you compare the branding (huge matchups) the proof of it is the revenue which is based on the ratings

As for N.D. they are where they could get a partial deal, an upscale version of the Old Big East where they did the same. Nuf said.

(06-03-2019 03:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 03:48 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:20 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  It will never happen for a lot of reasons, but I always thought Notre Dame should have done a partial membership with the SEC instead of the ACC. Would have a lot more huge matchups, more fertile recruiting ground, and ND still gets the national schedule.

I dont know that you could say "a lot more huge matchups." The SEC has more teams that are in the running for a CFP every season. But really, is there a huge difference between the SEC top of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas AM, LSU and Auburn, as opposed to the ACC top group of Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, Louisville and GT? Of course the edge goes to the SEC, but the difference is not huge. The next grouping of Tennessee, MSU, Kentucky, Missouri and Mississippi is no more appealing than NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, BC and Wake Forest.

Then the difference in academic prestige is actually huge between the ACC and SEC. Not to mention the other revenue sport, men's basketball. The other difference is that Notre Dame enjoys playing in the northeast every year where they like to recruit for their students. The SEC cant do that for ND. I believe that if the SEC and ACC were both willing to allow ND partial membership to satisfy ND's quasi-independence desire, that ND would choose the ACC every time.
And I know none of this doesnt really matter to your point but its the off season. What else an I going to talk about?

Is there a huge difference in ACC football and SEC football? Yes and it won't even be close until there are 3 or 4 schools every year that can mount a challenge to your front runner (which is now Clemson). As for basketball the SEC actually earns very nearly what the ACC and Big 10 do. There's very little separation between basketball revenue totals. There's a gulf of difference for football earners.

You do realize that the SEC averaged 33 million more in Gross Total Revenue than the average ACC school last year? You do realize that we averaged 75,000 in attendance at our football venues as opposed to your 49,000 at yours while our basketball attendance was within a few thousand of yours. You do realize that the average cost of a 1 season ticket book in the SEC starts at $550 per each plus $20 dollars for handling and that to purchase 2 you must donate around $1200 more? There is virtually all of your revenue difference. Price of the tickets x number of seats + required donations to purchase said tickets = 70% of the revenue gap. Ad revenue for football which is figured into the rights deal is the other part of it.

If your basketball was so valuable the gap wouldn't be so large and we would be way behind in basketball attendance and revenue, but we aren't. Heck the Old Big East would never have folded had basketball been a true moneymaker. It was a great basketball conference!

It simply is what it is. If the ACC is to catch up it needs larger sold out venues, and brands like Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Louisville need to win every year at a higher level than 7-5 and 8-4.

As to the bottom grouping Tennessee averages 90,000 attendance even in bad years. Mississippi State, Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Missouri still out draw and out earn your bottom and Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State are in the mix most years and all win at a high level in other sports. Even Vanderbilt has won 3 national titles now and their baseball team looks strong this year.

The bottom is where the ACC actually gets swamped when it comes to revenue averages.

Look up the data. It gets posted every year.

And as for markets, we don't have many professional teams in the South outside of a few large cities. College Sports is king down here and our saturation numbers bear that out. We have the highest % of actual viewers to total possible viewers of any region. And that's part of the difference too.

LOL. Calm down JR, Relax. You took this way off the rails. WAAYY OFF. Gamecock mentioned the SEC providing way more huge matchups. I challenged him regarding that. Nobody mentioned revenue. If ND was interested in being in a conference with more revenue and that provided everything they needed, they wouldnt be dealing with the SEC or ACC. It would be the BIG. Whether the ACC provides more revenue in bb than the SEC doesnt matter in this context either since we are talking about better basketball, which is as clear as the vast difference that you think exists in football. Im also going to stick by my assertion that ND would choose the ACC over the SEC every time, regardless of all the advantages that the SEC has over the ACC. The reason being is that the ACC is a much better academic conference, which means something to ND, the ACC provides games for ND in the student rich northeast as well as the south. ND thinks of itself as a northeastern university.

I didn't take it off the rails, I put it back on the track. When you compare the branding (huge matchups) the proof of it is the revenue which is based on the ratings

As for N.D. they are where they could get a partial deal, an upscale version of the Old Big East where they did the same. Nuf said.

That was the actual conversation. If the ACC and SEC were willing to give ND a partial deal, they would choose the ACC. I was only trying to have a conversation. Didnt realize it would elicit such strong reactions. My apologies.

