(08-25-2023 01:39 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  Can’t see ESPN paying $26 million each for SMU, Stanford or Cal. No one will watch football games or basketball games involving those schools. There is simply not enough interest in either football or basketball for any of those schools. SMU can’t average over 20,000 in their own football stadium and their basketball arena seats 6500 but frequently has fewer than 5000 people in attendance. If the ACC wants those schools, it is simply facilitating the dissolution of the conference. I like the ACC, but one has to wonder about its leadership over the last number of years. It is not clear whether the ACC has any kind of coherent strategy going forward for the direction of the conference.

38 K Nippert Stadium says hello.

Not sure what your point is. Nippert is full for every game and if there were 12-15,000 additional seats, they would be filled as well. And that’s with an NFL franchise and NFL stadium three miles away.

(08-25-2023 01:39 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  Can’t see ESPN paying $26 million each for SMU, Stanford or Cal. No one will watch football games or basketball games involving those schools. There is simply not enough interest in either football or basketball for any of those schools. SMU can’t average over 20,000 in their own football stadium and their basketball arena seats 6500 but frequently has fewer than 5000 people in attendance. If the ACC wants those schools, it is simply facilitating the dissolution of the conference. I like the ACC, but one has to wonder about its leadership over the last number of years. It is not clear whether the ACC has any kind of coherent strategy going forward for the direction of the conference.

Both Cal (857k/gm) and Stanford (846k/gm) draw bigger TV audiences than Cincinnati (653k/gm). SMU's TV is not great, but it gets the league a toehold in Texas, from which they can build. Stop your trolling. If UC hadn't signed that Big XII GoR, you would be getting your invitation now - but you jumped the gun, so deal with playing Kansas State and Iowa State and Utah and places like that for awhile. Maybe the Bearcats can get into the ACC in 2031...

BTW, when 3-8 Stanford faced 4-7 Cal last year, their attendance was 51,892

(08-25-2023 02:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 01:39 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  Can’t see ESPN paying $26 million each for SMU, Stanford or Cal. No one will watch football games or basketball games involving those schools. There is simply not enough interest in either football or basketball for any of those schools. SMU can’t average over 20,000 in their own football stadium and their basketball arena seats 6500 but frequently has fewer than 5000 people in attendance. If the ACC wants those schools, it is simply facilitating the dissolution of the conference. I like the ACC, but one has to wonder about its leadership over the last number of years. It is not clear whether the ACC has any kind of coherent strategy going forward for the direction of the conference.

Both Cal (857k/gm) and Stanford (846k/gm) draw bigger TV audiences than Cincinnati (653k/gm). SMU's TV is not great, but it gets the league a toehold in Texas, from which they can build. Stop your trolling. If UC hadn't signed that Big XII GoR, you would be getting your invitation now - but you jumped the gun, so deal with playing Kansas State and Iowa State and Utah and places like that for awhile. Maybe the Bearcats can get into the ACC in 2031...

BTW, when 3-8 Stanford faced 4-7 Cal last year, their attendance was 51,892

The boost to Cal and Stanford from a viewership standpoint is that once in the ACC there are people in the ETZ and CTZ that will actually care about their games. It gets them out of the PTZ ghetto.

NOTE: The bottom right quadrant is wearing yellow; the rest of the stadium crowd appears to be wearing red. The Rose Bowl is 358 miles from Stanford.

Full disclosure:
The last time the Cal Bears football team was double-digit good was 2006 (17 years ago) when Jeff Tedford was head coach. At that time they were tied for first in the Pac-12 and whipped Texas A&M in the Holiday Bowl (in San Diego, 492 miles away) before a crowd of 62,395. Cal almost never plays in front of less than 31K, which makes them the West Coast UVA.

Since Tedford was fired, Sonny Dykes took them to one bowl (2015 Armed Forces) and current head man Justin Wilcox took them to two more (2018 Cheez-It, 2018 Redbox).

(08-25-2023 03:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

NOTE: The bottom right quadrant is wearing yellow; the rest of the stadium crowd appears to be wearing red. The Rose Bowl is 358 miles from Stanford.

The shade is covering most of the Iowa crowd. You can see the clear divide in the top endzone down the middle. I'd suspect most of the right side is yellow.

No trolling from here. What I said was that the ACC seems directionless right now and its interest in SMU, Cal and Stanford is proof positive of the same. It seems like a desperate but almost certainly misguided pursuit.

How is SMU attractive when they are the #3 or #4 option in their own city, and they are willing /eager to come into the ACC for $0. How can they be competitive without resources to compete. How valuable/viewable is a game where SMU is 1-11 for three straight years? Cal is an absolute mess of an athletic department, deeply in debt and uncompetitive in both football and basketball for the bulk of the last decade. Does Cal really aspire to compete at the Clemson/FSU/Miami level of college football or at the Duke/UNC/UVA level of college basketball? I can see to some degree the logic behind Stanford because of their academic reputation and their all-sports success historically. But they are 3000 miles away from the bulk of ACC schools. Are you going to send Stanford’s hoops team to Blacksburg or Charlottesville or Clemson in the winter. It just makes no sense from a travel or logistical or best interests of the student standpoint, not even thinking about the travel difficulties in the Olympic non-revenue sports.

