esayem
Hark The Sound!
Posts: 16,531
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1240
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-19-2022 09:03 AM)schmolik Wrote: (02-18-2022 05:54 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 05:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: (02-18-2022 04:34 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 12:23 PM)random asian guy Wrote: But the Big 12 content is not ESPN exclusive. If the ESPN had cared about the Big 12, why did they move UT and OU to the SEC? The SECN is currently ESPN’s primarly college network followed by the ACCN.
The reason why the ACC didn’t add Cincy or a Texas school is probably because the ESPN won’t pay for them or the ACC didn’t want them, or perhaps both.
If the ESPN changes its mind and want to double down in Texas or expand to Ohio, and the ACC changes its mind when the divisionless model is allowed and the ACC can add only one team, then I think it’s certianly possible that the ACC would go after one of new B12 teams.
Because they weren't successful in killing it. There are a number of circumstances and major power brokers who kept the Big 12 alive and in position to thrive so i don't see the ACC grabbing a Big 12 school, or even expanding at all. Thus the Big 12 remains as a quality P5 and now that the Big 12 is alive and well they realize that there is content to be had. They would rather have Cincinnati and Houston as part of the Big 12 package than paying the ACC a bloated pay raise. They still have access to Cincinnati and Houston in the Big 12. Exclusive rights as part of ESPN+ which is what they care about.
From what I know about Texas's concerns over other Texas schools I suspect ESPN will seek full rights to the NB12 and that ESPN saw a way to accomplish this allowing Texas to feel free to move with OU, and ESPN to increase the value of Cincinnati, BYU (ESPN contractee) and Houston. This holds the relative value of the other 8 B12 schools and elevates these 3 and UCF. The AAC remains an inexpensive product to maintain and ESPN has more angles for advertising in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and among a dispersed Mormon group.
This will be interesting because Fox is also very interested in keeping the Big 12. What I find interesting is ever since the Bowlsby/ESPN public blow up they have seemed to make up and ally with each other. ESPN has put over the New Big 12 strongly the last 5 or 6 months and the Big 12 allied with the SEC and pushed hard for the CFP to expand and stay with ESPN.
What evidence do you have that FOX is very interested in keeping the Big 12? They dropped the Big 12 Championship Game years ago while Oklahoma and Texas were still in the conference, what makes you think they would want them now?
No evidence. He’s clearly getting emotional about Cincinnati. Why else would he post on an ACC board?
|
|
02-19-2022 11:05 AM |
|
esayem
Hark The Sound!
Posts: 16,531
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1240
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-18-2022 08:57 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:22 PM)esayem Wrote: (02-18-2022 04:34 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 12:23 PM)random asian guy Wrote: (02-17-2022 10:25 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: ESPN already has Cincinnati content in the Big 12. ESPN is not losing their piece of the Big 12 especially content for ESPN+ like the Big 12 CCG and Big 12 basketball. ESPN is slick, I'm betting that they will throw in with Fox to give the Big 12 a healthy TV deal and GORs in part to prevent the ACC from going after someone like Cincinnati or Houston and re-opening the ACC deal.
But the Big 12 content is not ESPN exclusive. If the ESPN had cared about the Big 12, why did they move UT and OU to the SEC? The SECN is currently ESPN’s primarly college network followed by the ACCN.
The reason why the ACC didn’t add Cincy or a Texas school is probably because the ESPN won’t pay for them or the ACC didn’t want them, or perhaps both.
If the ESPN changes its mind and want to double down in Texas or expand to Ohio, and the ACC changes its mind when the divisionless model is allowed and the ACC can add only one team, then I think it’s certianly possible that the ACC would go after one of new B12 teams.
Because they weren't successful in killing it. There are a number of circumstances and major power brokers who kept the Big 12 alive and in position to thrive so i don't see the ACC grabbing a Big 12 school, or any other school, or even expanding at all. Thus the Big 12 remains as a quality P5 and now that the Big 12 is alive and well they realize that there is content to be had. They would rather have Cincinnati and Houston as part of the Big 12 package than paying the ACC a bloated pay raise. They still have access to Cincinnati and Houston in the Big 12. Exclusive rights as part of ESPN+ which is what they care about.
The goal was never to "kill" the Big XII. The Big XII has been pillaged over the years for its most valuable properties because it was a Frankenstein weak conference with no metro hubs. Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Colorado all gone.
It's been a long time coming. Texas and TAMU finally shed the SWC tagalongs while Oklahoma joined the wagon train. Nebraska and Colorado are a pair of underperforming programs living on history that both ended up in perfect landing spots. The other seven were always kind of standing around hoping to upset the big dogs.
But let's not forget Right Place Right Time Mizzou! Talk about the Rutgers of the Midwest. If the 2012 expansion went down now, their "media markets" wouldn't mean jack ****.
You don't see the ACC "grabbing a Big XII school" because your team just joined the league. If the ACC "grabbed a Big XII school" it wouldn't be Ohiotucky, it would be Houston.
You're clearly getting emotional about this and resorting to name calling which is fine. You're wrong, but if it makes you feel better go ahead. And I never said the ACC would grab Cincinnati I was responding to someone else saying that, in fact I said that they wouldn't so you're really not taking a shot at me or UC with that. If ESPN wanted the ACC to expand they would have done it long ago. And just because you want Houston in the ACC doesn't mean ESPN does. If they wanted Houston in the ACC they would have done it last year. No, I don't see the ACC expanding at all because ESPN isn't going to open the ACC contract. And they definitely will not open up the ACC deal to expand into Texas, especially when they have access to Houston in the Big 12. And they have Texas and Texas A&M in the SEC, why would they need a Texas school in the ACC? Not only is it redundant and doesn't add value it risks hurting their Texas products in the SEC. Having Texas schools in a Midwest conference is one thing but adding one to a nother Southern conference that you own does nothing more than oversaturate the SEC's newer Texas market. As for the Big 12 they came out of it ok, if anything the "pillaging" probably stabilized the conference and made it more of an ACC or Pac-12 model P5 conference like it always should have been instead of an undersized B1G or SEC wannabe.
We’ve discussed this before, so this conversation is what is redundant. Texas is a large enough (and growing) market so ESPN pulling in one to two more schools actually makes sense in the long run. ESPN has three schools in Florida plus however many end up in the AAC. They added even more teams from Texas there as well, so your argument makes no sense. They know what they’re doing.
The “name calling” is more of a reality that Cincinnati kind of delivers Cincinnati, not the state of Ohio. Houston kind of delivers Houston, not Texas, but last time I checked one of those cities is in the recruiting capital and also a top 5 population hub.