(06-03-2019 04:17 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 03:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 03:48 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  I dont know that you could say "a lot more huge matchups." The SEC has more teams that are in the running for a CFP every season. But really, is there a huge difference between the SEC top of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas AM, LSU and Auburn, as opposed to the ACC top group of Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, Louisville and GT? Of course the edge goes to the SEC, but the difference is not huge. The next grouping of Tennessee, MSU, Kentucky, Missouri and Mississippi is no more appealing than NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, BC and Wake Forest.

Then the difference in academic prestige is actually huge between the ACC and SEC. Not to mention the other revenue sport, men's basketball. The other difference is that Notre Dame enjoys playing in the northeast every year where they like to recruit for their students. The SEC cant do that for ND. I believe that if the SEC and ACC were both willing to allow ND partial membership to satisfy ND's quasi-independence desire, that ND would choose the ACC every time.
And I know none of this doesnt really matter to your point but its the off season. What else an I going to talk about?

Is there a huge difference in ACC football and SEC football? Yes and it won't even be close until there are 3 or 4 schools every year that can mount a challenge to your front runner (which is now Clemson). As for basketball the SEC actually earns very nearly what the ACC and Big 10 do. There's very little separation between basketball revenue totals. There's a gulf of difference for football earners.

You do realize that the SEC averaged 33 million more in Gross Total Revenue than the average ACC school last year? You do realize that we averaged 75,000 in attendance at our football venues as opposed to your 49,000 at yours while our basketball attendance was within a few thousand of yours. You do realize that the average cost of a 1 season ticket book in the SEC starts at $550 per each plus $20 dollars for handling and that to purchase 2 you must donate around $1200 more? There is virtually all of your revenue difference. Price of the tickets x number of seats + required donations to purchase said tickets = 70% of the revenue gap. Ad revenue for football which is figured into the rights deal is the other part of it.

If your basketball was so valuable the gap wouldn't be so large and we would be way behind in basketball attendance and revenue, but we aren't. Heck the Old Big East would never have folded had basketball been a true moneymaker. It was a great basketball conference!

It simply is what it is. If the ACC is to catch up it needs larger sold out venues, and brands like Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Louisville need to win every year at a higher level than 7-5 and 8-4.

As to the bottom grouping Tennessee averages 90,000 attendance even in bad years. Mississippi State, Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Missouri still out draw and out earn your bottom and Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State are in the mix most years and all win at a high level in other sports. Even Vanderbilt has won 3 national titles now and their baseball team looks strong this year.

The bottom is where the ACC actually gets swamped when it comes to revenue averages.

Look up the data. It gets posted every year.

And as for markets, we don't have many professional teams in the South outside of a few large cities. College Sports is king down here and our saturation numbers bear that out. We have the highest % of actual viewers to total possible viewers of any region. And that's part of the difference too.

LOL. Calm down JR, Relax. You took this way off the rails. WAAYY OFF. Gamecock mentioned the SEC providing way more huge matchups. I challenged him regarding that. Nobody mentioned revenue. If ND was interested in being in a conference with more revenue and that provided everything they needed, they wouldnt be dealing with the SEC or ACC. It would be the BIG. Whether the ACC provides more revenue in bb than the SEC doesnt matter in this context either since we are talking about better basketball, which is as clear as the vast difference that you think exists in football. Im also going to stick by my assertion that ND would choose the ACC over the SEC every time, regardless of all the advantages that the SEC has over the ACC. The reason being is that the ACC is a much better academic conference, which means something to ND, the ACC provides games for ND in the student rich northeast as well as the south. ND thinks of itself as a northeastern university.

I didn't take it off the rails, I put it back on the track. When you compare the branding (huge matchups) the proof of it is the revenue which is based on the ratings

As for N.D. they are where they could get a partial deal, an upscale version of the Old Big East where they did the same. Nuf said.

Funny, that was the actual conversation. If the ACC and SEC were willing to give ND a partial deal, they would choose the ACC.

There has never been any interest whatsoever by the SEC in Notre Dame, or in Notre Dame having interest in the SEC. Swarbrick communicated with Slive to get the lay of the land on feelings in the South over things pertaining to the sport itself and to help set up the Georgia Notre Dame series since the Irish were interested in exposure in a hot recruiting state, but outside of being cordial on the business side it is a mutual disinterest that is shared.

The Irish wouldn't have been as interested in the ACC if it hadn't given them both Southern recruiting exposure with New England/New York schools to play. With both factors there the Notre Dame agenda was accomplished. As long as they have USC and Stanford on the West and can schedule a game a year that plays well in Cincinnati, Chicago, and Indianapolis they're good. Notre Dame doesn't love the ACC. The ACC serves Notre Dame's purposes. I think ESPN fully grasped that when they assisted with the additions that the ACC made.

So the partial deal for the Irish and the LHN were ESPN's way of getting a piece of two major brands. Clemson and Florida State are a football bonus and they have all they want in hoops.

