(04-25-2021 04:35 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 03:11 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 03:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I must be the only one here who remembers the football eggs laid by the ACC in the late aughts until 2012.

1. FSU went in to the crapper
2. Clemson was still suffering under Tommy Bowden
3. VT was choking the Orange and Sugar bowl and then laid an egg against Boise State resulting in a loss four days later to JMU
4. UNC, NC State, and UVa accomplished less than nothing and NC State managed to do that with Russell Wilson
5. When your ACC title game pits teams with four losses or WF and BC you have a Hell of a problem.
6. Miami still has not showed up from the Big East

All of these factors played into a weak contract because Miami's, Clemson's nor FSU's resurrections could be seen at that time and VT had never quite made it over the hump. There is a lot of blame to go around.

The ACC is not underpaid because we get a de facto penalty for exposing Disney/ESPN and major Bowls to the prospect of having Wake Forest, Duke, or BC in their bowl game and the very small alumni base they represent. If 3 of 14 are tiny, the odds just on the face of getting the small team is 21%. In the SEC and Big 10 that risk is 1 of 14 or 7%. Now when we control for the product on the field, the Sugar Bowl NEVER has to worry that it might get Vandy and the Rose Bowl has only a minor chance of getting Northwestern.

I always laugh at this one.

"We were horrible, so we locked in a 50 year contract...it's not Swofford's fault."

So many thoughts to this and other points above.

1) If you suck....don't lock in to a horrible contract for half a lifetime. Business neg. 101.

2) It isn't about the crapper....it's about TV ratings.

3) FSU won a NATIONAL TITLE in 2013.

4) Again, it doesn't matter whether you are good or bad....it's whether you bring TV ratings, but why do folks never say "well teams 3-13 of the ACC never produced over the last 30 years"....instead they say "Sure FSU won 14 ACC titles in a row and 3 national titles, but it's their fault because they sucked for 4 years out of the last 30"? The logic is insane.

I realize the truth hurts you.

Let's look at the facts:

2000 - 11-2 Lost Orange Bowl final rank 5th (you will not finish the year ranked in the top 10 for the next 12 years.
2001 - 8-4 Won Gator - final rank 14th
2002 - 9-5 Lost Sugar Bowl - 21st
2003 - 10-3 Lost OB - 11th
2004 - 10-3 Won Gator - 19th
2005 - 8-5 Lost OB - 23rd
2006 - 7-6 Lost Emerald Bowl - NR
2007 - 6-6 Lost Music City Bowl - NR
2008 - 9-4 Won Citrus - 21st
2009 - 7-6 Won Gator - NR
2010 - 10-4 Won Peach Bowl - 17th
2011 - 9-4 Won Champs Bowl - 23rd
2012 - 10-2 Won Orange Bowl - 10th (first major bowl win in 13 years, first time back in the top 10 in 12 years - STILL UNABLE TO BEAT NC STATE ON A REGULAR BASIS).

Now UNC or NC State, or any other program in the ACC other than Clemson and perhaps Miami would love to have that 12 year record. But that's the record of a "HAS BEEN" program. Now, Jimbo finally righted the ship but you were in the proverbial crapper for your own standards for a decade. And when it comes to ratings, there is only so long you can stink before marginal viewers tune out.

The TRUTH is not a brand against FSU - it's just a fact. In a league very dependent on it's top 10 brand to produce - you didn't for a decade. You know full well that the ACC mix for value in the aughts was Florida State football, ACC Basketball, and the 11-13 other schools put together - a three legged stool.

That does not get any of the rest off the hook for suck performance, especially Miami. But a third of the ACC Eggs were in your basket and you dropped it and after a few years Swofford panicked.

The truth is.....the ACC has too much dead weight. No team can carry all the dead weight that needs to be carried in the ACC.

That is the ONLY truth that matters...that is the ONLY issue.


If your game plan is "if FSU gets it's @#$$# together than the ACC is fine" is not reality. The conference has too much dead weight. Knock FSU all day long, I don't mind.....but stop ignoring the actual reality of the situation.

Nole, I am trying to get you to accept the fact that FSU's collapse at the end of Bowden's reign was ill-timed and resulted in a financial cost to all 14 schools.

It was not fair that the ACC was so dependent on FSU, but at least you fell into the toilet from atop the throne unlike Miami who has been a turd from day one. It's no different than a football team that has a star horse and when that horse pulls up lame, the team loses.

When you were added to the league, GT, UVa, and NC State all had programs that were one and two wins a year from possibly turning the corner. Your entry to the league ended that.

Here's what FSU in the conference did for other conference programs:

Cost UNC a 10 win season in 92, an 11 win season in 93, and 11 win season in 96, and a 12 win season and possible National Championship in 1997.