If the ACC didn’t already have Louisville, I’d be fine with Cincinnati. But that ship sailed long ago. Adding Cincinnati and WVU might make for a nice little contiguous arrangement, but that’s not the new paradigm. The Big XII added outposts all over the map, because that was the best move. The ACC’s best move—if it were to even make a move—is adding a large school in a growing population. That’s the sensical path forward.
|
|
02-19-2022 11:18 AM |
|
schmolik
CSNBB's Big 10 Cheerleader
Posts: 8,687
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 651
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-19-2022 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:57 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:22 PM)esayem Wrote: (02-18-2022 04:34 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 12:23 PM)random asian guy Wrote: But the Big 12 content is not ESPN exclusive. If the ESPN had cared about the Big 12, why did they move UT and OU to the SEC? The SECN is currently ESPN’s primarly college network followed by the ACCN.
The reason why the ACC didn’t add Cincy or a Texas school is probably because the ESPN won’t pay for them or the ACC didn’t want them, or perhaps both.
If the ESPN changes its mind and want to double down in Texas or expand to Ohio, and the ACC changes its mind when the divisionless model is allowed and the ACC can add only one team, then I think it’s certianly possible that the ACC would go after one of new B12 teams.
Because they weren't successful in killing it. There are a number of circumstances and major power brokers who kept the Big 12 alive and in position to thrive so i don't see the ACC grabbing a Big 12 school, or any other school, or even expanding at all. Thus the Big 12 remains as a quality P5 and now that the Big 12 is alive and well they realize that there is content to be had. They would rather have Cincinnati and Houston as part of the Big 12 package than paying the ACC a bloated pay raise. They still have access to Cincinnati and Houston in the Big 12. Exclusive rights as part of ESPN+ which is what they care about.
The goal was never to "kill" the Big XII. The Big XII has been pillaged over the years for its most valuable properties because it was a Frankenstein weak conference with no metro hubs. Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Colorado all gone.
It's been a long time coming. Texas and TAMU finally shed the SWC tagalongs while Oklahoma joined the wagon train. Nebraska and Colorado are a pair of underperforming programs living on history that both ended up in perfect landing spots. The other seven were always kind of standing around hoping to upset the big dogs.
But let's not forget Right Place Right Time Mizzou! Talk about the Rutgers of the Midwest. If the 2012 expansion went down now, their "media markets" wouldn't mean jack ****.
You don't see the ACC "grabbing a Big XII school" because your team just joined the league. If the ACC "grabbed a Big XII school" it wouldn't be Ohiotucky, it would be Houston.
You're clearly getting emotional about this and resorting to name calling which is fine. You're wrong, but if it makes you feel better go ahead. And I never said the ACC would grab Cincinnati I was responding to someone else saying that, in fact I said that they wouldn't so you're really not taking a shot at me or UC with that. If ESPN wanted the ACC to expand they would have done it long ago. And just because you want Houston in the ACC doesn't mean ESPN does. If they wanted Houston in the ACC they would have done it last year. No, I don't see the ACC expanding at all because ESPN isn't going to open the ACC contract. And they definitely will not open up the ACC deal to expand into Texas, especially when they have access to Houston in the Big 12. And they have Texas and Texas A&M in the SEC, why would they need a Texas school in the ACC? Not only is it redundant and doesn't add value it risks hurting their Texas products in the SEC. Having Texas schools in a Midwest conference is one thing but adding one to a nother Southern conference that you own does nothing more than oversaturate the SEC's newer Texas market. As for the Big 12 they came out of it ok, if anything the "pillaging" probably stabilized the conference and made it more of an ACC or Pac-12 model P5 conference like it always should have been instead of an undersized B1G or SEC wannabe.
We’ve discussed this before, so this conversation is what is redundant. Texas is a large enough (and growing) market so ESPN pulling in one to two more schools actually makes sense in the long run. ESPN has three schools in Florida plus however many end up in the AAC. They added even more teams from Texas there as well, so your argument makes no sense. They know what they’re doing.
The “name calling” is more of a reality that Cincinnati kind of delivers Cincinnati, not the state of Ohio. Houston kind of delivers Houston, not Texas, but last time I checked one of those cities is in the recruiting capital and also a top 5 population hub.
If the ACC didn’t already have Louisville, I’d be fine with Cincinnati. But that ship sailed long ago. Adding Cincinnati and WVU might make for a nice little contiguous arrangement, but that’s not the new paradigm. The Big XII added outposts all over the map, because that was the best move. The ACC’s best move—if it were to even make a move—is adding a large school in a growing population. That’s the sensical path forward.
But it's geographically a nightmare, especially for the northern schools. Of course I don't expect you to care about them. Why did the Big 12 take Cincinnati and UCF? They were backfilling and West Virginia's already in the Eastern Time Zone so Cincy is a convenient travel partner.
|
|
02-19-2022 11:39 AM |
|
green
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11,360
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 389
I Root For: Miami
Location:
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-19-2022 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:57 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:22 PM)esayem Wrote: (02-18-2022 04:34 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 12:23 PM)random asian guy Wrote: But the Big 12 content is not ESPN exclusive. If the ESPN had cared about the Big 12, why did they move UT and OU to the SEC? The SECN is currently ESPN’s primarly college network followed by the ACCN.
The reason why the ACC didn’t add Cincy or a Texas school is probably because the ESPN won’t pay for them or the ACC didn’t want them, or perhaps both.
If the ESPN changes its mind and want to double down in Texas or expand to Ohio, and the ACC changes its mind when the divisionless model is allowed and the ACC can add only one team, then I think it’s certianly possible that the ACC would go after one of new B12 teams.
Because they weren't successful in killing it. There are a number of circumstances and major power brokers who kept the Big 12 alive and in position to thrive so i don't see the ACC grabbing a Big 12 school, or any other school, or even expanding at all. Thus the Big 12 remains as a quality P5 and now that the Big 12 is alive and well they realize that there is content to be had. They would rather have Cincinnati and Houston as part of the Big 12 package than paying the ACC a bloated pay raise. They still have access to Cincinnati and Houston in the Big 12. Exclusive rights as part of ESPN+ which is what they care about.
The goal was never to "kill" the Big XII. The Big XII has been pillaged over the years for its most valuable properties because it was a Frankenstein weak conference with no metro hubs. Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Colorado all gone.
It's been a long time coming. Texas and TAMU finally shed the SWC tagalongs while Oklahoma joined the wagon train. Nebraska and Colorado are a pair of underperforming programs living on history that both ended up in perfect landing spots. The other seven were always kind of standing around hoping to upset the big dogs.