And it's a whopping bargain to boot!

An aside: It will likely never happen, but if the Big 10 ever added the California schools, it would be fascinating to see which of these two scenarios would win out:
1. The ACC where if F.S.U. and Clemson aren't played regularly it leaves the Irish a relatively easy 5 game obligation with which to pad their wins.
2. The Big 10 for almost double the cash with USC & Stanford in house.

That would be a fascinating study in clashing priorities and it would be interesting to watch that play out.

(06-03-2019 06:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 09:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  CBS would not have paid more if the SEC had added Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and Notre Dame.

Why not? Because they didn't have to! The contract did not require that they pay more if the SEC added teams. ANY teams.

In fact, CBS did cut the SEC a little break by lifting their exclusive broadcast window to pave the way for the SECN. But they didn't have to offer any more money for the new teams, so they didn't.

I thought the same thing about ESPN. But in fact, they gave the SEC a big bump because the SEC was relatively undervalued and A&M pulled their weight even if Missouri didn't. Just as they gave the ACC a decent bump for adding Pitt and Syracuse who were probably no more valuable than the average ACC school. ESPN did not just give pro rata, but raised the ACC, as I recall from about $13 million per school to $17 million with that addition. Then they bumped it up again for partially getting Notre Dame.

The difference was ESPN took on more inventory and added years to it, in exchange for it. CBS decidedly had no interest in opening up the contract and paying market rate, so they left their contract untouched purposely.

I would not be surprised if they bow out of SEC football when this contract is up, unless the SEC thinks the exposure for playing on CBS is worth it enough to give them a steep discount.

(06-03-2019 04:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 06:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 09:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  CBS would not have paid more if the SEC had added Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and Notre Dame.

Why not? Because they didn't have to! The contract did not require that they pay more if the SEC added teams. ANY teams.

In fact, CBS did cut the SEC a little break by lifting their exclusive broadcast window to pave the way for the SECN. But they didn't have to offer any more money for the new teams, so they didn't.

I thought the same thing about ESPN. But in fact, they gave the SEC a big bump because the SEC was relatively undervalued and A&M pulled their weight even if Missouri didn't. Just as they gave the ACC a decent bump for adding Pitt and Syracuse who were probably no more valuable than the average ACC school. ESPN did not just give pro rata, but raised the ACC, as I recall from about $13 million per school to $17 million with that addition. Then they bumped it up again for partially getting Notre Dame.

The difference was ESPN took on more inventory and added years to it, in exchange for it. CBS decidedly had no interest in opening up the contract and paying market rate, so they left their contract untouched purposely.

I would not be surprised if they bow out of SEC football when this contract is up, unless the SEC thinks the exposure for playing on CBS is worth it enough to give them a steep discount.

Yeah, like that makes a lot of sense. The Sports Director for CBS is already in the press saying that CBS wants to get the SEC deal signed early. It is their only dominating time slot for sports broadcasting when it comes to the ratings so I'm sure they want to walk away if they can't get a discount.

At the Spring meeting ways to increase CBS's inventory were being discussed.

Keep up with the schadenfreude though it is entertaining. And there are other very interested parties. Look for the range of a new contract to be in the 275-315 million range per year.

(06-03-2019 05:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 04:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 06:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 09:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  CBS would not have paid more if the SEC had added Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and Notre Dame.

Why not? Because they didn't have to! The contract did not require that they pay more if the SEC added teams. ANY teams.

In fact, CBS did cut the SEC a little break by lifting their exclusive broadcast window to pave the way for the SECN. But they didn't have to offer any more money for the new teams, so they didn't.

I thought the same thing about ESPN. But in fact, they gave the SEC a big bump because the SEC was relatively undervalued and A&M pulled their weight even if Missouri didn't. Just as they gave the ACC a decent bump for adding Pitt and Syracuse who were probably no more valuable than the average ACC school. ESPN did not just give pro rata, but raised the ACC, as I recall from about $13 million per school to $17 million with that addition. Then they bumped it up again for partially getting Notre Dame.

The difference was ESPN took on more inventory and added years to it, in exchange for it. CBS decidedly had no interest in opening up the contract and paying market rate, so they left their contract untouched purposely.

I would not be surprised if they bow out of SEC football when this contract is up, unless the SEC thinks the exposure for playing on CBS is worth it enough to give them a steep discount.

Yeah, like that makes a lot of sense. The Sports Director for CBS is already in the press saying that CBS wants to get the SEC deal signed early. It is their only dominating time slot for sports broadcasting when it comes to the ratings so I'm sure they want to walk away if they can't get a discount.

At the Spring meeting ways to increase CBS's inventory were being discussed.

