https://richmond.com/sports/college/teel...12bc9.html

Quote:In short, give fans, advertisers and ESPN, the conference’s media partner, more reasons to care about ACC football.

With small, private schools such as Duke, Wake Forest, Syracuse and Boston College across the footprint, the ACC will never match the SEC and Big Ten’s larger enrollments and followings, but its teams sure can win more games.

Three-time national champion Florida State is in a five-year funk and lost at home last season to Jacksonville State. Pittsburgh stumbled at home against Western Michigan in 2021 before winning its first ACC title.

Collectively, the ACC went 8-18 last year versus Notre Dame and non-conference Power Five opponents.

Miami has won more national football championships (five) than any ACC program, but since joining the conference in 2004, the Hurricanes haven’t finished among the Associated Press’ top 10.

Virginia Tech closed in the top 25 every season from 2004-11. Since, the Hokies have declined to mediocrity.

Virginia hasn’t produced consecutive winning ACC records since 1999 and 2000, George Welsh’s final two seasons as coach. Neither North Carolina nor N.C. State has won a conference title in the last 40 years.

I feel sorry for Teel. Since Swofford retired, Teel is no longer the "official" leak, and has struggled to be a relevant voice.

(07-22-2022 04:08 AM)Alanda Wrote:  https://richmond.com/sports/college/teel...12bc9.html

Quote:In short, give fans, advertisers and ESPN, the conference’s media partner, more reasons to care about ACC football.

With small, private schools such as Duke, Wake Forest, Syracuse and Boston College across the footprint, the ACC will never match the SEC and Big Ten’s larger enrollments and followings, but its teams sure can win more games.

Three-time national champion Florida State is in a five-year funk and lost at home last season to Jacksonville State. Pittsburgh stumbled at home against Western Michigan in 2021 before winning its first ACC title.

Collectively, the ACC went 8-18 last year versus Notre Dame and non-conference Power Five opponents.

Miami has won more national football championships (five) than any ACC program, but since joining the conference in 2004, the Hurricanes haven’t finished among the Associated Press’ top 10.

Virginia Tech closed in the top 25 every season from 2004-11. Since, the Hokies have declined to mediocrity.

Virginia hasn’t produced consecutive winning ACC records since 1999 and 2000, George Welsh’s final two seasons as coach. Neither North Carolina nor N.C. State has won a conference title in the last 40 years.

Winning big solves a lot.

(07-22-2022 06:40 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  Winning big solves a lot.

Does it?

If, say, Miami, FSU and Virginia Tech all of a sudden got back to being really good and joined Clemson as a Top 10-caliber program, would those schools be any less enticed by the bright lights and big money of the $EC or the B1G?

John Swofford's long-term and low-dollar media rights deal was the beginning of the end

(07-22-2022 04:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  I feel sorry for Teel. Since Swofford retired, Teel is no longer the "official" leak, and has struggled to be a relevant voice.

It seems like most reporters from traditional media outlets have really struggled to grasp realignment coverage.

Much of what we tend to see is creaky columnists saying "isn't it a shame" or "somebody needs to do something"

(07-22-2022 06:51 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 06:40 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  Winning big solves a lot.

Does it?

If, say, Miami, FSU and Virginia Tech all of a sudden got back to being really good and joined Clemson as a Top 10-caliber program, would those schools be any less enticed by the bright lights and big money of the $EC or the B1G?

John Swofford's long-term and low-dollar media rights deal was the beginning of the end

I doubt the TV partner would rip up the deal and give them more money. However if the TV deal was expiring in 3 years and you had 3 ACC teams making the playoffs and or winning the National Championship it would most certainly help to garner more money in a new TV deal.

When the majority of the ACC was somewhat on par financially with the SEC/B1G...it didn't result in wins, investment or passion by most of the members. Why would anyone think it's going to happen now?!

(07-22-2022 06:51 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  If, say, Miami, FSU and Virginia Tech all of a sudden got back to being really good and joined Clemson as a Top 10-caliber program, would those schools be any less enticed by the bright lights and big money of the $EC or the B1G?

John Swofford's long-term and low-dollar media rights deal was the beginning of the end

(07-22-2022 07:47 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  When the majority of the ACC was somewhat on par financially with the SEC/B1G...it didn't result in wins, investment or passion by most of the members. Why would anyone think it's going to happen now?!

OK, time to man up, support your team, control what you can and stop worrying about what you can't.

You guys are fans of two of the most successful football programs on the past 40 years, built on 5 home games/year and hardly any TV and no conference revenue.

Besides all that, FSU and Miami probably both have seats at the big boy table no matter what (my school is a maybe).

We ALL know the situation, but doomsaying never helped anything.

(07-22-2022 07:02 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 06:51 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 06:40 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  Winning big solves a lot.

Does it?