Cost UVa their 10th win in 1994 and 98.

Cost GT their 11th win in 98, their 10th win 2000, and their 14th win in 2014 again the latter possibly causing a missed national championship game.

Cost NC State a 10 win season in 1992 and 1994,

Cost Clemson a 10 win season in 1993 and 2000.

Cost Maryland two 11 win seasons in 2001 and 2003 as well as a 12 win season in 2001.

The point is this - Florida State prevented UNC from getting atop the ACC and playing for a national title. Brown left and the program died. Maryland might still be in the ACC with those additional wins since those wins would have possibly opened up more donor support. (not likely but possible). Both the NC State and UVa programs were effectively snuffed back out and GT found itself one win shy of a return to the national stage.

The point is the addition of Florida State has not been a complete Godsend to the ACC and certainly not to UNC, NC State, UVa, MD, or GT. You have to pay for you conference wins one way or another.

(04-25-2021 06:56 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Nole, I am trying to get you to accept the fact that FSU's collapse at the end of Bowden's reign was ill-timed and resulted in a financial cost to all 14 schools.

It was not fair that the ACC was so dependent on FSU, but at least you fell into the toilet from atop the throne unlike Miami who has been a turd from day one. It's no different than a football team that has a star horse and when that horse pulls up lame, the team loses.

When you were added to the league, GT, UVa, and NC State all had programs that were one and two wins a year from possibly turning the corner. Your entry to the league ended that.

I think you are totally missing the picture on valuations. They really aren't as tied to football championships as they are to competitive football, market domination, and viewers. Get competitive in football and viewership will increase. The big issue for the ACC is that you don't have the lock on the states that comprise your footprint. You have a lock on North Carolina and Virginia, but across the rest of the conference advertisers have other less costly ways, or ways to reach a larger audience share than ACC football.

The SEC splits South Carolina viewership with you, has the plurality in Florida, carries Kentucky and Georgia. The Big 10 carries Pennsylvania, encroaches with Maryland, and New York and Massachusetts are not dominant college sports markets.

So what I'm saying is that the ACC has the fewest member states of any P5 conference where they have leverage to a Saturday time slot that advertisers will pay premium rates to utilize. Toss in the lack of football competitiveness and the low percentage of actual viewers to potential viewers and there is the reason you aren't paid as well. The Big 12 has 1 state where it doesn't carry the leverage, Iowa. The Big 10 carries the leverage in all of its states. The SEC splits South Carolina with the ACC has the most viewed school in Florida, but not more than 50% of the total viewers, in fact less, and we don't dominate Texas but we now have a very profitable slice of it. Every other state is ours with leverage. The PAC though much more anemic than the ACC has no competition for advertising Saturday football. Only the ACC fails to have the leverage in the majority of their states. And that is the much more the issue than FSU's wins and losses, or Clemson's for that matter.

(04-25-2021 07:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 06:56 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Nole, I am trying to get you to accept the fact that FSU's collapse at the end of Bowden's reign was ill-timed and resulted in a financial cost to all 14 schools.

It was not fair that the ACC was so dependent on FSU, but at least you fell into the toilet from atop the throne unlike Miami who has been a turd from day one. It's no different than a football team that has a star horse and when that horse pulls up lame, the team loses.

When you were added to the league, GT, UVa, and NC State all had programs that were one and two wins a year from possibly turning the corner. Your entry to the league ended that.

I think you are totally missing the picture on valuations. They really aren't as tied to football championships as they are to competitive football, market domination, and viewers. Get competitive in football and viewership will increase. The big issue for the ACC is that you don't have the lock on the states that comprise your footprint. You have a lock on North Carolina and Virginia, but across the rest of the conference advertisers have other less costly ways, or ways to reach a larger audience share than ACC football.

The SEC splits South Carolina viewership with you, has the plurality in Florida, carries Kentucky and Georgia. The Big 10 carries Pennsylvania, encroaches with Maryland, and New York and Massachusetts are not dominant college sports markets.

So what I'm saying is that the ACC has the fewest member states of any P5 conference where they have leverage to a Saturday time slot that advertisers will pay premium rates to utilize. Toss in the lack of football competitiveness and the low percentage of actual viewers to potential viewers and there is the reason you aren't paid as well. The Big 12 has 1 state where it doesn't carry the leverage, Iowa. The Big 10 carries the leverage in all of its states. The SEC splits South Carolina with the ACC has the most viewed school in Florida, but not more than 50% of the total viewers, in fact less, and we don't dominate Texas but we now have a very profitable slice of it. Every other state is ours with leverage. The PAC though much more anemic than the ACC has no competition for advertising Saturday football. Only the ACC fails to have the leverage in the majority of their states. And that is the much more the issue than FSU's wins and losses, or Clemson's for that matter.

