(05-01-2013 10:42 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:23 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 09:58 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  You must account for the number of people in the Market, not just attendance. # of potential cable/satellite subs.

"Potential" means little, what matters is if people care about watching your team. E.g., Philadelphia is a huge market with tons of potential cable and satellite subscribers, but nobody cares about Temple football so attendance and TV ratings are both miniscule.

There is just no way around the fact that attendance and TV attractiveness are highly correlated. Look at the top 20 in attendance and you have all the big marquee TV draws - Alabama, LSU, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, Notre Dame, USC, FSU, Texas, Oklahoma, etc.

In contrast, look at the bottom of the attendance figures and you see all the schools that nobody watches on TV except with a gun to their head.

You can't create subs in a small market. You only need a % of the total in the Large market and you get most of them (if you get on basic cable).

Then why doesn't the new AAC have a massive media deal? They have schools in big markets like Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, Cincinnati, Orlando, Tampa, Memphis, and Philly, and yet their media deal is for peanuts.

Doesn't matter if you're in a large market if no one is going to watch you. This is why the ACC is more advantageous than you give it credit for. 3rd most watched football. 2nd most watched basketball.... and that's before Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, ND.

The part I bolded is spot on. And, there's no question that by adding Syracuse and Louisville, ACC basketball should be top-of-the-charts, on TV and in terms of NCAA tournament results, again.

But football? That's a major work in progress and it's by no means clear that the new additions will help either at the box office or in competition with other conferences. These were Big East teams, after all.

(05-01-2013 10:45 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:04 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  His point is that he's an ACC homer desperately trying to make a case for the ACC's lousy football attendance.

You have no room to even be in the discussion. You're not in one of the Power conferences.

You seem to be confusing this with a trash talk board. We're trying to have reasonable discussions. If he's got something to add, he's welcome.

Thanks, but what else can he say when his defense of the ACC is so weak? It was either try and shoot one of the messengers or backpedal.

He's go no skin in game so he can sit back and fire away with nonsense. And yes it is nonsense. Trying to make a direct correlation with attendance figures about power doesn't make sense especially in this world of conference realignment which all about TELEVISION.

Do you deny that the two most powerful conferences are also way ahead in attendance? Do you think this an accident?

Do you understand that Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, and Texas make more money from their attendance than from their conference national media deals? Apparently not.

ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do not deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

(05-01-2013 11:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do not deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

Here is a chart of nation TV ratings when the Big Ten was looking to expand in 2010.

Note that Pitt has a high national TV rating.

http://media.pennlive.com/davidjones/pho...09bd0a.gif

(05-01-2013 10:39 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:32 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:04 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:03 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:01 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Pitt and Cuse played in the BE. Let's see what happens when they have Clemson, FSU, VT, and Miami coming to town instead of UCONN, Rutgers, South Florida, etc

I'll go out on a limb and say it will be roughly equal or possibly worse. Pitt lost a rival in WVU who brought a ton of fans to Pittsburgh.

Replace WV with VT. Problem solved.

Not even close to the same thing. No offense to VT but

VT/Pitt =/= WVU/Pitt.

It's close enough and that's all that matters. Remember they used to be in the BE together before VT bolted for the ACC so they played every year. And from a fan perspective, that has the potentially to become a really good rivalry again.

OK.....maybe we'll see..... but your point that was the ACC would be comparable to the Big 10. That's just laughable.

(05-01-2013 11:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do not deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

Nope, I have nothing against the ACC and will call it as it is. I grew up in ACC territory and love ACC hoops. Football has always been weak but have fond memories of watching Maryland play at Byrd stadium against ACC foes.

ACC football television ratings will get a boost thanks to Notre Dame, that deal was a real coup for the ACC, probably saved it. Louisville is much more uncertain. They had a great year this past season but still finished in a 4-way tie for the Big East title, and the previous four years they were 4-7, 6-6, 7-5, and 5-7 playing in the Big East, so we don't know if 2012 is a harbinger of things to come or a temporary aberration. One thing the Cards have in common with the old ACC is that basketball is #1 on their campus and among their fans. That's one reason why ACC football struggles so much.