Keep up with the schadenfreude though it is entertaining. And there are other very interested parties. Look for the range of a new contract to be in the 275-315 million range per year.

The SEC ccg in an almost exclusive slot is $20-$25 million a year. The game of the week is not going to get that much (which would be $280-$350). It will get a whole lot more than $55 million it gets now, but not that much of a bump.

(06-03-2019 05:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 04:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I would not be surprised if they bow out of SEC football when this contract is up, unless the SEC thinks the exposure for playing on CBS is worth it enough to give them a steep discount.

Yeah, like that makes a lot of sense. The Sports Director for CBS is already in the press saying that CBS wants to get the SEC deal signed early. It is their only dominating time slot for sports broadcasting when it comes to the ratings so I'm sure they want to walk away if they can't get a discount.

At the Spring meeting ways to increase CBS's inventory were being discussed.

Keep up with the schadenfreude though it is entertaining. And there are other very interested parties. Look for the range of a new contract to be in the 275-315 million range per year.

I wasn't discussing what I would do, or what you would do. I was discussing what they did, and at that time they literally said they were not interested in altering their agreement because they could not afford to pay the current market value. And that number has only gone up since then. My hypothesis that they may not renew, unless the SEC gives a discount, was not that the SEC was not worth it, but that they may decide rights fees of five times what they pay now, their past actions show they had decided they could not afford it.

If they change their tune so be it, but at the time, it was most definitely their attitude, and the original comment about it didn't matter who the SEC added they would not have paid more, is correct. I know you get overly protective anytime someone says something you perceive as a slight toward the sEC (see above conversation with Cuserock), but not everything is a slight.

(06-03-2019 05:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 04:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I would not be surprised if they bow out of SEC football when this contract is up, unless the SEC thinks the exposure for playing on CBS is worth it enough to give them a steep discount.

Yeah, like that makes a lot of sense. The Sports Director for CBS is already in the press saying that CBS wants to get the SEC deal signed early. It is their only dominating time slot for sports broadcasting when it comes to the ratings so I'm sure they want to walk away if they can't get a discount.

At the Spring meeting ways to increase CBS's inventory were being discussed.

Keep up with the schadenfreude though it is entertaining. And there are other very interested parties. Look for the range of a new contract to be in the 275-315 million range per year.

I wasn't discussing what I would do, or what you would do. I was discussing what they did, and at that time they literally said they were not interested in altering their agreement because they could not afford to pay the current market value. And that number has only gone up since then. My hypothesis that they may not renew, unless the SEC gives a discount, was not that the SEC was not worth it, but that they may decide rights fees of five times what they pay now, their past actions show they had decided they could not afford it.

If they change their tune so be it, but at the time, it was most definitely their attitude, and the original comment about it didn't matter who the SEC added they would not have paid more, is correct. I know you get overly protective anytime someone says something you perceive as a slight toward the sEC (see above conversation with Cuserock), but not everything is a slight.

Always equivocation from you. If you had read earlier it had been stated that they weren't giving a penny more, but the reason at the time was they got nothing more for their money. They contracted for 17 games and no matter who was added they still had 17 games. To claim they could not "afford" it was your spin on an old story which wasn't even the talking points at the time. CBS could easily have afforded more if they had received more.

What I get overly reactive to is a lie, the manipulation of events that the board may not remember, and the atrociously overly optimistic spin of all things ACC dating back to my entire time on this board. There's a reason it was tagged the Rainbows and Unicorns crowd. Things are what they are. Tweaking the storyline with a word like "afford" is as dis-ingenious as it gets when it was not part of the discussions back in 2010-1. The only thing CBS stated was that they were getting nothing new out of the additions and didn't see why they should pay more. In the world of quid pro quo business dealings this is a perfectly rational position. What they gave up, was more than we could have expected. They gave up their exclusivity to the 2:30 CTZ slot for the Game of the Week to permit the SECN to air a T3 game. That was a gesture of good will.

No major business ever uses the words "can't afford". It is the kiss of death on stock sales. Even if they can't afford it they never state it.

Now what CBS may or may not do this time around or how flush or not they may be, they nevertheless are in the industry and they are quite aware of the costs of programming. If they want to remain the top Saturday time slot for Fall Sports then the inflation of programming that has occurred in the past 11 to 12 years will have to be factored in and a bonus for the product that produces the top time slot is also an industry standard.

If CBS doesn't want it FOX has been chomping at the bit to gain a Southeastern audience and ABC is waiting in the wings. So the SEC wouldn't be worrying about losing the time slot, or the exclusivity of a national platform.

That's why I called it schadenfreude and that was giving the benefit of the doubt over intentional prevarication.