I'm not tying it to championships, I am tying it to the practical effect of snuffing out some of the other programs to the point where the ONLY program was FSU's. I understand the problem of the inferior position in Georgia, PA, etc. and agree but the point is was attempting to make was that due to the nature of FSU's dominance, when they **** the bed, no one was there to take up the slack, hence no football competitiveness. If Wake Forest, BC, and VT are your ACC competitors the ACC is in a world of hurt and that affected the contract and contributed to the long term panic deal. The ACC could generally run even with the SEC in Florida IF MIAMI HAD NOT STUNK FOR 15 YEARS and UNC and GT were "competitive".

A "competitive" VT and UVa is more marketable in DC and MD than the stinking husk of Terrapin football. The two places where the weakness in the state is a major problem is of course PA and GA because nothing on Pitt's or GT's is going to compete with UGA/Auburn/TN and PSU/OSU.

Jr.,

I don't think we really disagree but from a real world standpoint ACC football is not and ought not be worth B10 or SEC football. Period, end of sentence. The B10 has 2.5 times the number of living alumni as the ACC. They have never dialed back football. They hold in their hands 3 Aces and 3 Kings - PSU/OSU/Michigan as well as Neb/Wisky/MSU. SEC football from a cultural standpoint is second only to the Baptist Church in popularity in the Confederate South. They hold 4 Aces and 2 Kings and the Trump Card - Florida/LSU/Auburn/TAMU - Tennessee/Georgia - and the trump card - Alabama.

No amount of finagling changes those hands especially after MD screwed us.

If contracts were being negotiated from scratch today, the ACC can't be worth but 70-75% of the B10 and SEC and for a number of reasons beyond current perceived or real market share. There is a cost to a network advertising drawing a dud. The ACC has more potential duds. The SEC has one dud. The B10 now has Rutgers. We have 2-4 at any one time and that risk has to be reflected in pricing.

(04-25-2021 07:45 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Jr.,

I don't think we really disagree but from a real world standpoint ACC football is not and ought not be worth B10 or SEC football. Period, end of sentence. The B10 has 2.5 times the number of living alumni as the ACC. They have never dialed back football. They hold in their hands 3 Aces and 3 Kings - PSU/OSU/Michigan as well as Neb/Wisky/MSU. SEC football from a cultural standpoint is second only to the Baptist Church in popularity in the Confederate South. They hold 4 Aces and 2 Kings and the Trump Card - Florida/LSU/Auburn/TAMU - Tennessee/Georgia - and the trump card - Alabama.

No amount of finagling changes those hands especially after MD screwed us.

If contracts were being negotiated from scratch today, the ACC can't be worth but 70-75% of the B10 and SEC and for a number of reasons beyond current perceived or real market share. There is a cost to a network advertising drawing a dud. The ACC has more potential duds. The SEC has one dud. The B10 now has Rutgers. We have 2-4 at any one time and that risk has to be reflected in pricing.

I see the distinctions. Streaming is going to take each event and with it each school to a zero sum game eventually. When rates are paid by actual views who you play is will be of paramount importance. ACC schools can do much better by being in a better branded group, particularly state schools from large states and Clemson if they can get in while riding the present horses. The imminent question is how much lure will virtually double the money have upon those state schools from large states and a hot brand? As so think the Virginia and North Carolina schools along with F.S.U. and Clemson then so goes the ACC.

(04-25-2021 06:56 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Nole, I am trying to get you to accept the fact that FSU's collapse at the end of Bowden's reign was ill-timed and resulted in a financial cost to all 14 schools.

It was not fair that the ACC was so dependent on FSU, but at least you fell into the toilet from atop the throne unlike Miami who has been a turd from day one. It's no different than a football team that has a star horse and when that horse pulls up lame, the team loses.

When you were added to the league, GT, UVa, and NC State all had programs that were one and two wins a year from possibly turning the corner. Your entry to the league ended that.

Here's what FSU in the conference did for other conference programs:

Cost UNC a 10 win season in 92, an 11 win season in 93, and 11 win season in 96, and a 12 win season and possible National Championship in 1997.

Cost UVa their 10th win in 1994 and 98.

Cost GT their 11th win in 98, their 10th win 2000, and their 14th win in 2014 again the latter possibly causing a missed national championship game.

Cost NC State a 10 win season in 1992 and 1994,

Cost Clemson a 10 win season in 1993 and 2000.

Cost Maryland two 11 win seasons in 2001 and 2003 as well as a 12 win season in 2001.