(05-01-2013 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:04 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 09:58 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:   ....... and the ACC added Pitt and Cuse who are below the 2012 ACC average which was already lower than the rest of the P5 average. Then they added UL who is just barely over the ACC average. So, exactly what is/was your point?

His point is that he's an ACC homer desperately trying to make a case for the ACC's lousy football attendance.

You have no room to even be in the discussion. You're not in one of the Power conferences.

You seem to be confusing this with a trash talk board. We're trying to have reasonable discussions. If he's got something to add, he's welcome.

Thanks, but what else can he say when his defense of the ACC is so weak? It was either try and shoot one of the messengers or backpedal.

I took some time to look into stadium capacity in the PAC 12. Many of their stadiums are reasonably small as well. Big fan support and less than stellar fan support exists in virtually every conference...not just the ACC.

(05-01-2013 11:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do not deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

The Big 12 was about the only conference that went up last year. All the commissioners are worried about a long-term decline. Students are not going in the numbers they used to. ACC is the most limited. They have a bunch of relatively small private schools, some of which are in pro sports markets, as well as Pitt and Georgia Tech. And 3 of their schools are in the same market. Their upside in attendance is limited.

(05-01-2013 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do not deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

Nope, I have nothing against the ACC and will call it as it is. I grew up in ACC territory and love ACC hoops. Football has always been weak but have fond memories of watching Maryland play at Byrd stadium against ACC foes.

ACC football television ratings will get a boost thanks to Notre Dame, that deal was a real coup for the ACC, probably saved it. Louisville is much more uncertain. They had a great year this past season but still finished in a 4-way tie for the Big East title, and the previous four years they were 4-7, 6-6, 7-5, and 5-7 playing in the Big East, so we don't know if 2012 is a harbinger of things to come or a temporary aberration. One thing the Cards have in common with the old ACC is that basketball is #1 on their campus and among their fans. That's one reason why ACC football struggles so much.

There are only 4 AQ schools who haven't been ranked in the final AP poll in the BCS era: Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina and Duke. Definite pattern there.

(05-01-2013 11:39 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:39 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:32 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:04 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:03 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I'll go out on a limb and say it will be roughly equal or possibly worse. Pitt lost a rival in WVU who brought a ton of fans to Pittsburgh.

Replace WV with VT. Problem solved.

Not even close to the same thing. No offense to VT but

VT/Pitt =/= WVU/Pitt.

It's close enough and that's all that matters. Remember they used to be in the BE together before VT bolted for the ACC so they played every year. And from a fan perspective, that has the potentially to become a really good rivalry again.

OK.....maybe we'll see..... but your point that was the ACC would be comparable to the Big 10. That's just laughable.

When did I say that?

(05-01-2013 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do not deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

Nope, I have nothing against the ACC and will call it as it is. I grew up in ACC territory and love ACC hoops. Football has always been weak but have fond memories of watching Maryland play at Byrd stadium against ACC foes.

ACC football television ratings will get a boost thanks to Notre Dame, that deal was a real coup for the ACC, probably saved it. Louisville is much more uncertain. They had a great year this past season but still finished in a 4-way tie for the Big East title, and the previous four years they were 4-7, 6-6, 7-5, and 5-7 playing in the Big East, so we don't know if 2012 is a harbinger of things to come or a temporary aberration. One thing the Cards have in common with the old ACC is that basketball is #1 on their campus and among their fans. That's one reason why ACC football struggles so much.

I would agree with you if ACC schools weren't recruiting at a high level. ACC schools get good recruits and put people in the NFL. I believe the problem has been the ACC's mediocre coaches. Bowden stayed at FSU way too long but Jimbo seems to be bringing them back. Another Bowden wasn't the right fit at Clemson. UNC has had their share of bad coaches between Mack Brown and Butch Davis. I think Fedora is the real deal. Miami had Coker and Shannon. Al Golden should be an upgrade. You can go on and on....

People focus too much on football when it comes to the Conference networks. Basketball is what will get the ACC on to the basic cable tiers for its network in the majority of its footprint.

Football is undeniably the driver for your Tier One and Two contracts with ESPN, Fox, etc...

(05-01-2013 01:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do not deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

The Big 12 was about the only conference that went up last year. All the commissioners are worried about a long-term decline. Students are not going in the numbers they used to. ACC is the most limited. They have a bunch of relatively small private schools, some of which are in pro sports markets, as well as Pitt and Georgia Tech. And 3 of their schools are in the same market. Their upside in attendance is limited.