This is not a debate about whether the Big XII or the ACC is “better”. It’s simply a discussion about which conference has a better strategy and is executing on that strategy in a time of conference disruption and upheaval. My own view is that Cincy would have been a better fit geographically, culturally and institutionally in the ACC, but the Big XII came calling for UC at a propitious time. Yormark had a strategic vision and has executed on that strategy by attracting four additional large and academically reputable universities in growing states and metro areas (Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado) with proud athletic histories and arguably very competitive and bright futures. I don’t know that anyone can figure out what Phillips is trying to do.

(08-25-2023 04:31 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  No trolling from here. What I said was that the ACC seems directionless right now and its interest in SMU, Cal and Stanford is proof positive of the same. It seems like a desperate but almost certainly misguided pursuit.

How is SMU attractive when they are the #3 or #4 option in their own city, and they are willing /eager to come into the ACC for $0. How can they be competitive without resources to compete. How valuable/viewable is a game where SMU is 1-11 for three straight years? Cal is an absolute mess of an athletic department, deeply in debt and uncompetitive in both football and basketball for the bulk of the last decade. Does Cal really aspire to compete at the Clemson/FSU/Miami level of college football or at the Duke/UNC/UVA level of college basketball? I can see to some degree the logic behind Stanford because of their academic reputation and their all-sports success historically. But they are 3000 miles away from the bulk of ACC schools. Are you going to send Stanford’s hoops team to Blacksburg or Charlottesville or Clemson in the winter. It just makes no sense from a travel or logistical or best interests of the student standpoint, not even thinking about the travel difficulties in the Olympic non-revenue sports.

This is not a debate about whether the Big XII or the ACC is “better”. It’s simply a discussion about which conference has a better strategy and is executing on that strategy in a time of conference disruption and upheaval. My own view is that Cincy would have been a better fit geographically, culturally and institutionally in the ACC, but the Big XII came calling for UC at a propitious time. Yormark had a strategic vision and has executed on that strategy by attracting four additional large and academically reputable universities in growing states and metro areas (Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado) with proud athletic histories and arguably very competitive and bright futures. I don’t know that anyone can figure out what Phillips is trying to do.

Are all Cincy fans piss poor accountants and poor readers?

(08-25-2023 04:31 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  No trolling from here. What I said was that the ACC seems directionless right now and its interest in SMU, Cal and Stanford is proof positive of the same. It seems like a desperate but almost certainly misguided pursuit.

How is SMU attractive when they are the #3 or #4 option in their own city, and they are willing /eager to come into the ACC for $0. How can they be competitive without resources to compete. How valuable/viewable is a game where SMU is 1-11 for three straight years? Cal is an absolute mess of an athletic department, deeply in debt and uncompetitive in both football and basketball for the bulk of the last decade. Does Cal really aspire to compete at the Clemson/FSU/Miami level of college football or at the Duke/UNC/UVA level of college basketball? I can see to some degree the logic behind Stanford because of their academic reputation and their all-sports success historically. But they are 3000 miles away from the bulk of ACC schools. Are you going to send Stanford’s hoops team to Blacksburg or Charlottesville or Clemson in the winter. It just makes no sense from a travel or logistical or best interests of the student standpoint, not even thinking about the travel difficulties in the Olympic non-revenue sports.

This is not a debate about whether the Big XII or the ACC is “better”. It’s simply a discussion about which conference has a better strategy and is executing on that strategy in a time of conference disruption and upheaval. My own view is that Cincy would have been a better fit geographically, culturally and institutionally in the ACC, but the Big XII came calling for UC at a propitious time. Yormark had a strategic vision and has executed on that strategy by attracting four additional large and academically reputable universities in growing states and metro areas (Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado) with proud athletic histories and arguably very competitive and bright futures. I don’t know that anyone can figure out what Phillips is trying to do.

The B12 is more aggressive for sure but the ACC is not directionless. The ACC is picking up the most academically strong schools from the Pac 12. SMU is also prestigious. So it looks like the academics is the "direction" that the ACC wants to go.

I won't worry about SMU's resource. Money is what they got.

Stanford, Cal, and SMU all have plenty of rich alumni.

Stanford has an athletic endowment that reportedly pays $37M/year.

Cal has the (est. $10M/yr) "Calimony" revenue sharing deal from UCLA.

SMU is used to AAC money, so they won't miss it.

SMU is a fine school, maybe even a very good school. “Prestigious”, however, goes a bit too far. Even with its wealthy alumni, SMU has never come close to an AAC football championship. They won a couple of AAC basketball championships with Coach Larry Brown at the helm and before the NCAA punished SMU for the inevitable recruiting violations.