The point is this - Florida State prevented UNC from getting atop the ACC and playing for a national title. Brown left and the program died. Maryland might still be in the ACC with those additional wins since those wins would have possibly opened up more donor support. (not likely but possible). Both the NC State and UVa programs were effectively snuffed back out and GT found itself one win shy of a return to the national stage.

The point is the addition of Florida State has not been a complete Godsend to the ACC and certainly not to UNC, NC State, UVa, MD, or GT. You have to pay for you conference wins one way or another.

I'm trying to understand your point, but I'm not following.

I don't think FSU prevented those schools from turning the corner so much as exposed them. Just like Clemson isn't hurting FSU now, just exposing how far behind FSU is......and that is FSU's fault. Not Clemson.

The entire conference is failing Clemson right now. Clemson isn't preventing anyone from success......the schools themselves just aren't achieving.

But back to value. The core issue is $$$$$. And no matter what the era, FSU brings value. One of the periods you noted that FSU "failed":



This is one of the 'down' periods you noted.



Cutting to the chase.....what do I purpose?

1 Cutting teams that don't want to compete in football at the highest levels.

2 If ACC refuses 1 (which will happen to the whole conference eventually if they don't).....then pay schools that produce.


Why are we handicapping Clemson for success now? They deserve more revenue to keep producing. We can't knee cap them while they carry the conference now. KEEP in mind, I am not speaking of them winning.....but bringing the most TV ratings.

ACC can't keep going on with same game plan. It isn't working.

(04-25-2021 07:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 06:56 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Nole, I am trying to get you to accept the fact that FSU's collapse at the end of Bowden's reign was ill-timed and resulted in a financial cost to all 14 schools.

It was not fair that the ACC was so dependent on FSU, but at least you fell into the toilet from atop the throne unlike Miami who has been a turd from day one. It's no different than a football team that has a star horse and when that horse pulls up lame, the team loses.

When you were added to the league, GT, UVa, and NC State all had programs that were one and two wins a year from possibly turning the corner. Your entry to the league ended that.

I think you are totally missing the picture on valuations. They really aren't as tied to football championships as they are to competitive football, market domination, and viewers. Get competitive in football and viewership will increase. The big issue for the ACC is that you don't have the lock on the states that comprise your footprint. You have a lock on North Carolina and Virginia, but across the rest of the conference advertisers have other less costly ways, or ways to reach a larger audience share than ACC football.

The SEC splits South Carolina viewership with you, has the plurality in Florida, carries Kentucky and Georgia. The Big 10 carries Pennsylvania, encroaches with Maryland, and New York and Massachusetts are not dominant college sports markets.

So what I'm saying is that the ACC has the fewest member states of any P5 conference where they have leverage to a Saturday time slot that advertisers will pay premium rates to utilize. Toss in the lack of football competitiveness and the low percentage of actual viewers to potential viewers and there is the reason you aren't paid as well. The Big 12 has 1 state where it doesn't carry the leverage, Iowa. The Big 10 carries the leverage in all of its states. The SEC splits South Carolina with the ACC has the most viewed school in Florida, but not more than 50% of the total viewers, in fact less, and we don't dominate Texas but we now have a very profitable slice of it. Every other state is ours with leverage. The PAC though much more anemic than the ACC has no competition for advertising Saturday football. Only the ACC fails to have the leverage in the majority of their states. And that is the much more the issue than FSU's wins and losses, or Clemson's for that matter.

IMO, the state of California, Colorado, and possibly the state of Washington aren't dominant college sports markets either, IMO The state of Oregon is as are the states of Arizona and Utah, but that's it from the PAC 12, IMO.

(04-26-2021 09:17 AM)nole Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 06:56 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Nole, I am trying to get you to accept the fact that FSU's collapse at the end of Bowden's reign was ill-timed and resulted in a financial cost to all 14 schools.

It was not fair that the ACC was so dependent on FSU, but at least you fell into the toilet from atop the throne unlike Miami who has been a turd from day one. It's no different than a football team that has a star horse and when that horse pulls up lame, the team loses.

When you were added to the league, GT, UVa, and NC State all had programs that were one and two wins a year from possibly turning the corner. Your entry to the league ended that.

Here's what FSU in the conference did for other conference programs:

Cost UNC a 10 win season in 92, an 11 win season in 93, and 11 win season in 96, and a 12 win season and possible National Championship in 1997.

Cost UVa their 10th win in 1994 and 98.

Cost GT their 11th win in 98, their 10th win 2000, and their 14th win in 2014 again the latter possibly causing a missed national championship game.

Cost NC State a 10 win season in 1992 and 1994,

Cost Clemson a 10 win season in 1993 and 2000.

Cost Maryland two 11 win seasons in 2001 and 2003 as well as a 12 win season in 2001.