Big 12 didn't go up. They had their smallest avg since 2005. You can't replace A&M/Missouri with TCU and West Va and not go down.

Keep this in mind, this ACC has these numbers and haven't even performed nearly what they should be. Pitt's stadium is 66k no reason why they can't avg 60. UNC has a 63k stadium to fill. Miami is over 70k+ they have room for improvement. Louisville's stadium currently seats 55k, but can expand to over 80k. I can guarantee you they will expand past 60k in the next 5 years.

(05-01-2013 01:45 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  People focus too much on football when it comes to the Conference networks. Basketball is what will get the ACC on to the basic cable tiers for its network in the majority of its footprint.

Football is undeniably the driver for your Tier One and Two contracts with ESPN, Fox, etc...

Correct. And this is why the ACC Network could potentially be the most successful of all.

At Louisville we pretty much are going to sellout the season tickets for 2013 and that is with an AAC Home Schedule...the feeling here is to get on board and more than likely we are looking @ a waiting list for Season Tickets by 2014.

Think about it @ Louisville...coming up in the coming years we will have Clemson, Florida State & Notre Dame.

As for this ranking from Conference 3 to Conference 5....newsflash it doesn't matter...if you are @ the Table you are get'n paid....bottom line period and the table set for the next 12 years.

(05-01-2013 01:58 PM)Maize Wrote:  At Louisville we pretty much are going to sellout the season tickets for 2013 and that is with an AAC Home Schedule...the feeling here is to get on board and more than likely we are looking @ a waiting list for Season Tickets by 2014.

Think about it @ Louisville...coming up in the coming years we will have Clemson, Florida State & Notre Dame.

As for this ranking from Conference 3 to Conference 5....newsflash it doesn't matter...if you are @ the Table you are get'n paid....bottom line period and the table set for the next 12 years.

If every ACC school does not sell out every ND home game it has, I will be very surprised. That should help the attendance averages a bit, right there.

I think that Louisville will continue to be a strong program under Charlie Strong (no pun intended).

Louisville coming to ACC venues should likewise help attendance.

(05-01-2013 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do not deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

Nope, I have nothing against the ACC and will call it as it is. I grew up in ACC territory and love ACC hoops. Football has always been weak but have fond memories of watching Maryland play at Byrd stadium against ACC foes.

ACC football television ratings will get a boost thanks to Notre Dame, that deal was a real coup for the ACC, probably saved it. Louisville is much more uncertain. They had a great year this past season but still finished in a 4-way tie for the Big East title, and the previous four years they were 4-7, 6-6, 7-5, and 5-7 playing in the Big East, so we don't know if 2012 is a harbinger of things to come or a temporary aberration. One thing the Cards have in common with the old ACC is that basketball is #1 on their campus and among their fans. That's one reason why ACC football struggles so much.

Why do you always have to add nonsense to your points to make them? Tell us, wise one, how the ACC would be doomed without a Notre Dame scheduling agreement.

(05-01-2013 01:49 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 01:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do not deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

The Big 12 was about the only conference that went up last year. All the commissioners are worried about a long-term decline. Students are not going in the numbers they used to. ACC is the most limited. They have a bunch of relatively small private schools, some of which are in pro sports markets, as well as Pitt and Georgia Tech. And 3 of their schools are in the same market. Their upside in attendance is limited.

Big 12 didn't go up. They had their smallest avg since 2005. You can't replace A&M/Missouri with TCU and West Va and not go down.

Keep this in mind, this ACC has these numbers and haven't even performed nearly what they should be. Pitt's stadium is 66k no reason why they can't avg 60. UNC has a 63k stadium to fill. Miami is over 70k+ they have room for improvement. Louisville's stadium currently seats 55k, but can expand to over 80k. I can guarantee you they will expand past 60k in the next 5 years.

The schools in the Big 12 this year, went up an average of 1,300 fans a game over what they had last year.