But let's not forget Right Place Right Time Mizzou! Talk about the Rutgers of the Midwest. If the 2012 expansion went down now, their "media markets" wouldn't mean jack ****.
You don't see the ACC "grabbing a Big XII school" because your team just joined the league. If the ACC "grabbed a Big XII school" it wouldn't be Ohiotucky, it would be Houston.
You're clearly getting emotional about this and resorting to name calling which is fine. You're wrong, but if it makes you feel better go ahead. And I never said the ACC would grab Cincinnati I was responding to someone else saying that, in fact I said that they wouldn't so you're really not taking a shot at me or UC with that. If ESPN wanted the ACC to expand they would have done it long ago. And just because you want Houston in the ACC doesn't mean ESPN does. If they wanted Houston in the ACC they would have done it last year. No, I don't see the ACC expanding at all because ESPN isn't going to open the ACC contract. And they definitely will not open up the ACC deal to expand into Texas, especially when they have access to Houston in the Big 12. And they have Texas and Texas A&M in the SEC, why would they need a Texas school in the ACC? Not only is it redundant and doesn't add value it risks hurting their Texas products in the SEC. Having Texas schools in a Midwest conference is one thing but adding one to a nother Southern conference that you own does nothing more than oversaturate the SEC's newer Texas market. As for the Big 12 they came out of it ok, if anything the "pillaging" probably stabilized the conference and made it more of an ACC or Pac-12 model P5 conference like it always should have been instead of an undersized B1G or SEC wannabe.
We’ve discussed this before, so this conversation is what is redundant. Texas is a large enough (and growing) market so ESPN pulling in one to two more schools actually makes sense in the long run. ESPN has three schools in Florida plus however many end up in the AAC. They added even more teams from Texas there as well, so your argument makes no sense. They know what they’re doing.
The “name calling” is more of a reality that Cincinnati kind of delivers Cincinnati, not the state of Ohio. Houston kind of delivers Houston, not Texas, but last time I checked one of those cities is in the recruiting capital and also a top 5 population hub.
If the ACC didn’t already have Louisville, I’d be fine with Cincinnati. But that ship sailed long ago. Adding Cincinnati and WVU might make for a nice little contiguous arrangement, but that’s not the new paradigm. The Big XII added outposts all over the map, because that was the best move. The ACC’s best move—if it were to even make a move—is adding a large school in a growing population. That’s the sensical path forward.
illustrious school with fanatical adherents ...
RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSE
|
|
02-19-2022 11:41 AM |
|
XLance
Hall of Famer
Posts: 14,351
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 782
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-19-2022 11:39 AM)schmolik Wrote: (02-19-2022 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:57 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:22 PM)esayem Wrote: (02-18-2022 04:34 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: Because they weren't successful in killing it. There are a number of circumstances and major power brokers who kept the Big 12 alive and in position to thrive so i don't see the ACC grabbing a Big 12 school, or any other school, or even expanding at all. Thus the Big 12 remains as a quality P5 and now that the Big 12 is alive and well they realize that there is content to be had. They would rather have Cincinnati and Houston as part of the Big 12 package than paying the ACC a bloated pay raise. They still have access to Cincinnati and Houston in the Big 12. Exclusive rights as part of ESPN+ which is what they care about.
The goal was never to "kill" the Big XII. The Big XII has been pillaged over the years for its most valuable properties because it was a Frankenstein weak conference with no metro hubs. Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Colorado all gone.
It's been a long time coming. Texas and TAMU finally shed the SWC tagalongs while Oklahoma joined the wagon train. Nebraska and Colorado are a pair of underperforming programs living on history that both ended up in perfect landing spots. The other seven were always kind of standing around hoping to upset the big dogs.
But let's not forget Right Place Right Time Mizzou! Talk about the Rutgers of the Midwest. If the 2012 expansion went down now, their "media markets" wouldn't mean jack ****.
You don't see the ACC "grabbing a Big XII school" because your team just joined the league. If the ACC "grabbed a Big XII school" it wouldn't be Ohiotucky, it would be Houston.
You're clearly getting emotional about this and resorting to name calling which is fine. You're wrong, but if it makes you feel better go ahead. And I never said the ACC would grab Cincinnati I was responding to someone else saying that, in fact I said that they wouldn't so you're really not taking a shot at me or UC with that. If ESPN wanted the ACC to expand they would have done it long ago. And just because you want Houston in the ACC doesn't mean ESPN does. If they wanted Houston in the ACC they would have done it last year. No, I don't see the ACC expanding at all because ESPN isn't going to open the ACC contract. And they definitely will not open up the ACC deal to expand into Texas, especially when they have access to Houston in the Big 12. And they have Texas and Texas A&M in the SEC, why would they need a Texas school in the ACC? Not only is it redundant and doesn't add value it risks hurting their Texas products in the SEC. Having Texas schools in a Midwest conference is one thing but adding one to a nother Southern conference that you own does nothing more than oversaturate the SEC's newer Texas market. As for the Big 12 they came out of it ok, if anything the "pillaging" probably stabilized the conference and made it more of an ACC or Pac-12 model P5 conference like it always should have been instead of an undersized B1G or SEC wannabe.
We’ve discussed this before, so this conversation is what is redundant. Texas is a large enough (and growing) market so ESPN pulling in one to two more schools actually makes sense in the long run. ESPN has three schools in Florida plus however many end up in the AAC. They added even more teams from Texas there as well, so your argument makes no sense. They know what they’re doing.
The “name calling” is more of a reality that Cincinnati kind of delivers Cincinnati, not the state of Ohio. Houston kind of delivers Houston, not Texas, but last time I checked one of those cities is in the recruiting capital and also a top 5 population hub.
If the ACC didn’t already have Louisville, I’d be fine with Cincinnati. But that ship sailed long ago. Adding Cincinnati and WVU might make for a nice little contiguous arrangement, but that’s not the new paradigm. The Big XII added outposts all over the map, because that was the best move. The ACC’s best move—if it were to even make a move—is adding a large school in a growing population. That’s the sensical path forward.
But it's geographically a nightmare, especially for the northern schools. Of course I don't expect you to care about them. Why did the Big 12 take Cincinnati and UCF? They were backfilling and West Virginia's already in the Eastern Time Zone so Cincy is a convenient travel partner.
We should probably get rid of them if we want to make more money.
|
|
02-19-2022 12:00 PM |
|
esayem
Hark The Sound!