The point is this - Florida State prevented UNC from getting atop the ACC and playing for a national title. Brown left and the program died. Maryland might still be in the ACC with those additional wins since those wins would have possibly opened up more donor support. (not likely but possible). Both the NC State and UVa programs were effectively snuffed back out and GT found itself one win shy of a return to the national stage.

The point is the addition of Florida State has not been a complete Godsend to the ACC and certainly not to UNC, NC State, UVa, MD, or GT. You have to pay for you conference wins one way or another.

I'm trying to understand your point, but I'm not following.

I don't think FSU prevented those schools from turning the corner so much as exposed them. Just like Clemson isn't hurting FSU now, just exposing how far behind FSU is......and that is FSU's fault. Not Clemson.

The entire conference is failing Clemson right now. Clemson isn't preventing anyone from success......the schools themselves just aren't achieving.

But back to value. The core issue is $$$$$. And no matter what the era, FSU brings value. One of the periods you noted that FSU "failed":



This is one of the 'down' periods you noted.



Cutting to the chase.....what do I purpose?

1 Cutting teams that don't want to compete in football at the highest levels.

2 If ACC refuses 1 (which will happen to the whole conference eventually if they don't).....then pay schools that produce.


Why are we handicapping Clemson for success now? They deserve more revenue to keep producing. We can't knee cap them while they carry the conference now. KEEP in mind, I am not speaking of them winning.....but bringing the most TV ratings.

ACC can't keep going on with same game plan. It isn't working.

Cool graph, Nole!! Where did you find it???

I think there’s validity in both of the arguments being made here: the market penetration/saturation one and the on field lack of success.

After the expansion to 11/12 Miami and Florida St both entered slumps. Clemson was the embodiment of what was then termed “pulling a Clemson” and not living up to potential, leaving VT to bear the weight of the conference. To be healthy, the ACC really needs to have all 4 of those programs to be consistently nationally relevant.

The ACC absolutely suffers from having poor control over their markets. (One could argue that had Miami and Florida St been playing better, they’d have a stronger hold in Florida).

(04-26-2021 11:40 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think there’s validity in both of the arguments being made here: the market penetration/saturation one and the on field lack of success.

After the expansion to 11/12 Miami and Florida St both entered slumps. Clemson was the embodiment of what was then termed “pulling a Clemson” and not living up to potential, leaving VT to bear the weight of the conference. To be healthy, the ACC really needs to have all 4 of those programs to be consistently nationally relevant.

The ACC absolutely suffers from having poor control over their markets. (One could argue that had Miami and Florida St been playing better, they’d have a stronger hold in Florida).

Remember that both Va Tech and FSU lost long standing HOF coaches. Miami had three great coaches in a row but not really any since they joined the ACC. And Clemson had stumbled through mediocrity until they sort of accidentally wound up with Dabo.

(04-26-2021 11:40 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think there’s validity in both of the arguments being made here: the market penetration/saturation one and the on field lack of success.

After the expansion to 11/12 Miami and Florida St both entered slumps. Clemson was the embodiment of what was then termed “pulling a Clemson” and not living up to potential, leaving VT to bear the weight of the conference. To be healthy, the ACC really needs to have all 4 of those programs to be consistently nationally relevant.

The ACC absolutely suffers from having poor control over their markets. (One could argue that had Miami and Florida St been playing better, they’d have a stronger hold in Florida).

FSU's "slump" included a national title.

I don't get the argument. Are you claiming FSU doesn't have control over it's market? Because the data doesn't back you up. I just posted a graph above during one of FSU's 2 "slumps" (one of which includes a national title, the other multiple 10 win seasons) that shows FSU delivered the market.

Miami also delivers TV wise.

Over FSU's say 30 year history, does FSU deliver it's TV market? 100%. Same with Miami.

This also ALL ignores that the schools being demanded to "deliver" are asked to do so with a $20-$30 million a year conference revenue gap against it's competitors.


Very little about the judgement I see is fair at all. It is just more of the evidence that the conference has a poor foundation and it won't last because of it tied with a growing revenue gap.

Nole, my point was that FSU is both curse and blessing.

The high profile of the program when it came into the ACC made the ACC FSU and 8 dwarfs even though in the prior decade Clemson and GT both had national titles, Virginia had been ranked number 1, and Carolina ranked in the top 10 before choking in Norman and Pittsburgh. The only program that could beat FSU on a semi-regular basis was the one program who specialized in beating FSU then losing the next week to Baylor or WF because NC State never has any depth. When FSU joined you began to put losses on ACC schools that otherwise could have challenged for national recognition especially MD, UNC, and GT and to a lesser degree NC State and Clemson. FSU's "delivery" of rankings was based in large part on past success. If you win they will watch. If Wake Forest wins 10 games every year for a decade, by the 11th years WF will have built a fan base that watches outside their small alumni base.