There are a lot of good reasons why Pitt can't average 60. Otherwise, they would. They've only hit 50k 3 times back to 1996. They've been as low as 30k in that time frame. Miami drew as little as 28k in a year they went 5-6. They have very fair weather fans. Both are in pro markets which means mediocre teams get horrible attendance. UNC has more potential, but they haven't hit 60k in that 1996-2012 time frame. And I've seen a picture of this year's spring game. If their stadium seats 63k, I'd say about 60,000 Tar Heels came disguised as empty seats.

(05-01-2013 09:43 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Not ACC math just letting you know how the numbers are inflated. Having Duke and Wake in the conference hurts attendance figures. It's the way that it is. The ACC doesn't have a 100k stadium to lift the numbers.

Can the SEC throw out Vandy and Kentucky too?

(05-01-2013 04:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 01:49 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 01:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 11:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  ND adds 5 nationally televised games to the ACC every year. Louisville is essentially the hottest name on the market right now. They've won an Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl in the last few years. They are what we would consider an up and coming program. They are going into a division to play Clemson and FSU every year. Those will be nationally televised if Lou continues their current trend. Syracuse was for basketball. I do not deny that. Pitt, I'm still skeptical about. I don't know what to make of them. With the right coach I believe they could win. I don't know if that's Chryst or not. Either way, Pitt does make for some attractive match ups with Virginia Tech, UVA, BC, Miami. The jury is still out on them.

As for the attendance thing, I believe the SEC's attendance will continue to grow. A&M is about to go over 100k on their stadium as an example. I believe the Big 12 will continue to drop some. WV and TCU can't make up for Missou and A&M. Big 10 will drop once they add Maryland and Rutgers. Pac 12 will be stagnate, but I do believe the ACC will rise by a good amount and will pass the Pac 12 soon. The problem is you insist on making the ACC #5 no matter the discussion. Even when they pass the Pac 12 in attendance you will still say they are #5

The Big 12 was about the only conference that went up last year. All the commissioners are worried about a long-term decline. Students are not going in the numbers they used to. ACC is the most limited. They have a bunch of relatively small private schools, some of which are in pro sports markets, as well as Pitt and Georgia Tech. And 3 of their schools are in the same market. Their upside in attendance is limited.

Big 12 didn't go up. They had their smallest avg since 2005. You can't replace A&M/Missouri with TCU and West Va and not go down.

Keep this in mind, this ACC has these numbers and haven't even performed nearly what they should be. Pitt's stadium is 66k no reason why they can't avg 60. UNC has a 63k stadium to fill. Miami is over 70k+ they have room for improvement. Louisville's stadium currently seats 55k, but can expand to over 80k. I can guarantee you they will expand past 60k in the next 5 years.

The schools in the Big 12 this year, went up an average of 1,300 fans a game over what they had last year.

There are a lot of good reasons why Pitt can't average 60. Otherwise, they would. They've only hit 50k 3 times back to 1996. They've been as low as 30k in that time frame. Miami drew as little as 28k in a year they went 5-6. They have very fair weather fans. Both are in pro markets which means mediocre teams get horrible attendance. UNC has more potential, but they haven't hit 60k in that 1996-2012 time frame. And I've seen a picture of this year's spring game. If their stadium seats 63k, I'd say about 60,000 Tar Heels came disguised as empty seats.

We were talking about the avg for the Big 12 dropping since the data presented was at the conference level, not the team level. Individually the schools may have more but 2012 has to account for the loss of two of the Big 12's more highly attended stadiums. Where the Big 12 is right now, it probably won't move much.

Second, UNC had 62k last year for the NCState game and 60 for ECU. 2 years ago had 60 for Miami. 3 years ago had 4 games with 60k. UNC will generally have a handful of games that will sellout each year. The problem is when they play either FCS opponents or bad teams.

As for Pitt, I believe they're attendance issues are a result of the league there were in. So they are going to be trading Temple, UConn, South Florida, Rutgers, etc. for FSU, Miami, VT, UNC, GT, Clemson, etc. That alone will increase attendance. But Pitt will have to win to consistently be over 60k. 55 is easily doable for them. This coming year they should avg 60 with her home schedule (unless they truly suck of course)

Miami is Miami. Fans are fickle. If they ever drew like they are supposed to then the ACC's attendance jumps. It should increase a little bit with Fla, ND, Nebraska coming in the next few years. Along with current ACC teams.