Posts: 16,531
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1240
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-19-2022 12:00 PM)XLance Wrote: (02-19-2022 11:39 AM)schmolik Wrote: (02-19-2022 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:57 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:22 PM)esayem Wrote: The goal was never to "kill" the Big XII. The Big XII has been pillaged over the years for its most valuable properties because it was a Frankenstein weak conference with no metro hubs. Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Colorado all gone.
It's been a long time coming. Texas and TAMU finally shed the SWC tagalongs while Oklahoma joined the wagon train. Nebraska and Colorado are a pair of underperforming programs living on history that both ended up in perfect landing spots. The other seven were always kind of standing around hoping to upset the big dogs.
But let's not forget Right Place Right Time Mizzou! Talk about the Rutgers of the Midwest. If the 2012 expansion went down now, their "media markets" wouldn't mean jack ****.
You don't see the ACC "grabbing a Big XII school" because your team just joined the league. If the ACC "grabbed a Big XII school" it wouldn't be Ohiotucky, it would be Houston.
You're clearly getting emotional about this and resorting to name calling which is fine. You're wrong, but if it makes you feel better go ahead. And I never said the ACC would grab Cincinnati I was responding to someone else saying that, in fact I said that they wouldn't so you're really not taking a shot at me or UC with that. If ESPN wanted the ACC to expand they would have done it long ago. And just because you want Houston in the ACC doesn't mean ESPN does. If they wanted Houston in the ACC they would have done it last year. No, I don't see the ACC expanding at all because ESPN isn't going to open the ACC contract. And they definitely will not open up the ACC deal to expand into Texas, especially when they have access to Houston in the Big 12. And they have Texas and Texas A&M in the SEC, why would they need a Texas school in the ACC? Not only is it redundant and doesn't add value it risks hurting their Texas products in the SEC. Having Texas schools in a Midwest conference is one thing but adding one to a nother Southern conference that you own does nothing more than oversaturate the SEC's newer Texas market. As for the Big 12 they came out of it ok, if anything the "pillaging" probably stabilized the conference and made it more of an ACC or Pac-12 model P5 conference like it always should have been instead of an undersized B1G or SEC wannabe.
We’ve discussed this before, so this conversation is what is redundant. Texas is a large enough (and growing) market so ESPN pulling in one to two more schools actually makes sense in the long run. ESPN has three schools in Florida plus however many end up in the AAC. They added even more teams from Texas there as well, so your argument makes no sense. They know what they’re doing.
The “name calling” is more of a reality that Cincinnati kind of delivers Cincinnati, not the state of Ohio. Houston kind of delivers Houston, not Texas, but last time I checked one of those cities is in the recruiting capital and also a top 5 population hub.
If the ACC didn’t already have Louisville, I’d be fine with Cincinnati. But that ship sailed long ago. Adding Cincinnati and WVU might make for a nice little contiguous arrangement, but that’s not the new paradigm. The Big XII added outposts all over the map, because that was the best move. The ACC’s best move—if it were to even make a move—is adding a large school in a growing population. That’s the sensical path forward.
But it's geographically a nightmare, especially for the northern schools. Of course I don't expect you to care about them. Why did the Big 12 take Cincinnati and UCF? They were backfilling and West Virginia's already in the Eastern Time Zone so Cincy is a convenient travel partner.
We should probably get rid of them if we want to make more money.
What he said!
|
|
02-19-2022 12:23 PM |
|
esayem
Hark The Sound!
Posts: 16,531
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1240
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-19-2022 11:39 AM)schmolik Wrote: (02-19-2022 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:57 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:22 PM)esayem Wrote: (02-18-2022 04:34 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: Because they weren't successful in killing it. There are a number of circumstances and major power brokers who kept the Big 12 alive and in position to thrive so i don't see the ACC grabbing a Big 12 school, or any other school, or even expanding at all. Thus the Big 12 remains as a quality P5 and now that the Big 12 is alive and well they realize that there is content to be had. They would rather have Cincinnati and Houston as part of the Big 12 package than paying the ACC a bloated pay raise. They still have access to Cincinnati and Houston in the Big 12. Exclusive rights as part of ESPN+ which is what they care about.
The goal was never to "kill" the Big XII. The Big XII has been pillaged over the years for its most valuable properties because it was a Frankenstein weak conference with no metro hubs. Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Colorado all gone.
It's been a long time coming. Texas and TAMU finally shed the SWC tagalongs while Oklahoma joined the wagon train. Nebraska and Colorado are a pair of underperforming programs living on history that both ended up in perfect landing spots. The other seven were always kind of standing around hoping to upset the big dogs.
But let's not forget Right Place Right Time Mizzou! Talk about the Rutgers of the Midwest. If the 2012 expansion went down now, their "media markets" wouldn't mean jack ****.
You don't see the ACC "grabbing a Big XII school" because your team just joined the league. If the ACC "grabbed a Big XII school" it wouldn't be Ohiotucky, it would be Houston.
You're clearly getting emotional about this and resorting to name calling which is fine. You're wrong, but if it makes you feel better go ahead. And I never said the ACC would grab Cincinnati I was responding to someone else saying that, in fact I said that they wouldn't so you're really not taking a shot at me or UC with that. If ESPN wanted the ACC to expand they would have done it long ago. And just because you want Houston in the ACC doesn't mean ESPN does. If they wanted Houston in the ACC they would have done it last year. No, I don't see the ACC expanding at all because ESPN isn't going to open the ACC contract. And they definitely will not open up the ACC deal to expand into Texas, especially when they have access to Houston in the Big 12. And they have Texas and Texas A&M in the SEC, why would they need a Texas school in the ACC? Not only is it redundant and doesn't add value it risks hurting their Texas products in the SEC. Having Texas schools in a Midwest conference is one thing but adding one to a nother Southern conference that you own does nothing more than oversaturate the SEC's newer Texas market. As for the Big 12 they came out of it ok, if anything the "pillaging" probably stabilized the conference and made it more of an ACC or Pac-12 model P5 conference like it always should have been instead of an undersized B1G or SEC wannabe.
We’ve discussed this before, so this conversation is what is redundant. Texas is a large enough (and growing) market so ESPN pulling in one to two more schools actually makes sense in the long run. ESPN has three schools in Florida plus however many end up in the AAC. They added even more teams from Texas there as well, so your argument makes no sense. They know what they’re doing.
The “name calling” is more of a reality that Cincinnati kind of delivers Cincinnati, not the state of Ohio. Houston kind of delivers Houston, not Texas, but last time I checked one of those cities is in the recruiting capital and also a top 5 population hub.