(06-03-2019 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  That would be irrelevant. ND doesn't really care all that much about BC, Pitt or Syracuse.

They have a long history with Pitt, not much with Syracuse and some recent history with BC.

But, they have already agreed to not play Pitt or BC annually any longer.

Those annual games had to go to get the ACC partial deal that keeps football independent.

So...they went. They were not that important as opposed to remaining independent.

(In your scenario, if ND wanted to keep some games with Pitt or BC, it could schedule them with the 7 games per year it controls)

ND has already kicked the annual Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue games to the curb.

Do you know why?

Because those games had to go to keep football independent.

So, you know what? They went. They were not so important to ND as opposed to independence.

(Notice a trend?)

So what if those teams (Pitt, BC, Syracuse) were not in the ACC?

So what if the Big Ten had "Catholic markets"?

If the Big Ten wanted football included, the answer would still be no and ND would embrace Tobacco Road or the Big 12 to keep football out of a conference.

As I said, failing all of that, it would be the Big East, not full membership in any conference.

I do notice a trend: Notre Dame having to sacrifice more and more of their tradition and independence simply to remain formally independent in a world where it's increasingly difficult to get by without a full football conference affiliation. You follow this trend, and there may come a point where they decide there are things they can't sacrifice for the sake of scheduling flexibility for 3 more of their football games beyond the first 5.

(06-03-2019 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:20 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  If the Big Ten wanted football included, the answer would still be no and ND would embrace Tobacco Road or the Big 12 to keep football out of a conference.

As I said, failing all of that, it would be the Big East, not full membership in any conference.

It will never happen for a lot of reasons, but I always thought Notre Dame should have done a partial membership with the SEC instead of the ACC. Would have a lot more huge matchups, more fertile recruiting ground, and ND still gets the national schedule.

I dont know that you could say "a lot more huge matchups." The SEC has more teams that are in the running for a CFP every season. But really, is there a huge difference between the SEC top of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas AM, LSU and Auburn, as opposed to the ACC top group of Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, Louisville and GT? Of course the edge goes to the SEC, but the difference is not huge. The next grouping of Tennessee, MSU, Kentucky, Missouri and Mississippi is no more appealing than NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, BC and Wake Forest.

Then the difference in academic prestige is actually huge between the ACC and SEC. Not to mention the other revenue sport, men's basketball. The other difference is that Notre Dame enjoys playing in the northeast every year where they like to recruit for their students. The SEC cant do that for ND. I believe that if the SEC and ACC were both willing to allow ND partial membership to satisfy ND's quasi-independence desire, that ND would choose the ACC every time.
And I know none of this doesnt really matter to your point but its the off season. What else an I going to talk about?

Is there a huge difference in ACC football and SEC football? Yes and it won't even be close until there are 3 or 4 schools every year that can mount a challenge to your front runner (which is now Clemson). As for basketball the SEC actually earns very nearly what the ACC and Big 10 do. There's very little separation between basketball revenue totals. There's a gulf of difference for football earners.

You do realize that the SEC averaged 33 million more in Gross Total Revenue than the average ACC school last year? You do realize that we averaged 75,000 in attendance at our football venues as opposed to your 49,000 at yours while our basketball attendance was within a few thousand of yours. You do realize that the average cost of a 1 season ticket book in the SEC starts at $550 per each plus $20 dollars for handling and that to purchase 2 you must donate around $1200 more? There is virtually all of your revenue difference. Price of the tickets x number of seats + required donations to purchase said tickets = 70% of the revenue gap. Ad revenue for football which is figured into the rights deal is the other part of it.

If your basketball was so valuable the gap wouldn't be so large and we would be way behind in basketball attendance and revenue, but we aren't. Heck the Old Big East would never have folded had basketball been a true moneymaker. It was a great basketball conference!

It simply is what it is. If the ACC is to catch up it needs larger sold out venues, and brands like Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Louisville need to win every year at a higher level than 7-5 and 8-4.

As to the bottom grouping Tennessee averages 90,000 attendance even in bad years. Mississippi State, Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Missouri still out draw and out earn your bottom and Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State are in the mix most years and all win at a high level in other sports. Even Vanderbilt has won 3 national titles now and their baseball team looks strong this year.

The bottom is where the ACC actually gets swamped when it comes to revenue averages.

Look up the data. It gets posted every year.

And as for markets, we don't have many professional teams in the South outside of a few large cities. College Sports is king down here and our saturation numbers bear that out. We have the highest % of actual viewers to total possible viewers of any region. And that's part of the difference too.

It's still a power conference and have won 2 national titles in the 5 years since the split. Though FB sure tried hard as hell to kill it.