(08-25-2023 01:39 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  Can’t see ESPN paying $26 million each for SMU, Stanford or Cal. No one will watch football games or basketball games involving those schools. There is simply not enough interest in either football or basketball for any of those schools. SMU can’t average over 20,000 in their own football stadium and their basketball arena seats 6500 but frequently has fewer than 5000 people in attendance. If the ACC wants those schools, it is simply facilitating the dissolution of the conference. I like the ACC, but one has to wonder about its leadership over the last number of years. It is not clear whether the ACC has any kind of coherent strategy going forward for the direction of the conference.

We’ve discussed why it makes sense ad nauseam.

One thing we haven’t talked about is how being in the ACC gets these programs out of others shadows and in their own spotlight. SMU has their own network now, that’s more than any other Texas school outside of Texas and TAMU

(08-25-2023 04:31 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  No trolling from here. What I said was that the ACC seems directionless right now and its interest in SMU, Cal and Stanford is proof positive of the same. It seems like a desperate but almost certainly misguided pursuit.

How is SMU attractive when they are the #3 or #4 option in their own city, and they are willing /eager to come into the ACC for $0. How can they be competitive without resources to compete. How valuable/viewable is a game where SMU is 1-11 for three straight years? Cal is an absolute mess of an athletic department, deeply in debt and uncompetitive in both football and basketball for the bulk of the last decade. Does Cal really aspire to compete at the Clemson/FSU/Miami level of college football or at the Duke/UNC/UVA level of college basketball? I can see to some degree the logic behind Stanford because of their academic reputation and their all-sports success historically. But they are 3000 miles away from the bulk of ACC schools. Are you going to send Stanford’s hoops team to Blacksburg or Charlottesville or Clemson in the winter. It just makes no sense from a travel or logistical or best interests of the student standpoint, not even thinking about the travel difficulties in the Olympic non-revenue sports.

This is not a debate about whether the Big XII or the ACC is “better”. It’s simply a discussion about which conference has a better strategy and is executing on that strategy in a time of conference disruption and upheaval. My own view is that Cincy would have been a better fit geographically, culturally and institutionally in the ACC, but the Big XII came calling for UC at a propitious time. Yormark had a strategic vision and has executed on that strategy by attracting four additional large and academically reputable universities in growing states and metro areas (Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado) with proud athletic histories and arguably very competitive and bright futures. I don’t know that anyone can figure out what Phillips is trying to do.

If you were in a conference with your own network, you would know the answer to this question.

Should this expansion go through, the ACC will have schools in 8 of the top 12 most populous states in the country:

1 - California
2 - Texas
3 - Florida
4 - New York
5 - Pennsylvania
8 - Georgia
9 - North Carolina
12 - Virginia

Add this nugget to the above, and it further enhances the appeal of adding these schools. States that produce the most division I football talent:

1 - Florida
2 - Texas
3 - Georgia
4 - California
8 - North Carolina
11 - Virginia (tied with Ohio)


It's easy to justify adding these schools to the conference.

It's also a complicated issue to navigate.

We will see what happens, soon.

(08-24-2023 05:07 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  So by my GK "back of the napkin calculations" ACC Expansion could be worth 142M per year. Or 9M per school when ND is aded to equation. (SMU, CAL, Stanford not calculated)

The question is will that be given as unequal share instead of evenly distributed?? if so it appears that they will be added, if not the 4 NO votes stay. It comes down to unequal revenue shares.

I would not worry about Clemson or FSU. There is nothing that anyone can do to appease them so just divide the money equally. Teach them a lesson that greed does not pay. I would call their bluff because who is fooling who. The Grant of Rights will be super expensive to break and by the time Clemson or FSU or any other school can get out of the ACC in the early 2030s, the media rights will go way down for the next contract for the SEC and B1G. I can say this with confidence because there is no doubt people are going to cut the cord from cable ($120/month) and go to IPTV ($20 / month). ESPN and Fox made big mistakes giving so much for college football, hockey, basketball, baseball and are going to pay the price when people go with pirated ESPN and Fox where they get no money for the stolen signals. The difference in dollars is $1200/per year so it is worthwhile for people to read up how to buy a router on amazon and then contract the service. The ironic thing is that the $40 million per school that the ACC gets may actually be higher than the SEC or B1G in the period of 2030 to 2036 (or whenever their media contracts renew).

(08-25-2023 06:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Cal has the (est. $10M/yr) "Calimony" revenue sharing deal from UCLA.

Go on ... keep talking about the Golden Bear finances. Let's start with how they need $17m a year transferred from the academic side to athletic debt service. Oh no there goes the Calimoney.

(08-28-2023 09:07 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 06:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Cal has the (est. $10M/yr) "Calimony" revenue sharing deal from UCLA.

Go on ... keep talking about the Golden Bear finances. Let's start with how they need $17m a year transferred from the academic side to athletic debt service. Oh no there goes the Calimoney.

TRUE.

OTOH, maybe someone other than a GT fan should talk about fiscal responsibility?