If the ACC didn’t already have Louisville, I’d be fine with Cincinnati. But that ship sailed long ago. Adding Cincinnati and WVU might make for a nice little contiguous arrangement, but that’s not the new paradigm. The Big XII added outposts all over the map, because that was the best move. The ACC’s best move—if it were to even make a move—is adding a large school in a growing population. That’s the sensical path forward.
But it's geographically a nightmare, especially for the northern schools. Of course I don't expect you to care about them. Why did the Big 12 take Cincinnati and UCF? They were backfilling and West Virginia's already in the Eastern Time Zone so Cincy is a convenient travel partner.
I mean I guess four and a half hours is a convenient travel partner? UCF is an outpost. BYU is an outpost. Most travel in the Big XII is a nightmare.
Houston is a quick flight to the Florida schools and Atlanta and in this scenario they would be grouped with them. Houston used to play FSU and Miami yearly, did you know that?
|
|
02-19-2022 12:28 PM |
|
green
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11,360
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 389
I Root For: Miami
Location:
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-19-2022 12:28 PM)esayem Wrote: (02-19-2022 11:39 AM)schmolik Wrote: (02-19-2022 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:57 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:22 PM)esayem Wrote: The goal was never to "kill" the Big XII. The Big XII has been pillaged over the years for its most valuable properties because it was a Frankenstein weak conference with no metro hubs. Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Colorado all gone.
It's been a long time coming. Texas and TAMU finally shed the SWC tagalongs while Oklahoma joined the wagon train. Nebraska and Colorado are a pair of underperforming programs living on history that both ended up in perfect landing spots. The other seven were always kind of standing around hoping to upset the big dogs.
But let's not forget Right Place Right Time Mizzou! Talk about the Rutgers of the Midwest. If the 2012 expansion went down now, their "media markets" wouldn't mean jack ****.
You don't see the ACC "grabbing a Big XII school" because your team just joined the league. If the ACC "grabbed a Big XII school" it wouldn't be Ohiotucky, it would be Houston.
You're clearly getting emotional about this and resorting to name calling which is fine. You're wrong, but if it makes you feel better go ahead. And I never said the ACC would grab Cincinnati I was responding to someone else saying that, in fact I said that they wouldn't so you're really not taking a shot at me or UC with that. If ESPN wanted the ACC to expand they would have done it long ago. And just because you want Houston in the ACC doesn't mean ESPN does. If they wanted Houston in the ACC they would have done it last year. No, I don't see the ACC expanding at all because ESPN isn't going to open the ACC contract. And they definitely will not open up the ACC deal to expand into Texas, especially when they have access to Houston in the Big 12. And they have Texas and Texas A&M in the SEC, why would they need a Texas school in the ACC? Not only is it redundant and doesn't add value it risks hurting their Texas products in the SEC. Having Texas schools in a Midwest conference is one thing but adding one to a nother Southern conference that you own does nothing more than oversaturate the SEC's newer Texas market. As for the Big 12 they came out of it ok, if anything the "pillaging" probably stabilized the conference and made it more of an ACC or Pac-12 model P5 conference like it always should have been instead of an undersized B1G or SEC wannabe.
We’ve discussed this before, so this conversation is what is redundant. Texas is a large enough (and growing) market so ESPN pulling in one to two more schools actually makes sense in the long run. ESPN has three schools in Florida plus however many end up in the AAC. They added even more teams from Texas there as well, so your argument makes no sense. They know what they’re doing.
The “name calling” is more of a reality that Cincinnati kind of delivers Cincinnati, not the state of Ohio. Houston kind of delivers Houston, not Texas, but last time I checked one of those cities is in the recruiting capital and also a top 5 population hub.
If the ACC didn’t already have Louisville, I’d be fine with Cincinnati. But that ship sailed long ago. Adding Cincinnati and WVU might make for a nice little contiguous arrangement, but that’s not the new paradigm. The Big XII added outposts all over the map, because that was the best move. The ACC’s best move—if it were to even make a move—is adding a large school in a growing population. That’s the sensical path forward.
But it's geographically a nightmare, especially for the northern schools. Of course I don't expect you to care about them. Why did the Big 12 take Cincinnati and UCF? They were backfilling and West Virginia's already in the Eastern Time Zone so Cincy is a convenient travel partner.
I mean I guess four and a half hours is a convenient travel partner? UCF is an outpost. BYU is an outpost. Most travel in the Big XII is a nightmare.
Houston is a quick flight to the Florida schools and Atlanta and in this scenario they would be grouped with them. Houston used to play FSU and Miami yearly, did you know that?
SINCE WHEN
|
|
02-19-2022 12:50 PM |
|
esayem
Hark The Sound!
Posts: 16,531
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1240
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-19-2022 12:50 PM)green Wrote: (02-19-2022 12:28 PM)esayem Wrote: (02-19-2022 11:39 AM)schmolik Wrote: (02-19-2022 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote: (02-18-2022 08:57 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: You're clearly getting emotional about this and resorting to name calling which is fine. You're wrong, but if it makes you feel better go ahead. And I never said the ACC would grab Cincinnati I was responding to someone else saying that, in fact I said that they wouldn't so you're really not taking a shot at me or UC with that. If ESPN wanted the ACC to expand they would have done it long ago. And just because you want Houston in the ACC doesn't mean ESPN does. If they wanted Houston in the ACC they would have done it last year. No, I don't see the ACC expanding at all because ESPN isn't going to open the ACC contract. And they definitely will not open up the ACC deal to expand into Texas, especially when they have access to Houston in the Big 12. And they have Texas and Texas A&M in the SEC, why would they need a Texas school in the ACC? Not only is it redundant and doesn't add value it risks hurting their Texas products in the SEC. Having Texas schools in a Midwest conference is one thing but adding one to a nother Southern conference that you own does nothing more than oversaturate the SEC's newer Texas market. As for the Big 12 they came out of it ok, if anything the "pillaging" probably stabilized the conference and made it more of an ACC or Pac-12 model P5 conference like it always should have been instead of an undersized B1G or SEC wannabe.
We’ve discussed this before, so this conversation is what is redundant. Texas is a large enough (and growing) market so ESPN pulling in one to two more schools actually makes sense in the long run. ESPN has three schools in Florida plus however many end up in the AAC. They added even more teams from Texas there as well, so your argument makes no sense. They know what they’re doing.
The “name calling” is more of a reality that Cincinnati kind of delivers Cincinnati, not the state of Ohio. Houston kind of delivers Houston, not Texas, but last time I checked one of those cities is in the recruiting capital and also a top 5 population hub.