(06-01-2019 11:37 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'd like to make an argument that the Big Ten's 21st expansion was horribly botched.

My initial assessment of their expansion desires was they had two major interests:

1. Notre Dame
2. Gaining highly populated eastern markets to capitalize on a market based revenue model, particulately when it comes to T3 carriage fees on the BTN

To accomplish objective 1 they needed to make the BE an untenable conference home. This plays in to objective 2. IMHO there were 5 potential northeastern schools that could have been picked:

Rutgers (BE--NYC market)
Syracuse (BE--Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo markets)
Pitt (BE--Pittsburgh market, partially covered by PSU)
Maryland (ACC--DC and Baltimore markets)
BC (ACC--Boston market)

Adding 4 of those plus ND to create a 16 team league would have been ideal. Had they taken the 3 BE schools and one of the ACC schools I think it would have done enough damage to make ND seek a new conference home and the Big Ten with it's big Midwestern and east coast markets would have been their only real option. Not to mention the Big Ten would be home to 5 of their annual rivals: Mich, Mich St, Purdue, Pitt, and BC. With an 8 game conference schedule there would still be plenty of room to play USC and Navy, but probably not Stanford if they wanted to maintain a slot for a MAC-level school and a high profile game from another major opponent.

That's not how it went. Larry Scott of the PAC 10 announced his own expansion intents. Delany got caught off guard and distracted. He panicked and added Nebraska. There was no reason to add Nebraska when he did and he should have waited. Even if the PAC 16 plan had been consummated Nebraska was still going to be there. The PAC 12 had no interest in them. There was no reason to rush that decision.

By jumping the gun with a knee jerk reaction with Nebraska Delany sabotaged the East Coast/ND gambit. With Nebraska in the fold he didn't have enough spots to deliver the decisive death plow to the BE and gather the eastern markets and traditional ND foes into the fold.

Why do I say this? The loss of 3 football schools, Pitt, Cuse, and WVU (2 of which I proposed the B10 should have taken) was precisely the blow that it took to destabilize the BE and send ND looking. With a footprint from Maryland to Miami, aside from GT and the hot but short lived Catholics vs the Convicts Miami series ND didn't have a lot of history with the ACC. It also doesn't have the types of markets, urban with high Catholic populations, that ND was looking for.

How much did B1G make per school last year?!

*mic drop*

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(06-03-2019 01:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:20 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  If the Big Ten wanted football included, the answer would still be no and ND would embrace Tobacco Road or the Big 12 to keep football out of a conference.

As I said, failing all of that, it would be the Big East, not full membership in any conference.

It will never happen for a lot of reasons, but I always thought Notre Dame should have done a partial membership with the SEC instead of the ACC. Would have a lot more huge matchups, more fertile recruiting ground, and ND still gets the national schedule.

I dont know that you could say "a lot more huge matchups." The SEC has more teams that are in the running for a CFP every season. But really, is there a huge difference between the SEC top of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas AM, LSU and Auburn, as opposed to the ACC top group of Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, Louisville and GT? Of course the edge goes to the SEC, but the difference is not huge. The next grouping of Tennessee, MSU, Kentucky, Missouri and Arkansas is not much more appealing, if at all, than NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, BC and Virginia.

Then the difference in academic prestige is actually huge between the ACC and SEC. Not to mention the other revenue sport, men's basketball. The other difference is that Notre Dame enjoys playing in the northeast every year where they like to recruit for their students. The SEC cant do that for ND. I believe that if the SEC and ACC were both willing to allow ND partial membership to satisfy ND's quasi-independence desire, that ND would choose the ACC every time.
And I know none of this really matters to your point but its the off season. What else an I going to talk about?

o than Clemson and FSU, I actually think there is a huge difference in terms of the fanbases. Look what kind of crowd UGA brought in 2017. 1-2 games a year like that would be fantastic. Even a second tier team like Tennessee regularly brings 100k+ fans to home games. 1-2

I totally get the whole Northeast connection though, which is a huge reason why ND approached the ACC

Like I said it would never happen, but from a purely football perspective it would be an incredible deal for all

Lots of folks pointing to the Big Ten's high media payouts as grounds for expansion being successful. I wager that they'd be even higher had they snagged some bigger fish.

(06-03-2019 08:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Lots of folks pointing to the Big Ten's high media payouts as grounds for expansion being successful. I wager that they'd be even higher had they snagged some bigger fish.

You wanted Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse and Boston College in your original post, correct?

I'll take Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska every day of the week over that.

The ACC sold their soul to the devil for 5 games as far as I'm concerned.

I typically like your posts, Fighting Muskie ,but, this is just arrogant on your part. Simply my opinion that I'm throwing out there.

