(09-17-2019 07:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  I would prefer to shrink to 12 rather than expand to 16.

...as long as they thin the state of North Carolina by 2 teams, fine.

(09-17-2019 04:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 04:45 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 11:59 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 03:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  We already have a team in the Boston area, but we do need representation in the Baltimore/DC market.

The way folks clamor for Cincinnati and Tennessee, maybe the ACC should invite the Bengals and the Titans.

You're advocating for the ACC to add the second best football program in Cincinnati? Shame on you.

Knowing how competitive high school football is in Cincinnati, I’m not so sure the Bengals are the second best football program in the Queen City.

? Charlotte is the Queen City.

Meh- both cities have shared the nickname for hundreds of years, but for different reasons. Obviously Charlotte's nickname stems from its origins being named after King George III's wife. Cincinnati was dubbed Queen City of the West as early as 1819 due to its location, rapid expansion and prominence.

Now that the history lesson is out of the way, yes Cardinal Jim is correct in stating that there is a lot of quality FB talent in Greater Cincinnati. I also get that none of you ACC guys want Cincinnati anywhere near your conference, just as I don't want Cincinnati to be affiliated with a number of schools in the MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt and even most of the AAC tbh.

I have no problem with Cincy being in the ACC.

(09-17-2019 04:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 04:45 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 11:59 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 03:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  We already have a team in the Boston area, but we do need representation in the Baltimore/DC market.

The way folks clamor for Cincinnati and Tennessee, maybe the ACC should invite the Bengals and the Titans.

You're advocating for the ACC to add the second best football program in Cincinnati? Shame on you.

Knowing how competitive high school football is in Cincinnati, I’m not so sure the Bengals are the second best football program in the Queen City.

? Charlotte is the Queen City.

Actually they both use the term.

(09-17-2019 09:29 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  I have no problem with Cincy being in the ACC.

Most of the former Big East programs I believe would support Cincinnati joining The ACC. As for the original ACC members it’s probably hit and miss with them.

(09-17-2019 09:49 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 09:29 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  I have no problem with Cincy being in the ACC.

Most of the former Big East programs I believe would support Cincinnati joining The ACC. As for the original ACC members it’s probably hit and miss with them.

True.

(09-16-2019 08:21 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I’d prefer the AAC sign a GOR and stick it out with each other. They really have a lot of momentum right now.

Half that conference is very deserving of being in the P5. It's the other half that hurts them.



But ... like you ... I think if you could microwave that league, they could grow into a desirable property for TV to pay like a P5. The P5 conferences have had decades to "bake", growing fan bases, establishing rivalries, etc. The Big East/American never had that. Which I think is an under-estimated reason for why they are where they are.

I think college athletics is better WITH MORE schools able to compete at the highest level, and NOT LESS. So for me, a healthy Mountain West, a healthy American Athletic Conference, is BETTER, than the opposite.

I also think there is room for conferences like the MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA.

(09-16-2019 07:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:03 PM)ShadowKnight Wrote:  The #18 media market and growing fast adds nothing?

From a conference TV channel revenue standpoint ... precisely: nothing.

Everybody in Orlando who can view the ACCN already pays the in state rate for it. It's baked in everywhere in FL now. It simply adds another mouth to feed without really growing the pie.

How does this work with the ACCN? I live in Orlando and get the SEC network included in my cable package, however, I am unable to view the ACCN unless I pay extra money. Is this how it is in Tallahassee and Miami?

(09-17-2019 10:58 AM)otown Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:03 PM)ShadowKnight Wrote:  The #18 media market and growing fast adds nothing?

From a conference TV channel revenue standpoint ... precisely: nothing.

Everybody in Orlando who can view the ACCN already pays the in state rate for it. It's baked in everywhere in FL now. It simply adds another mouth to feed without really growing the pie.

How does this work with the ACCN? I live in Orlando and get the SEC network included in my cable package, however, I am unable to view the ACCN unless I pay extra money. Is this how it is in Tallahassee and Miami?

In most ACC footprint areas it's exactly the opposite - ACCN on the lower tiers, SECN requires a slightly higher tier.

Who is your TV provider?

(09-17-2019 07:49 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 07:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  I would prefer to shrink to 12 rather than expand to 16.

...as long as they thin the state of North Carolina by 2 teams, fine.

(09-16-2019 07:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:03 PM)ShadowKnight Wrote:  The #18 media market and growing fast adds nothing?

From a conference TV channel revenue standpoint ... precisely: nothing.

Everybody in Orlando who can view the ACCN already pays the in state rate for it. It's baked in everywhere in FL now. It simply adds another mouth to feed without really growing the pie.