If the ACC didn’t already have Louisville, I’d be fine with Cincinnati. But that ship sailed long ago. Adding Cincinnati and WVU might make for a nice little contiguous arrangement, but that’s not the new paradigm. The Big XII added outposts all over the map, because that was the best move. The ACC’s best move—if it were to even make a move—is adding a large school in a growing population. That’s the sensical path forward.
But it's geographically a nightmare, especially for the northern schools. Of course I don't expect you to care about them. Why did the Big 12 take Cincinnati and UCF? They were backfilling and West Virginia's already in the Eastern Time Zone so Cincy is a convenient travel partner.
I mean I guess four and a half hours is a convenient travel partner? UCF is an outpost. BYU is an outpost. Most travel in the Big XII is a nightmare.
Houston is a quick flight to the Florida schools and Atlanta and in this scenario they would be grouped with them. Houston used to play FSU and Miami yearly, did you know that?
SINCE WHEN
MUST I DO EVERYTHING FOR YOU?
1970-83 for Miami
1960-75 for FSU
|
|
02-19-2022 01:04 PM |
|
green
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11,360
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 389
I Root For: Miami
Location:
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-19-2022 01:04 PM)esayem Wrote: (02-19-2022 12:50 PM)green Wrote: (02-19-2022 12:28 PM)esayem Wrote: (02-19-2022 11:39 AM)schmolik Wrote: (02-19-2022 11:18 AM)esayem Wrote: We’ve discussed this before, so this conversation is what is redundant. Texas is a large enough (and growing) market so ESPN pulling in one to two more schools actually makes sense in the long run. ESPN has three schools in Florida plus however many end up in the AAC. They added even more teams from Texas there as well, so your argument makes no sense. They know what they’re doing.
The “name calling” is more of a reality that Cincinnati kind of delivers Cincinnati, not the state of Ohio. Houston kind of delivers Houston, not Texas, but last time I checked one of those cities is in the recruiting capital and also a top 5 population hub.
If the ACC didn’t already have Louisville, I’d be fine with Cincinnati. But that ship sailed long ago. Adding Cincinnati and WVU might make for a nice little contiguous arrangement, but that’s not the new paradigm. The Big XII added outposts all over the map, because that was the best move. The ACC’s best move—if it were to even make a move—is adding a large school in a growing population. That’s the sensical path forward.
But it's geographically a nightmare, especially for the northern schools. Of course I don't expect you to care about them. Why did the Big 12 take Cincinnati and UCF? They were backfilling and West Virginia's already in the Eastern Time Zone so Cincy is a convenient travel partner.
I mean I guess four and a half hours is a convenient travel partner? UCF is an outpost. BYU is an outpost. Most travel in the Big XII is a nightmare.
Houston is a quick flight to the Florida schools and Atlanta and in this scenario they would be grouped with them. Houston used to play FSU and Miami yearly, did you know that?
SINCE WHEN
MUST I DO EVERYTHING FOR YOU?
1970-83 for Miami
1960-75 for FSU
according to the annals ...
we regularly played bama & texas & oklahoma, too ...
long ago far away ...
ONCE UPON A TIME
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2022 01:31 PM by green.)
|
|
02-19-2022 01:28 PM |
|
esayem
Hark The Sound!
Posts: 16,531
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1240
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
Miami has scheduled Texas three times, and Oklahoma six times. They’ve played Bama a bit more more never annually.
I just found it interesting and there’s a connection there.
Now let’s watch some hoops!
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2022 03:27 PM by esayem.)
|
|
02-19-2022 03:26 PM |
|
CatsClaw1
Special Teams
Posts: 725
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-19-2022 09:03 AM)schmolik Wrote: (02-18-2022 05:54 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 05:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: (02-18-2022 04:34 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 12:23 PM)random asian guy Wrote: But the Big 12 content is not ESPN exclusive. If the ESPN had cared about the Big 12, why did they move UT and OU to the SEC? The SECN is currently ESPN’s primarly college network followed by the ACCN.
The reason why the ACC didn’t add Cincy or a Texas school is probably because the ESPN won’t pay for them or the ACC didn’t want them, or perhaps both.
If the ESPN changes its mind and want to double down in Texas or expand to Ohio, and the ACC changes its mind when the divisionless model is allowed and the ACC can add only one team, then I think it’s certianly possible that the ACC would go after one of new B12 teams.
Because they weren't successful in killing it. There are a number of circumstances and major power brokers who kept the Big 12 alive and in position to thrive so i don't see the ACC grabbing a Big 12 school, or even expanding at all. Thus the Big 12 remains as a quality P5 and now that the Big 12 is alive and well they realize that there is content to be had. They would rather have Cincinnati and Houston as part of the Big 12 package than paying the ACC a bloated pay raise. They still have access to Cincinnati and Houston in the Big 12. Exclusive rights as part of ESPN+ which is what they care about.
From what I know about Texas's concerns over other Texas schools I suspect ESPN will seek full rights to the NB12 and that ESPN saw a way to accomplish this allowing Texas to feel free to move with OU, and ESPN to increase the value of Cincinnati, BYU (ESPN contractee) and Houston. This holds the relative value of the other 8 B12 schools and elevates these 3 and UCF. The AAC remains an inexpensive product to maintain and ESPN has more angles for advertising in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and among a dispersed Mormon group.
This will be interesting because Fox is also very interested in keeping the Big 12. What I find interesting is ever since the Bowlsby/ESPN public blow up they have seemed to make up and ally with each other. ESPN has put over the New Big 12 strongly the last 5 or 6 months and the Big 12 allied with the SEC and pushed hard for the CFP to expand and stay with ESPN.
What evidence do you have that FOX is very interested in keeping the Big 12? They dropped the Big 12 Championship Game years ago while Oklahoma and Texas were still in the conference, what makes you think they would want them now?
I really don't care of you believe it or not but Fox is interested in the Big12. You don't want to believe it because it raises the possibility of the Big 12 having a better TV deal than the ACC but yes Fox is interested in the Big 12. I know that some people are trying to devalue Cincinnati because they found a P5 home outside of the ACC and are excited and are upset that a UC fan like me are happy and excited about it but no Cincinnati wasn't added as "backfill" to give West Virginia a travel partner Cincinnati was added because TV wanted it. I'm just dropping the info I mean if a few of you want to get angry that fine but the Big 12 is in pretty good shape right now and Cincinnati brings high value. Cincinnati and BYU in theory were the top two picks because they were the targets of the Big 12 if they expanded in 2016 but it's a moot point because UCF and Houston also being monster value. And no Houston is not coming to the ACC. The Big 12 will be highly valued on the TV market and this Big 12 holds a different interest for Fox probably because of new markets, locking up markets completely with Cincinnati and Ohio State, and more inventory.