If, say, Miami, FSU and Virginia Tech all of a sudden got back to being really good and joined Clemson as a Top 10-caliber program, would those schools be any less enticed by the bright lights and big money of the $EC or the B1G?

John Swofford's long-term and low-dollar media rights deal was the beginning of the end

I doubt the TV partner would rip up the deal and give them more money. However if the TV deal was expiring in 3 years and you had 3 ACC teams making the playoffs and or winning the National Championship it would most certainly help to garner more money in a new TV deal.

I agree, but the problem is, that new TV deal is 13 years away, a lifetime ahead of us.

Overall, I do not think ACC problems can be solved by winning more football games. With the exception of 2019, a bad year, ACC football has been fine on the field the last eight years, and I'm not just talking about Clemson. Top to bottom, IMO the ACC has been a very solid, and occasionally very good, P5 conference. Its football IMO has a worse public reputation than it actually deserves.

The ACC problem was not caused by bad football IMO so it can't be solved by better football. It is strictly financial, in terms of what it is receiving from its media deal.

(07-22-2022 10:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 07:02 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 06:51 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 06:40 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  Winning big solves a lot.

Does it?

If, say, Miami, FSU and Virginia Tech all of a sudden got back to being really good and joined Clemson as a Top 10-caliber program, would those schools be any less enticed by the bright lights and big money of the $EC or the B1G?

John Swofford's long-term and low-dollar media rights deal was the beginning of the end

I doubt the TV partner would rip up the deal and give them more money. However if the TV deal was expiring in 3 years and you had 3 ACC teams making the playoffs and or winning the National Championship it would most certainly help to garner more money in a new TV deal.

I agree, but the problem is, that new TV deal is 13 years away, a lifetime ahead of us.

Overall, I do not think ACC problems can be solved by winning more football games. With the exception of 2019, a bad year, ACC football has been fine on the field the last eight years, and I'm not just talking about Clemson. Top to bottom, IMO the ACC has been a very solid, and occasionally very good, P5 conference. Its football IMO has a worse public reputation than it actually deserves.

The ACC problem was not caused by bad football IMO so it can't be solved by better football. It is strictly financial, in terms of what it is receiving from its media deal.

Agreed. ACC football could have 6 schools in the top ten every year and be big TV draws, and for 14 years ESPN can look at them across the negotiating table, smile, say that is nice, but we have you under contract at the current rate and we are not changing it.

ESPN may throw a couple of bucks at the "look ins", but nothing that really means anything.

(07-22-2022 10:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 07:02 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 06:51 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 06:40 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  Winning big solves a lot.

Does it?

If, say, Miami, FSU and Virginia Tech all of a sudden got back to being really good and joined Clemson as a Top 10-caliber program, would those schools be any less enticed by the bright lights and big money of the $EC or the B1G?

John Swofford's long-term and low-dollar media rights deal was the beginning of the end

I doubt the TV partner would rip up the deal and give them more money. However if the TV deal was expiring in 3 years and you had 3 ACC teams making the playoffs and or winning the National Championship it would most certainly help to garner more money in a new TV deal.

I agree, but the problem is, that new TV deal is 13 years away, a lifetime ahead of us.

Overall, I do not think ACC problems can be solved by winning more football games. With the exception of 2019, a bad year, ACC football has been fine on the field the last eight years, and I'm not just talking about Clemson. Top to bottom, IMO the ACC has been a very solid, and occasionally very good, P5 conference. Its football IMO has a worse public reputation than it actually deserves.

The ACC problem was not caused by bad football IMO so it can't be solved by better football. It is strictly financial, in terms of what it is receiving from its media deal.

The problem is that SEC and Big 10 are winning the arms race with talent because they are getting paid more money. The problem is the unequal pay for all the schools is harming all the conference. I would say all FBS and several FCS schools are worth money, but you have the greediness of certain schools in the Big 10 and SEC for more money is causing all of this. And it needs to end. You have terrible teams in these conferences who are not worth the money that they are making while others in ACC, PAC 12, Big 12, AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, SBC, Independents and some FCS schools like North Dakota State, South Dakota State, JMU, etc are making less than terrible teams.

(07-22-2022 07:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 06:51 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  If, say, Miami, FSU and Virginia Tech all of a sudden got back to being really good and joined Clemson as a Top 10-caliber program, would those schools be any less enticed by the bright lights and big money of the $EC or the B1G?

John Swofford's long-term and low-dollar media rights deal was the beginning of the end

(07-22-2022 07:47 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  When the majority of the ACC was somewhat on par financially with the SEC/B1G...it didn't result in wins, investment or passion by most of the members. Why would anyone think it's going to happen now?!

OK, time to man up, support your team, control what you can and stop worrying about what you can't.

You guys are fans of two of the most successful football programs on the past 40 years, built on 5 home games/year and hardly any TV and no conference revenue.