Question for you Swagger, how would adding Texas to the SEC add anything to the SEC Network?? I would think that they would have a similar effect to UCF or UF in the ACC.

(09-17-2019 01:19 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:03 PM)ShadowKnight Wrote:  The #18 media market and growing fast adds nothing?

From a conference TV channel revenue standpoint ... precisely: nothing.

Everybody in Orlando who can view the ACCN already pays the in state rate for it. It's baked in everywhere in FL now. It simply adds another mouth to feed without really growing the pie.

Question for you Swagger, how would adding Texas to the SEC add anything to the SEC Network?? I would think that they would have a similar effect to UCF or UF in the ACC.

Texas wouldn't be as big of a home run as another major name brand flagship in a new state with major new media markets. The trouble is the SEC already ran out of those with TAMU. Missouri is pretty clearly a reach for the SEC to me. They don't really fit in the SEC. And definitely not in the SEC East.

HOWEVER .... Texas is a Top 5 revenue generator with their own TV channel. It would restart TX-TAMU. It would restart TX-ARK. Much of the financial benefit of Texas in the SEC is murkier to calculate ... a huge traveling fan base to fill up stadiums, a national draw, TV hit rivalries, etc. Even if this math doesn't scream easy win, simply denying anybody else having Texas is a pretty big win.

Thank you Swagger!! I will admit that Missouri was definitely a reach, but Mizzou reached out to us, and we decided to help them out. They remind me of how Arkansas was when they were new SEC members. Not many rivalries or history with SEC members except for Ole Miss and LSU to a very small extent. They had some history with LSU, but it was nothing that was really remembered, like Ole Miss was. If the SEC really wants to get anything out of Mizzou, it would be wise to add Kansas, IMO, because Kansas would be like TAMU was for Arkansas.

(09-17-2019 01:27 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 01:19 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:03 PM)ShadowKnight Wrote:  The #18 media market and growing fast adds nothing?

From a conference TV channel revenue standpoint ... precisely: nothing.

Everybody in Orlando who can view the ACCN already pays the in state rate for it. It's baked in everywhere in FL now. It simply adds another mouth to feed without really growing the pie.

Question for you Swagger, how would adding Texas to the SEC add anything to the SEC Network?? I would think that they would have a similar effect to UCF or UF in the ACC.

Texas wouldn't be as big of a home run as another major name brand flagship in a new state with major new media markets. The trouble is the SEC already ran out of those with TAMU. Missouri is pretty clearly a reach for the SEC to me. They don't really fit in the SEC. And definitely not in the SEC East.

HOWEVER .... Texas is a Top 5 revenue generator with their own TV channel. It would restart TX-TAMU. It would restart TX-ARK. Much of the financial benefit of Texas in the SEC is murkier to calculate ... a huge traveling fan base to fill up stadiums, a national draw, TV hit rivalries, etc. Even if this math doesn't scream easy win, simply denying anybody else having Texas is a pretty big win.

The value of adding Texas is that in increases the ad rates that the SEC can command inside a state of 28 million people. Advertisers don't have to pay the SEC when they can pay the Big 12 to reach most of the same viewers. If the SEC added Texas and another Texas school (TCU or Tech) to move to 16 not only do they get the brand vs brand multiplication of national games, but they become the conference to do business with to advertise in Texas on Saturdays or any sporting event, basketball, baseball, softball, etc. Between UT / A&M / T.C.U or Tech the market in Texas is completely and effectively covered especially since they all hate their rivals as much as they love their school. Guaranteed eyeballs for at least 3 games a week with added interest when L.S.U. or Arkansas are involved.

The addition of the right 2 Texas schools could add between 3 to 5 million per SEC school in media revenue. And, I failed to mention that T2 games that can draw 6 million viewers would be a huge increase in that portion of the rights.

With the ACC network off the ground, I would think that the strongest move to 16 (without ND or other p5) would be Houston. They can compete in football, huge enrollment and alumni, lots of subscribers for the ACC network.

(09-17-2019 01:27 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 01:19 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:03 PM)ShadowKnight Wrote:  The #18 media market and growing fast adds nothing?

From a conference TV channel revenue standpoint ... precisely: nothing.

Everybody in Orlando who can view the ACCN already pays the in state rate for it. It's baked in everywhere in FL now. It simply adds another mouth to feed without really growing the pie.

Question for you Swagger, how would adding Texas to the SEC add anything to the SEC Network?? I would think that they would have a similar effect to UCF or UF in the ACC.

Texas wouldn't be as big of a home run as another major name brand flagship in a new state with major new media markets. The trouble is the SEC already ran out of those with TAMU. Missouri is pretty clearly a reach for the SEC to me. They don't really fit in the SEC. And definitely not in the SEC East.