(This post was last modified: 02-20-2022 11:52 AM by CatsClaw1.)
|
|
02-20-2022 11:25 AM |
|
XLance
Hall of Famer
Posts: 14,351
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 782
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-20-2022 11:25 AM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-19-2022 09:03 AM)schmolik Wrote: (02-18-2022 05:54 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 05:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: (02-18-2022 04:34 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: Because they weren't successful in killing it. There are a number of circumstances and major power brokers who kept the Big 12 alive and in position to thrive so i don't see the ACC grabbing a Big 12 school, or even expanding at all. Thus the Big 12 remains as a quality P5 and now that the Big 12 is alive and well they realize that there is content to be had. They would rather have Cincinnati and Houston as part of the Big 12 package than paying the ACC a bloated pay raise. They still have access to Cincinnati and Houston in the Big 12. Exclusive rights as part of ESPN+ which is what they care about.
From what I know about Texas's concerns over other Texas schools I suspect ESPN will seek full rights to the NB12 and that ESPN saw a way to accomplish this allowing Texas to feel free to move with OU, and ESPN to increase the value of Cincinnati, BYU (ESPN contractee) and Houston. This holds the relative value of the other 8 B12 schools and elevates these 3 and UCF. The AAC remains an inexpensive product to maintain and ESPN has more angles for advertising in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and among a dispersed Mormon group.
This will be interesting because Fox is also very interested in keeping the Big 12. What I find interesting is ever since the Bowlsby/ESPN public blow up they have seemed to make up and ally with each other. ESPN has put over the New Big 12 strongly the last 5 or 6 months and the Big 12 allied with the SEC and pushed hard for the CFP to expand and stay with ESPN.
What evidence do you have that FOX is very interested in keeping the Big 12? They dropped the Big 12 Championship Game years ago while Oklahoma and Texas were still in the conference, what makes you think they would want them now?
I really don't care of you believe it or not but Fox is interested in the Big12. You don't want to believe it because it raises the possibility of the Big 12 having a better TV deal than the ACC but yes Fox is interested in the Big 12. I know that some people are trying to devalue Cincinnati because they found a P5 home outside of the ACC and are excited and are upset that a UC fan like me are happy and excited about it but no Cincinnati wasn't added as "backfill" to give West Virginia a travel partner Cincinnati was added because TV wanted it. I'm just dropping the info I mean if a few of you want to get angry that fine but the Big 12 is in pretty good shape right now and Cincinnati brings high value. Cincinnati and BYU in theory were the top two picks because they were the targets of the Big 12 if they expanded in 2016 but it's a moot point because UCF and Houston also being monster value. And no Houston is not coming to the ACC. The Big 12 will be highly valued on the TV market and this Big 12 holds a different interest for Fox probably because of new markets, locking up markets completely with Cincinnati and Ohio State, and more inventory.
Pshaw!
|
|
02-20-2022 03:50 PM |
|
esayem
Hark The Sound!
Posts: 16,531
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1240
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-20-2022 11:25 AM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-19-2022 09:03 AM)schmolik Wrote: (02-18-2022 05:54 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: (02-18-2022 05:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: (02-18-2022 04:34 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: Because they weren't successful in killing it. There are a number of circumstances and major power brokers who kept the Big 12 alive and in position to thrive so i don't see the ACC grabbing a Big 12 school, or even expanding at all. Thus the Big 12 remains as a quality P5 and now that the Big 12 is alive and well they realize that there is content to be had. They would rather have Cincinnati and Houston as part of the Big 12 package than paying the ACC a bloated pay raise. They still have access to Cincinnati and Houston in the Big 12. Exclusive rights as part of ESPN+ which is what they care about.
From what I know about Texas's concerns over other Texas schools I suspect ESPN will seek full rights to the NB12 and that ESPN saw a way to accomplish this allowing Texas to feel free to move with OU, and ESPN to increase the value of Cincinnati, BYU (ESPN contractee) and Houston. This holds the relative value of the other 8 B12 schools and elevates these 3 and UCF. The AAC remains an inexpensive product to maintain and ESPN has more angles for advertising in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and among a dispersed Mormon group.
This will be interesting because Fox is also very interested in keeping the Big 12. What I find interesting is ever since the Bowlsby/ESPN public blow up they have seemed to make up and ally with each other. ESPN has put over the New Big 12 strongly the last 5 or 6 months and the Big 12 allied with the SEC and pushed hard for the CFP to expand and stay with ESPN.
What evidence do you have that FOX is very interested in keeping the Big 12? They dropped the Big 12 Championship Game years ago while Oklahoma and Texas were still in the conference, what makes you think they would want them now?
I really don't care of you believe it or not but Fox is interested in the Big12. You don't want to believe it because it raises the possibility of the Big 12 having a better TV deal than the ACC but yes Fox is interested in the Big 12. I know that some people are trying to devalue Cincinnati because they found a P5 home outside of the ACC and are excited and are upset that a UC fan like me are happy and excited about it but no Cincinnati wasn't added as "backfill" to give West Virginia a travel partner Cincinnati was added because TV wanted it. I'm just dropping the info I mean if a few of you want to get angry that fine but the Big 12 is in pretty good shape right now and Cincinnati brings high value. Cincinnati and BYU in theory were the top two picks because they were the targets of the Big 12 if they expanded in 2016 but it's a moot point because UCF and Houston also being monster value. And no Houston is not coming to the ACC. The Big 12 will be highly valued on the TV market and this Big 12 holds a different interest for Fox probably because of new markets, locking up markets completely with Cincinnati and Ohio State, and more inventory.
Cool man. If you’ve read anything over here I’ve been telling your fan base they need to go to the Big XII boards and post because that’s where the Bearcats are headed. Yet the fans still come here. I don’t understand it.
|
|
02-20-2022 04:04 PM |
|
Hokie Mark
Hall of Famer
Posts: 23,785
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1400
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-20-2022 11:25 AM)CatsClaw1 Wrote: I really don't care of you believe it or not but Fox is interested in the Big12. You don't want to believe it because it raises the possibility of the Big 12 having a better TV deal than the ACC but yes Fox is interested in the Big 12... The Big 12 will be highly valued on the TV market and this Big 12 holds a different interest for Fox probably because of new markets, locking up markets completely with Cincinnati and Ohio State, and more inventory.