For what it's worth, Nebraska is the greatest of fits of anything that was possible. I am thrilled they are in this conference.

Is there another conference you would like to see Ohio State in? I know I'm happy where they are.

(06-03-2019 08:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Lots of folks pointing to the Big Ten's high media payouts as grounds for expansion being successful. I wager that they'd be even higher had they snagged some bigger fish.

Ummm...sure...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(06-03-2019 01:21 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 04:03 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Nebraska was off the table for the PAC. They were already committed to the Big Ten. If they were available, PAC would have went after them.

If the Big Ten had chosen Missouri instead at that time, and if Texas had still said no to Scott, then IMO the Pac-10 would have invited Colorado and Nebraska -- but I don't know whether Nebraska would have accepted. The Pac-12 makes sense for CU because California is both their largest source of students from out of state, by far, and the state (other than Colorado) with the most CU alums, by far. That's not the case for Nebraska.

Nebraska used to recruit California very well in football. Their sports lineup outside of football - strong volleyball and baseball would have fit well in the PAC-12. I would venture California is one of the top alumni bases for Nebraska.

(06-03-2019 08:47 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 08:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Lots of folks pointing to the Big Ten's high media payouts as grounds for expansion being successful. I wager that they'd be even higher had they snagged some bigger fish.

You wanted Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse and Boston College in your original post, correct?

I'll take Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska every day of the week over that.

The ACC sold their soul to the devil for 5 games as far as I'm concerned.

I typically like your posts, Fighting Muskie ,but, this is just arrogant on your part. Simply my opinion that I'm throwing out there.

For what it's worth, Nebraska is the greatest of fits of anything that was possible. I am thrilled they are in this conference.

Is there another conference you would like to see Ohio State in? I know I'm happy where they are.

Really? What exactly is the ACC losing here? The ACC added an excellent university with great Olympic sports and a national following. Toss in five guaranteed football games a year with one of the most storied programs ever. For what? Access to a few bowl games? Hardly the devil’s work here, and we don’t need to get into the sins of the Big Ten universities administrations.

Overwhelming amount of Big Ten fans on Notre Dame: “they need to join a conference.”

Big Ten fans: feelings hurt ND passes them over.

(06-03-2019 07:51 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:20 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  If the Big Ten wanted football included, the answer would still be no and ND would embrace Tobacco Road or the Big 12 to keep football out of a conference.

As I said, failing all of that, it would be the Big East, not full membership in any conference.

It will never happen for a lot of reasons, but I always thought Notre Dame should have done a partial membership with the SEC instead of the ACC. Would have a lot more huge matchups, more fertile recruiting ground, and ND still gets the national schedule.

I dont know that you could say "a lot more huge matchups." The SEC has more teams that are in the running for a CFP every season. But really, is there a huge difference between the SEC top of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas AM, LSU and Auburn, as opposed to the ACC top group of Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, Louisville and GT? Of course the edge goes to the SEC, but the difference is not huge. The next grouping of Tennessee, MSU, Kentucky, Missouri and Arkansas is not much more appealing, if at all, than NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, BC and Virginia.

Then the difference in academic prestige is actually huge between the ACC and SEC. Not to mention the other revenue sport, men's basketball. The other difference is that Notre Dame enjoys playing in the northeast every year where they like to recruit for their students. The SEC cant do that for ND. I believe that if the SEC and ACC were both willing to allow ND partial membership to satisfy ND's quasi-independence desire, that ND would choose the ACC every time.
And I know none of this really matters to your point but its the off season. What else an I going to talk about?

o than Clemson and FSU, I actually think there is a huge difference in terms of the fanbases. Look what kind of crowd UGA brought in 2017. 1-2 games a year like that would be fantastic. Even a second tier team like Tennessee regularly brings 100k+ fans to home games. 1-2

I totally get the whole Northeast connection though, which is a huge reason why ND approached the ACC

Like I said it would never happen, but from a purely football perspective it would be an incredible deal for all

Read a quote in the past week or two from an SEC guy saying fan bases don't travel like they used to. With every game on TV and so many alternate forms of entertainment, that tradition seems to be dying out with the older generations. That said, I know UGA took 12k the first time they played Mizzou. And they turned Notre Dame stadium red and black. But those are different experiences, not the teams they play every year. I went on a bus with a small town group to Jacksonville for the UGA-Florida game about 20 years ago. Even then they were wondering what would happen to their Bulldog club as the group aged. I think it died out about 10 years ago.

(06-03-2019 06:59 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  That would be irrelevant. ND doesn't really care all that much about BC, Pitt or Syracuse.