Besides all that, FSU and Miami probably both have seats at the big boy table no matter what (my school is a maybe).

We ALL know the situation, but doomsaying never helped anything.

Pour this man a drink!

(07-23-2022 08:40 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 10:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 07:02 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 06:51 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 06:40 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  Winning big solves a lot.

Does it?

If, say, Miami, FSU and Virginia Tech all of a sudden got back to being really good and joined Clemson as a Top 10-caliber program, would those schools be any less enticed by the bright lights and big money of the $EC or the B1G?

John Swofford's long-term and low-dollar media rights deal was the beginning of the end

I doubt the TV partner would rip up the deal and give them more money. However if the TV deal was expiring in 3 years and you had 3 ACC teams making the playoffs and or winning the National Championship it would most certainly help to garner more money in a new TV deal.

I agree, but the problem is, that new TV deal is 13 years away, a lifetime ahead of us.

Overall, I do not think ACC problems can be solved by winning more football games. With the exception of 2019, a bad year, ACC football has been fine on the field the last eight years, and I'm not just talking about Clemson. Top to bottom, IMO the ACC has been a very solid, and occasionally very good, P5 conference. Its football IMO has a worse public reputation than it actually deserves.

The ACC problem was not caused by bad football IMO so it can't be solved by better football. It is strictly financial, in terms of what it is receiving from its media deal.

The problem is that SEC and Big 10 are winning the arms race with talent because they are getting paid more money. The problem is the unequal pay for all the schools is harming all the conference. I would say all FBS and several FCS schools are worth money, but you have the greediness of certain schools in the Big 10 and SEC for more money is causing all of this. And it needs to end. You have terrible teams in these conferences who are not worth the money that they are making while others in ACC, PAC 12, Big 12, AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, SBC, Independents and some FCS schools like North Dakota State, South Dakota State, JMU, etc are making less than terrible teams.

About the bolded, I think you provide a good reminder (for me at least) about a big shift in talent that has occurred: Before 2016, the ACC frequently had more players drafted than the B1G. Not every year, but a goodly amount of the time.

Since 2016, the B1G has clearly moved ahead of the ACC in talent, at least as measured by draft picks. IIRC, the B1G has been #2, behind the SEC, in draft picks every year since.

(07-23-2022 11:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 08:40 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 10:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 07:02 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 06:51 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Does it?

If, say, Miami, FSU and Virginia Tech all of a sudden got back to being really good and joined Clemson as a Top 10-caliber program, would those schools be any less enticed by the bright lights and big money of the $EC or the B1G?

John Swofford's long-term and low-dollar media rights deal was the beginning of the end

I doubt the TV partner would rip up the deal and give them more money. However if the TV deal was expiring in 3 years and you had 3 ACC teams making the playoffs and or winning the National Championship it would most certainly help to garner more money in a new TV deal.

I agree, but the problem is, that new TV deal is 13 years away, a lifetime ahead of us.

Overall, I do not think ACC problems can be solved by winning more football games. With the exception of 2019, a bad year, ACC football has been fine on the field the last eight years, and I'm not just talking about Clemson. Top to bottom, IMO the ACC has been a very solid, and occasionally very good, P5 conference. Its football IMO has a worse public reputation than it actually deserves.

The ACC problem was not caused by bad football IMO so it can't be solved by better football. It is strictly financial, in terms of what it is receiving from its media deal.

The problem is that SEC and Big 10 are winning the arms race with talent because they are getting paid more money. The problem is the unequal pay for all the schools is harming all the conference. I would say all FBS and several FCS schools are worth money, but you have the greediness of certain schools in the Big 10 and SEC for more money is causing all of this. And it needs to end. You have terrible teams in these conferences who are not worth the money that they are making while others in ACC, PAC 12, Big 12, AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, SBC, Independents and some FCS schools like North Dakota State, South Dakota State, JMU, etc are making less than terrible teams.

About the bolded, I think you provide a good reminder (for me at least) about a big shift in talent that has occurred: Before 2016, the ACC frequently had more players drafted than the B1G. Not every year, but a goodly amount of the time.

Since 2016, the B1G has clearly moved ahead of the ACC in talent, at least as measured by draft picks. IIRC, the B1G has been #2, behind the SEC, in draft picks every year since.

https://collegefootballnews.com/2021/05/...m-analysis

And in 2022's draft SEC-65, B1G-48, PAC & BigXII-25, ACC-21. The talent disparity between the P2 and little3 is obvious and growing.

(07-23-2022 12:11 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 11:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 08:40 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 10:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 07:02 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  I doubt the TV partner would rip up the deal and give them more money. However if the TV deal was expiring in 3 years and you had 3 ACC teams making the playoffs and or winning the National Championship it would most certainly help to garner more money in a new TV deal.