I have no doubt that Fox is "interested" in Big XII content, but that's not the same as saying they are willing to bid more than what they are paying now - or even as much.
|
|
02-20-2022 08:14 PM |
|
Shannon Panther
Heisman
Posts: 6,879
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 373
I Root For: Pitt
Location: Nashville, TN
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
This is easy. If you look at the B1G and SEC, you see 2 differences between them and the other 3 leagues.
1. They consistently have 2-3 elite teams every year. The ACC, BigXII, and Pac12 all usually have one or none. If Miami can raise back to their previous heights and Clemson can maintain that would give the ACC 2 elites annually. FSU also has been here before. If we could get 3, that would be punching above our weight.
2. Here is where the ACC really struggles. 3-5 teams who are consistently very good, with an occasional foray into the Elite. Last season, Pitt and Wake were both very good but neither could rise to elite. NC State was also very good but the early loss at MS State impacted that perception. Pitt, Wake, VT, NC State, UNC, GT, Cuse, BC, Louisville, and UVA all have potential to get here. These teams don't all need to be here every season, but 3-5 need to be here every season. In reality Duke is the only program that can't get here regularly. They need to bump up for 1-3 year stretches without the winless campaigns.
The math to have 3-5 very good teams doesn't work unless we WIN OUR OOC GAMES. Pitt can't lose to Western Michigan. Louisville can't lose to Ole Miss, etc.... Because these games are predominantly played at the front end of the season, the narrative is set for the year. Right or wrong, perception is reality.
If we want to get paid like those conferences, we need to perform like those conferences. No excuses. Step up as a league or get left behind. ND is not coming to save us. They are about to have a drop from elite to very good at least in the short term. Very few coaching turnovers result in the team continuing at a high level. History suggests that the will be a 2-3 year adjustment period.
|
|
02-21-2022 12:55 PM |
|
GTFletch
All American
Posts: 3,958
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 295
I Root For: Georgia Tech
Location: Georgia
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
This article pinpoints the exact cause....the $ difference between the SEC/BIG10 and the ACC. As much as I hated Maryland leaving it explains why they did it.
From the Article:
The ACC does have a check-in window on its television contract with ESPN this spring, and although the discussions between the league and network are not expected to drastically alter the current contract, Phillips views the discussions as valuable. Multiple athletic directors talked about the looming look-in window, believing everything should be on the table to help enhance the football product and make the league more attractive to TV partners.
"I'm under no illusion that we're going to close the gap and catch up with the SEC or Big Ten," another ACC AD told ESPN. "I'm optimistic that we can maintain the gap at the same level of increase that the SEC just got and what the Big Ten will get in their next go-round. If we cannot let the gap get bigger and can cut into the gap in some other ways, that will be success to me."
But there is not yet a consensus among the league's athletic directors on the right strategy.
"I don't know that there's any one thing that you say, 'This is the golden egg right here that's going to change everything,'" Miami athletic director Blake James said. "But I do think we have to be willing, as a league, to look at everything, and working with our television partner and figuring out what's the best way to position the ACC going forward."
Link
https://abc7chicago.com/sports/new-acc-c.../10462677/
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2022 11:45 AM by GTFletch.)
|
|
02-22-2022 11:34 AM |
|
GTFletch
All American
Posts: 3,958
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 295
I Root For: Georgia Tech
Location: Georgia
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
Alliance with Big Ten, Pac-12 makes a ton of sense for the ACC & TV $$
Great Read....
The belief is if the ACC can schedule more high-profile matchups with Big Ten or Pac-12 teams in non-conference play, it can create attractive neutral-site games that would be broadcast on Fox instead of ESPN. The goal is to increase the value of the league without necessarily increasing its size, and creating more premium inventory is a step in that direction.
The operative word is “premium.” The key is for the scheduling alliance to incorporate the few top brands from each league. In general, TV executives said the top three brands from a respective league attract more than 50 percent of the TV viewers for that league. In terms of ratings, all other matchups of mediocre appeal see a precipitous drop.
The viewing model is extremely top-heavy. Networks right now, one source said, “will pay you whatever you need them to pay you for the top inventory — just the top inventory. What they don’t want to do anymore is pay $7 million for Clemson-Miami and also pay $7 million for Wake Forest-Boston College.”
For the ACC, that means more Clemson, Miami, North Carolina and Florida State. The aim, of course, is to create more long-term value.
Link
https://www.on3.com/news/alliance-with-b...e-for-acc/
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2022 12:02 PM by GTFletch.)
|
|
02-22-2022 11:53 AM |
|
green
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11,360
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 389
I Root For: Miami
Location:
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-22-2022 11:34 AM)GTFletch Wrote: This article pinpoints the exact cause....the $ difference between the SEC/BIG10 and the ACC. As much as I hated Maryland leaving it explains why they did it.
From the Article:
The ACC does have a check-in window on its television contract with ESPN this spring, and although the discussions between the league and network are not expected to drastically alter the current contract, Phillips views the discussions as valuable. Multiple athletic directors talked about the looming look-in window, believing everything should be on the table to help enhance the football product and make the league more attractive to TV partners.
"I'm under no illusion that we're going to close the gap and catch up with the SEC or Big Ten," another ACC AD told ESPN. "I'm optimistic that we can maintain the gap at the same level of increase that the SEC just got and what the Big Ten will get in their next go-round. If we cannot let the gap get bigger and can cut into the gap in some other ways, that will be success to me."
But there is not yet a consensus among the league's athletic directors on the right strategy.
"I don't know that there's any one thing that you say, 'This is the golden egg right here that's going to change everything,'" Miami athletic director Blake James said. "But I do think we have to be willing, as a league, to look at everything, and working with our television partner and figuring out what's the best way to position the ACC going forward."
Link
https://abc7chicago.com/sports/new-acc-c.../10462677/
Wednesday, March 31, 2021
BACKDATED
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2022 03:48 PM by green.)
|
|
02-22-2022 12:03 PM |
|
georgia_tech_swagger
Res publica non dominetur
Posts: 51,419
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2019
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC
|
RE: How can the ACC increase TV revenue
(02-21-2022 12:55 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote: 2. Here is where the ACC really struggles. 3-5 teams who are consistently very good, with an occasional foray into the Elite. ... GT [has] potential to get here.
GT is at least three more years from being very good and that's if Collins is fired mid-2022 and the next hire is a slam dunk.
|
|
02-22-2022 12:06 PM |
|