Your slump was 2001-2011. I don't understand saying you won a NC during the slump. 2012-2017 is no slump and it's in there that you have another title.

Part of my point is that you have to win to deliver an audience or at least people have to think you can win.

What I see as a partial explanation of what happened is not meant to be received as "blame". If you want blame, blame Duke in 1962 - they pushed the de emphasis of football that put the ACC a decade or more behind our competitors.

(04-26-2021 02:35 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:40 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think there’s validity in both of the arguments being made here: the market penetration/saturation one and the on field lack of success.

After the expansion to 11/12 Miami and Florida St both entered slumps. Clemson was the embodiment of what was then termed “pulling a Clemson” and not living up to potential, leaving VT to bear the weight of the conference. To be healthy, the ACC really needs to have all 4 of those programs to be consistently nationally relevant.

The ACC absolutely suffers from having poor control over their markets. (One could argue that had Miami and Florida St been playing better, they’d have a stronger hold in Florida).

FSU's "slump" included a national title.

I don't get the argument. Are you claiming FSU doesn't have control over it's market? Because the data doesn't back you up. I just posted a graph above during one of FSU's 2 "slumps" (one of which includes a national title, the other multiple 10 win seasons) that shows FSU delivered the market.

Miami also delivers TV wise.

Over FSU's say 30 year history, does FSU deliver it's TV market? 100%. Same with Miami.

This also ALL ignores that the schools being demanded to "deliver" are asked to do so with a $20-$30 million a year conference revenue gap against it's competitors.


Very little about the judgement I see is fair at all. It is just more of the evidence that the conference has a poor foundation and it won't last because of it tied with a growing revenue gap.

Florida St had two slumps, 2006-2009 and 2017-Present. The Fisher era was a return to the Florida St of old.

As far as market control goes, in theory, the combination of Florida St and Miami should give the ACC about 67% of the Florida audience. I’m no expert, both I think Florida is probably closer to a 50/50 split with the SEC.

Miami’s much bigger slump, which most definitely did not include a NC, is more to blame for the ACC’s Florida presence taking a hit than Florida St.

(04-26-2021 03:00 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Nole, my point was that FSU is both curse and blessing.

The high profile of the program when it came into the ACC made the ACC FSU and 8 dwarfs even though in the prior decade Clemson and GT both had national titles, Virginia had been ranked number 1, and Carolina ranked in the top 10 before choking in Norman and Pittsburgh. The only program that could beat FSU on a semi-regular basis was the one program who specialized in beating FSU then losing the next week to Baylor or WF because NC State never has any depth. When FSU joined you began to put losses on ACC schools that otherwise could have challenged for national recognition especially MD, UNC, and GT and to a lesser degree NC State and Clemson. FSU's "delivery" of rankings was based in large part on past success. If you win they will watch. If Wake Forest wins 10 games every year for a decade, by the 11th years WF will have built a fan base that watches outside their small alumni base.

Your slump was 2001-2011. I don't understand saying you won a NC during the slump. 2012-2017 is no slump and it's in there that you have another title.

Part of my point is that you have to win to deliver an audience or at least people have to think you can win.

What I see as a partial explanation of what happened is not meant to be received as "blame". If you want blame, blame Duke in 1962 - they pushed the de emphasis of football that put the ACC a decade or more behind our competitors.

Don't disagree with basic points.....except the bolded.

I posted a 2011 graph above that showed FSU delivered in a slump. Clearly FSU doesn't deliver near what they do when they are doing well....but the believe that they don't in a slump is more assumption that 100% fact.

Maybe better case is Notre Dame.....they deliver ratings always.

(04-26-2021 04:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:35 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:40 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think there’s validity in both of the arguments being made here: the market penetration/saturation one and the on field lack of success.

After the expansion to 11/12 Miami and Florida St both entered slumps. Clemson was the embodiment of what was then termed “pulling a Clemson” and not living up to potential, leaving VT to bear the weight of the conference. To be healthy, the ACC really needs to have all 4 of those programs to be consistently nationally relevant.

The ACC absolutely suffers from having poor control over their markets. (One could argue that had Miami and Florida St been playing better, they’d have a stronger hold in Florida).

FSU's "slump" included a national title.

I don't get the argument. Are you claiming FSU doesn't have control over it's market? Because the data doesn't back you up. I just posted a graph above during one of FSU's 2 "slumps" (one of which includes a national title, the other multiple 10 win seasons) that shows FSU delivered the market.

Miami also delivers TV wise.

Over FSU's say 30 year history, does FSU deliver it's TV market? 100%. Same with Miami.

This also ALL ignores that the schools being demanded to "deliver" are asked to do so with a $20-$30 million a year conference revenue gap against it's competitors.