I agree, but the problem is, that new TV deal is 13 years away, a lifetime ahead of us.

Overall, I do not think ACC problems can be solved by winning more football games. With the exception of 2019, a bad year, ACC football has been fine on the field the last eight years, and I'm not just talking about Clemson. Top to bottom, IMO the ACC has been a very solid, and occasionally very good, P5 conference. Its football IMO has a worse public reputation than it actually deserves.

The ACC problem was not caused by bad football IMO so it can't be solved by better football. It is strictly financial, in terms of what it is receiving from its media deal.

The problem is that SEC and Big 10 are winning the arms race with talent because they are getting paid more money. The problem is the unequal pay for all the schools is harming all the conference. I would say all FBS and several FCS schools are worth money, but you have the greediness of certain schools in the Big 10 and SEC for more money is causing all of this. And it needs to end. You have terrible teams in these conferences who are not worth the money that they are making while others in ACC, PAC 12, Big 12, AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, SBC, Independents and some FCS schools like North Dakota State, South Dakota State, JMU, etc are making less than terrible teams.

About the bolded, I think you provide a good reminder (for me at least) about a big shift in talent that has occurred: Before 2016, the ACC frequently had more players drafted than the B1G. Not every year, but a goodly amount of the time.

Since 2016, the B1G has clearly moved ahead of the ACC in talent, at least as measured by draft picks. IIRC, the B1G has been #2, behind the SEC, in draft picks every year since.

https://collegefootballnews.com/2021/05/...m-analysis

And in 2022's draft SEC-65, B1G-48, PAC & BigXII-25, ACC-21. The talent disparity between the P2 and little3 is obvious and growing.

Interesting article.

One thing that stood out - in CUSA, between 2017-2021, LA Tech, which was passed over by the AAC, had more NFL draft picks (8) than FAU, UNT, UTSA, UAB and Rice combined (7). Throw in Charlotte, with two, and its 9 to 8 for the AAC adds.

(07-23-2022 05:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 12:11 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 11:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Before 2016, the ACC frequently had more players drafted than the B1G. Not every year, but a goodly amount of the time.

Since 2016, the B1G has clearly moved ahead of the ACC in talent, at least as measured by draft picks. IIRC, the B1G has been #2, behind the SEC, in draft picks every year since.

https://collegefootballnews.com/2021/05/...m-analysis

And in 2022's draft SEC-65, B1G-48, PAC & BigXII-25, ACC-21. The talent disparity between the P2 and little3 is obvious and growing.

in CUSA, between 2017-2021, LA Tech, which was passed over by the AAC, had more NFL draft picks (8) than FAU, UNT, UTSA, UAB and Rice combined (7). Throw in Charlotte, with two, and its 9 to 8 for the AAC adds.

Does that data reflect who a player signed with out of high school, or who they played for “last” before getting drafted? I realize that compiling this sort of data can be tedious, but that would be useful information to have when considering what programs are attracting the top talent out of high school, vs. which programs a player may settle for as a transfer.

(07-23-2022 06:13 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 05:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 12:11 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 11:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Before 2016, the ACC frequently had more players drafted than the B1G. Not every year, but a goodly amount of the time.

Since 2016, the B1G has clearly moved ahead of the ACC in talent, at least as measured by draft picks. IIRC, the B1G has been #2, behind the SEC, in draft picks every year since.

https://collegefootballnews.com/2021/05/...m-analysis

And in 2022's draft SEC-65, B1G-48, PAC & BigXII-25, ACC-21. The talent disparity between the P2 and little3 is obvious and growing.

in CUSA, between 2017-2021, LA Tech, which was passed over by the AAC, had more NFL draft picks (8) than FAU, UNT, UTSA, UAB and Rice combined (7). Throw in Charlotte, with two, and its 9 to 8 for the AAC adds.

Does that data reflect who a player signed with out of high school, or who they played for “last” before getting drafted? I realize that compiling this sort of data can be tedious, but that would be useful information to have when considering what programs are attracting the top talent out of high school, vs. which programs a player may settle for as a transfer.

I do not know.

Another thing I found interesting is that ULL also had 7 draft picks during that time, way more than any of the new AAC schools.

That's noteworthy to me because it means ULL and LA-Tech have been able to recruit reasonably well, despite the looming presence of LSU in their state.

In contrast, the new AAC Texas schools - UNT, UTSA and Rice - haven't been able to do anything, despite Texas being much larger. The presence of multiple P5 programs might be just too much, crowding them out. Ditto for FAU in Florida, also crowded with P5 schools.

It may have been a blunder for the AAC to backfill in large states, like Texas, Florida and North Carolina, that unfortunately also have multiple P5 schools, not giving the AAC schools much breathing room. UAB also has to contend with both Auburn and Alabama in their state.

We'll see.