HOWEVER .... Texas is a Top 5 revenue generator with their own TV channel. It would restart TX-TAMU. It would restart TX-ARK. Much of the financial benefit of Texas in the SEC is murkier to calculate ... a huge traveling fan base to fill up stadiums, a national draw, TV hit rivalries, etc. Even if this math doesn't scream easy win, simply denying anybody else having Texas is a pretty big win.

ESPN has taken on a new attitude. Skipper is gone and so is the idea of actually listening to to the schools. Even Texas is realizing that what ever leverage they thought they had has been signed away. If the ACC or SEC expand it will be orchestrated by Fuhrer Mickey.
Would the SEC make more with Texas....yes. Would the ACCN make more with Texas (even as a Notre Dame type partial)........yes. Would Texas enhance the Big 12 enough to make it profitable (and thus increasing the value of ESPN's contract).......yes. What is Texas going to do? What ever makes ESPN the most money.

(09-18-2019 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 01:27 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 01:19 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:03 PM)ShadowKnight Wrote:  The #18 media market and growing fast adds nothing?

From a conference TV channel revenue standpoint ... precisely: nothing.

Everybody in Orlando who can view the ACCN already pays the in state rate for it. It's baked in everywhere in FL now. It simply adds another mouth to feed without really growing the pie.

Question for you Swagger, how would adding Texas to the SEC add anything to the SEC Network?? I would think that they would have a similar effect to UCF or UF in the ACC.

Texas wouldn't be as big of a home run as another major name brand flagship in a new state with major new media markets. The trouble is the SEC already ran out of those with TAMU. Missouri is pretty clearly a reach for the SEC to me. They don't really fit in the SEC. And definitely not in the SEC East.

HOWEVER .... Texas is a Top 5 revenue generator with their own TV channel. It would restart TX-TAMU. It would restart TX-ARK. Much of the financial benefit of Texas in the SEC is murkier to calculate ... a huge traveling fan base to fill up stadiums, a national draw, TV hit rivalries, etc. Even if this math doesn't scream easy win, simply denying anybody else having Texas is a pretty big win.

ESPN has taken on a new attitude. Skipper is gone and so is the idea of actually listening to to the schools. Even Texas is realizing that what ever leverage they thought they had has been signed away. If the ACC or SEC expand it will be orchestrated by Fuhrer Mickey.
Would the SEC make more with Texas....yes. Would the ACCN make more with Texas (even as a Notre Dame type partial)........yes. Would Texas enhance the Big 12 enough to make it profitable (and thus increasing the value of ESPN's contract).......yes. What is Texas going to do? What ever makes ESPN the most money.

(09-17-2019 12:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 10:58 AM)otown Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 07:03 PM)ShadowKnight Wrote:  The #18 media market and growing fast adds nothing?

From a conference TV channel revenue standpoint ... precisely: nothing.

Everybody in Orlando who can view the ACCN already pays the in state rate for it. It's baked in everywhere in FL now. It simply adds another mouth to feed without really growing the pie.

How does this work with the ACCN? I live in Orlando and get the SEC network included in my cable package, however, I am unable to view the ACCN unless I pay extra money. Is this how it is in Tallahassee and Miami?

In most ACC footprint areas it's exactly the opposite - ACCN on the lower tiers, SECN requires a slightly higher tier.

Who is your TV provider?

I have spectrum. They are the only main cable provider in central florida Orlando and Tampa.... outside of atypical like dish etc. This goes against everything that Swagger said about UCF not adding TV value. If ACCN is on the lower tiers in their coverage areas, Orlando certainly is NOT in it currently. We do get SEC network on low tiers, so Orlando is in their primary coverage area... but not so for ACC. So adding UCF may have value is the 18th media market comes on board with low tier ACCN. Also, I would assume other bordering markets would also get a low tier ACCN such as brevard county and even Tampa. I wonder how much extra media money that would make?

You probably have the Brighthouse legacy package. Spectrum is playing games with their packages. BL: they want you to switch over to their package. ACCN is on the lower tier there.

(09-17-2019 04:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 04:45 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 11:59 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 03:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-16-2019 01:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  We already have a team in the Boston area, but we do need representation in the Baltimore/DC market.

The way folks clamor for Cincinnati and Tennessee, maybe the ACC should invite the Bengals and the Titans.

You're advocating for the ACC to add the second best football program in Cincinnati? Shame on you.

Knowing how competitive high school football is in Cincinnati, I’m not so sure the Bengals are the second best football program in the Queen City.

? Charlotte is the Queen City.

So is Cincinnati. Kind of like how there are 2 Death Valleys