Very little about the judgement I see is fair at all. It is just more of the evidence that the conference has a poor foundation and it won't last because of it tied with a growing revenue gap.

Florida St had two slumps, 2006-2009 and 2017-Present. The Fisher era was a return to the Florida St of old.

As far as market control goes, in theory, the combination of Florida St and Miami should give the ACC about 67% of the Florida audience. I’m no expert, both I think Florida is probably closer to a 50/50 split with the SEC.

Miami’s much bigger slump, which most definitely did not include a NC, is more to blame for the ACC’s Florida presence taking a hit than Florida St.

I don't think the question is 'how much does FSU control Florida'.....I don't know that it matters. It is more about. Do they deliver ratings. Not as much now as in their tops, but still, the answer is yes.

Again, as I stated above....a better example is Notre Dame....they get ratings when they are down...not as much when they are up....but still get them.

Wake doesn't get ratings when up or down. That is kind of my point.

Ratings are generated from several factors - the number of fans, the excitement around the program, the culture of the viewing area, the hatred of the team, how they are doing in a particular year, and who they play.

The question is how many licks does it take to get to the center of viewing Tootsie Pop. Viewership is a lagging indicator in many ways because it's predicated in part on past performance. FSU also benefited by annual games with Miami and Florida built into their schedule. If Wake Forest won an average of 10 games for 20 years and won two national championships, there would be a ton of Wal-Mart Deacon fans from Staunton Va to Virginia Beach to Charleston and back toward Asheville. It probably only takes half the time to loose the audience that has been built as it did to make it.

Relative to the ACC contract, it was signed before ESPN or the ACC knew IF FSU could recover as they had never had a coaching change that mattered. It's now been proven at FSU and at Clemson that with the right coach the program can resurface in the top 10.

(04-26-2021 09:17 AM)nole Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 06:56 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Nole, I am trying to get you to accept the fact that FSU's collapse at the end of Bowden's reign was ill-timed and resulted in a financial cost to all 14 schools.

It was not fair that the ACC was so dependent on FSU, but at least you fell into the toilet from atop the throne unlike Miami who has been a turd from day one. It's no different than a football team that has a star horse and when that horse pulls up lame, the team loses.

When you were added to the league, GT, UVa, and NC State all had programs that were one and two wins a year from possibly turning the corner. Your entry to the league ended that.

Here's what FSU in the conference did for other conference programs:

Cost UNC a 10 win season in 92, an 11 win season in 93, and 11 win season in 96, and a 12 win season and possible National Championship in 1997.

Cost UVa their 10th win in 1994 and 98.

Cost GT their 11th win in 98, their 10th win 2000, and their 14th win in 2014 again the latter possibly causing a missed national championship game.

Cost NC State a 10 win season in 1992 and 1994,

Cost Clemson a 10 win season in 1993 and 2000.

Cost Maryland two 11 win seasons in 2001 and 2003 as well as a 12 win season in 2001.

The point is this - Florida State prevented UNC from getting atop the ACC and playing for a national title. Brown left and the program died. Maryland might still be in the ACC with those additional wins since those wins would have possibly opened up more donor support. (not likely but possible). Both the NC State and UVa programs were effectively snuffed back out and GT found itself one win shy of a return to the national stage.

The point is the addition of Florida State has not been a complete Godsend to the ACC and certainly not to UNC, NC State, UVa, MD, or GT. You have to pay for you conference wins one way or another.

I'm trying to understand your point, but I'm not following.

I don't think FSU prevented those schools from turning the corner so much as exposed them. Just like Clemson isn't hurting FSU now, just exposing how far behind FSU is......and that is FSU's fault. Not Clemson.

The entire conference is failing Clemson right now. Clemson isn't preventing anyone from success......the schools themselves just aren't achieving.

But back to value. The core issue is $$$$$. And no matter what the era, FSU brings value. One of the periods you noted that FSU "failed":



This is one of the 'down' periods you noted.



Cutting to the chase.....what do I purpose?

1 Cutting teams that don't want to compete in football at the highest levels.

2 If ACC refuses 1 (which will happen to the whole conference eventually if they don't).....then pay schools that produce.


Why are we handicapping Clemson for success now? They deserve more revenue to keep producing. We can't knee cap them while they carry the conference now. KEEP in mind, I am not speaking of them winning.....but bringing the most TV ratings.

ACC can't keep going on with same game plan. It isn't working.

It is very interesting to see financial pressures effectively scraping away the ole "everyone gets the same amount, one for all, all for one" uniformity mantra when dealing with conference setup orthodoxy.

Alabama football was just presumed to prop up Vanderbilt or Kentucky, Ohio State the same with Rutgers or Illinois.