They have a long history with Pitt, not much with Syracuse and some recent history with BC.

But, they have already agreed to not play Pitt or BC annually any longer.

Those annual games had to go to get the ACC partial deal that keeps football independent.

So...they went. They were not that important as opposed to remaining independent.

(In your scenario, if ND wanted to keep some games with Pitt or BC, it could schedule them with the 7 games per year it controls)

ND has already kicked the annual Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue games to the curb.

Do you know why?

Because those games had to go to keep football independent.

So, you know what? They went. They were not so important to ND as opposed to independence.

(Notice a trend?)

So what if those teams (Pitt, BC, Syracuse) were not in the ACC?

So what if the Big Ten had "Catholic markets"?

If the Big Ten wanted football included, the answer would still be no and ND would embrace Tobacco Road or the Big 12 to keep football out of a conference.

As I said, failing all of that, it would be the Big East, not full membership in any conference.

I do notice a trend: Notre Dame having to sacrifice more and more of their tradition and independence simply to remain formally independent in a world where it's increasingly difficult to get by without a full football conference affiliation. You follow this trend, and there may come a point where they decide there are things they can't sacrifice for the sake of scheduling flexibility for 3 more of their football games beyond the first 5.

No, what it means is that annual games against long time opponents are not and never were as important to ND as is independence.

Southern Cal, Stanford and Navy have been deemed the important games to remain on ND's schedule, for different reasons.

Other than the five ACC games, the rest of the opponents on the schedule are pretty much fungible.


Unlike most schools, regional rivalries are not that big of a deal to ND, so many of the other four games per year can be used to create home/home games against Power 5 opponents in other regions of the country (as in Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Arizona State, Arkansas, etc...on recent past or upcoming schedules).

That is part of the "national schedule" and "markers against the Power 5 conferences" goals for ND scheduling.

The thing that you and others miss is that football independence is the identity, culture and tradition of Notre Dame, both for the institution and the football program.

It goes beyond "scheduling flexibility for 3 more of their football games beyond the first 5."

The main tradition at ND is football independence, not games against Pitt, BC or Purdue.

Scheduling flexibility is a byproduct of independence, not the reason for it.

The reason for it is that, to many at ND, surrendering independence is a criminal act, a betrayal of its history and status of over 130 years. An easy way out that would jettison all that came before, one that would have serious negative consequences for ND, particularly from its big donors. It would be deemed a cowardly surrender by ND to the conferences.

ND sees itself as private, Catholic and independent, to paraphrase Father Monk Malloy in 1999.

It also sees itself as a national university, a goal or status that is not advanced, in their minds, by football joining a conference.

Various schemes on message boards to "force" or "entice" ND football into a conference all seem to neglect or ignore these things. ND just doesn't want to do it, period.

(06-04-2019 05:34 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 08:47 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 08:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Lots of folks pointing to the Big Ten's high media payouts as grounds for expansion being successful. I wager that they'd be even higher had they snagged some bigger fish.

You wanted Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse and Boston College in your original post, correct?

I'll take Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska every day of the week over that.

The ACC sold their soul to the devil for 5 games as far as I'm concerned.

I typically like your posts, Fighting Muskie ,but, this is just arrogant on your part. Simply my opinion that I'm throwing out there.

For what it's worth, Nebraska is the greatest of fits of anything that was possible. I am thrilled they are in this conference.

Is there another conference you would like to see Ohio State in? I know I'm happy where they are.

Really? What exactly is the ACC losing here? The ACC added an excellent university with great Olympic sports and a national following. Toss in five guaranteed football games a year with one of the most storied programs ever. For what? Access to a few bowl games? Hardly the devil’s work here, and we don’t need to get into the sins of the Big Ten universities administrations.

Overwhelming amount of Big Ten fans on Notre Dame: “they need to join a conference.”

Big Ten fans: feelings hurt ND passes them over.

Appreciate your opinions, esayem!

Is it true that Notre Dame can jump a full member of the ACC in the pecking order of bowl games? Even if the full member has a better record?

Is it true Notre Dame does not have to share any money they make when and if they make the CFP?

You are ok with a partial member getting a better deal than full members when it comes to bowl games?

This is not a Big 10 fans are hurt deal! That's a common argument that I just laugh at. I was just making my original comment based on the crappy deal full time members got for 5 games. Maybe I'm missing something in the deal? And I'll eat my words.

And if you want to bring up the scandals at Penn State, MSU and Ohio State, go right ahead. You all already ran two threads on this recently.

Look around and I'm sure you'll see plenty of full member ACC schools who hate the deal.

Stories like these are a dime a dozen on the internet.

https://chopchat.com/2016/05/14/notre-da...re-league/