Now, it seems conferences are talking about cutting away dead wood programs and paying the big producers more than the tag alongs.

Ten years ago, that was considered heresy. Uniformity and equal payments were considered lynchpins of conference membership.

Texas was roundly criticized for making more money than its conference mates via the LHN. Notre Dame was roundly condemned for having its own TV contract.

Now, the new doctrine seems to becoming more of the "eat what you kill" variety, not propping up football underperformers.

(04-27-2021 07:44 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 09:17 AM)nole Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 06:56 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Nole, I am trying to get you to accept the fact that FSU's collapse at the end of Bowden's reign was ill-timed and resulted in a financial cost to all 14 schools.

It was not fair that the ACC was so dependent on FSU, but at least you fell into the toilet from atop the throne unlike Miami who has been a turd from day one. It's no different than a football team that has a star horse and when that horse pulls up lame, the team loses.

When you were added to the league, GT, UVa, and NC State all had programs that were one and two wins a year from possibly turning the corner. Your entry to the league ended that.

Here's what FSU in the conference did for other conference programs:

Cost UNC a 10 win season in 92, an 11 win season in 93, and 11 win season in 96, and a 12 win season and possible National Championship in 1997.

Cost UVa their 10th win in 1994 and 98.

Cost GT their 11th win in 98, their 10th win 2000, and their 14th win in 2014 again the latter possibly causing a missed national championship game.

Cost NC State a 10 win season in 1992 and 1994,

Cost Clemson a 10 win season in 1993 and 2000.

Cost Maryland two 11 win seasons in 2001 and 2003 as well as a 12 win season in 2001.

The point is this - Florida State prevented UNC from getting atop the ACC and playing for a national title. Brown left and the program died. Maryland might still be in the ACC with those additional wins since those wins would have possibly opened up more donor support. (not likely but possible). Both the NC State and UVa programs were effectively snuffed back out and GT found itself one win shy of a return to the national stage.

The point is the addition of Florida State has not been a complete Godsend to the ACC and certainly not to UNC, NC State, UVa, MD, or GT. You have to pay for you conference wins one way or another.

I'm trying to understand your point, but I'm not following.

I don't think FSU prevented those schools from turning the corner so much as exposed them. Just like Clemson isn't hurting FSU now, just exposing how far behind FSU is......and that is FSU's fault. Not Clemson.

The entire conference is failing Clemson right now. Clemson isn't preventing anyone from success......the schools themselves just aren't achieving.

But back to value. The core issue is $$$$$. And no matter what the era, FSU brings value. One of the periods you noted that FSU "failed":



This is one of the 'down' periods you noted.



Cutting to the chase.....what do I purpose?

1 Cutting teams that don't want to compete in football at the highest levels.

2 If ACC refuses 1 (which will happen to the whole conference eventually if they don't).....then pay schools that produce.


Why are we handicapping Clemson for success now? They deserve more revenue to keep producing. We can't knee cap them while they carry the conference now. KEEP in mind, I am not speaking of them winning.....but bringing the most TV ratings.

ACC can't keep going on with same game plan. It isn't working.

It is very interesting to see financial pressures effectively scraping away the ole "everyone gets the same amount, one for all, all for one" uniformity mantra when dealing with conference setup orthodoxy.

Alabama football was just presumed to prop up Vanderbilt or Kentucky, Ohio State the same with Rutgers or Illinois.

Now, it seems conferences are talking about cutting away dead wood programs and paying the big producers more than the tag alongs.

Ten years ago, that was considered heresy. Uniformity and equal payments were considered lynchpins of conference membership.

Texas was roundly criticized for making more money than its conference mates via the LHN. Notre Dame was roundly condemned for having its own TV contract.

Now, the new doctrine seems to becoming more of the "eat what you kill" variety, not propping up football underperformers.

One side note:

Bowl revenue was not shared when FSU joined the ACC in 1992. It changed to equal distribution when Swofford was named commissioner in 1997.


Again, Swofford basically made every wrong move you could possibly make.

(04-27-2021 07:44 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ...the new doctrine seems to becoming more of the "eat what you kill" variety, not propping up football underperformers.

There is a balance that needs to be reached (you need your opponents to be viewed as strong enough, after all - plus the whole tv ratings thing). That said, the ACC is OUT OF BALANCE.

For my exhibit A, look at spending on basketball [LINK].

By conference...
ACC - 7 of top 25 basketball spending schools
B12 - 5
BIG, SEC & Big East - 4 each
PAC - 1

BOTTOM LINE: The ACC is investing in the wrong sport.

A 14-team conference like the SEC or B1G can afford to have four of them among the top spenders on the secondary sport, but in the ACC half of the teams do that!