(03-20-2024 08:23 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  The problem for the ACC involves its small public schools and obviously so many private schools. These two things do NOT produce football ratings those writing the big checks desire.

The tide turned for the ACC when football overtook basketball in terms of TV worth.

Wasn't NFL football always much more valuable than the NBA despite the NBA having so many more games? It seems like the change shouldn't have been much of a shock.

(03-21-2024 07:47 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 08:23 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  The problem for the ACC involves its small public schools and obviously so many private schools. These two things do NOT produce football ratings those writing the big checks desire.

The tide turned for the ACC when football overtook basketball in terms of TV worth.

Wasn't NFL football always much more valuable than the NBA despite the NBA having so many more games? It seems like the change shouldn't have been much of a shock.

CORRECT.

TV value is non-linear. Twice the ratings is worth more than double.

At the turn of the century, the ACC's TV contract was roughly 50% basketball and 50% football. As college football inventory continued to be desired by Fox and ESPN, the P5 dollars earned for football went up. However, the value of ACC football just couldn't get out of its own way. Having smaller public schools and so many private schools meant the larger fan bases in the B1G and SEC would prove a hinderance when it came time for the ACC to seek more football money.

ESPN2 was fairly new, ESPNU came along. Then FS1, FS2 and all the Fox Regionals. Then when HDTV came about college football really took off.

But the value of ACC football just couldn't get any traction. That's why adding low viewed private schools, other than Miami, just made zero sense. I guess the ACC figured it could increase its basketball value to compensate for its football lagging behind. But that turned out to be a terrible decision because football kept pulling away from basketball in terms of how the networks viewed the two sports.

The only reason Cuse and BC were chosen was because the ACC had a vision to create a conference network. Having NY and Mass would help but by the time it got off the ground, linear networks were no longer a hot commodity thanks to streaming, and the ACC sold its soul to get something already outdated the first day it launched.

The ACC has made a bunch of big mistakes.

So here we are....

(03-21-2024 08:49 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  At the turn of the century, the ACC's TV contract was roughly 50% basketball and 50% football. As college football inventory continue to be desired by Fox and ESPN, the P5 dollars earned for football went up but the value of ACC football just wasn't there.

ESPN2 was fairly new, ESPNU came along. Then FS1, FS2 and all the Fox Regionals. Then when HDTV came about college football really took off.

But the value of ACC football just couldn't get any traction. That's why adding low viewed private schools, other than Miami, just made zero sense. I guess the ACC figured it could increase its basketball value to compensate for its football lagging behind. But that turned out to be a terrible decision because football kept pulling away from basketball in terms of how the networks viewed the two sports.

So here we are....

Don't forget the early 2000's was the dawning of the markets era. So Boston College was quite the hot commodity. Then of course with the ACCN, Syracuse (NY) and Pitt (PA) added value.

Had Virginia Tech, Miami, and Texas been added in 2003, well, we might be somewhere different. But that just wasn't realistic back then.

(03-21-2024 08:52 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 08:49 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  At the turn of the century, the ACC's TV contract was roughly 50% basketball and 50% football. As college football inventory continue to be desired by Fox and ESPN, the P5 dollars earned for football went up but the value of ACC football just wasn't there.

ESPN2 was fairly new, ESPNU came along. Then FS1, FS2 and all the Fox Regionals. Then when HDTV came about college football really took off.

But the value of ACC football just couldn't get any traction. That's why adding low viewed private schools, other than Miami, just made zero sense. I guess the ACC figured it could increase its basketball value to compensate for its football lagging behind. But that turned out to be a terrible decision because football kept pulling away from basketball in terms of how the networks viewed the two sports.

So here we are....

Don't forget the early 2000's was the dawning of the markets era. So Boston College was quite the hot commodity. Then of course with the ACCN, Syracuse (NY) and Pitt (PA) added value.

Had Virginia Tech, Miami, and Texas been added in 2003, well, we might be somewhere different. But that just wasn't realistic back then.

Yep...you caught me in the middle of an edit. Remember, the ACC's brain trust didn't even want VT which meant it was willing to trade a football power (at the time) with solid viewership in favor of a new market. This line of thinking was completely 180 degrees from what should have been considered.

You could make the argument that nobody had a crystal ball lying around....but.....TV inventory for the big boy networks (ESPN, Fox) should have always been in favor over building a conference network. Remember too, until the B1G partnered with FOX to create their own network in 2007?, conferences were still considering creating a network on their own like the PAC did.

And we saw how that worked out for the PAC when their low ratings didn't justify many cable/satellite carriers from picking up national distribution. The ACC would have suffered the same fate as the PAC had we tried to create our own network. The soft football ratings resulting from the expansion choices (small privates) would have turned away national carriers just the same.

In retrospect, as I have said on here for years, the ACC should have poached the largest "football schools/fan bases" it could have gotten at the time and thrown markets out the window.

Then there's final piece to all of this....

VT, Miami and FSU tanked after about 2005. That didn't help the perception of the conference...fair or not.

Fortunately FSU rebounded and Clemson showed up on the scene. Hopefully others will join this fall.

(03-21-2024 08:49 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  At the turn of the century, the ACC's TV contract was roughly 50% basketball and 50% football. As college football inventory continued to be desired by Fox and ESPN, the P5 dollars earned for football went up. However, the value of ACC football just couldn't get out of its own way. Having smaller public schools and so many private schools meant the larger fan bases in the B1G and SEC would prove a hinderance when it came time for the ACC to seek more football money.

True, but the ACC could've tried to mitigate that problem - but didn't (not even using the divisions to create the best TV matchups, but rather, focusing on some idea of fairness).

Quote:But the value of ACC football just couldn't get any traction. That's why adding low viewed private schools, other than Miami, just made zero sense. I guess the ACC figured it could increase its basketball value to compensate for its football lagging behind. But that turned out to be a terrible decision because football kept pulling away from basketball in terms of how the networks viewed the two sports.

I don't think ANY of the expansion teams were added primarily for basketball. Cuse might be the closest, but they were primarily a market add, IMO.

Quote:The only reason Cuse and BC were chosen was because the ACC had a vision to create a conference network. Having NY and Mass would help but by the time it got off the ground, linear networks were no longer a hot commodity thanks to streaming, and the ACC sold its soul to get something already outdated the first day it launched.

Had the ACC not made the foolish sublicensing deal with Raycom - worse yet, through ESPN! - they might have been able to launch the ACCN during peak cable years.

I always thought that once the ACC got to 14 members a Big East/ACC split made the most sense for TV.

North / Big East - Miami, VT, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and UVA (they're kind of the odd man out here but they get VT and can have a permanent cross-division rival in UNC)

South / ACC - NCSU, UNC, Duke, Wake, Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU (cross division rival is Miami)

I never understood why they couldn't agree to that. The north division would still get a school in Florida and 2 football powers in VT and Miami. Pittsburgh is still a good recruiting location. Both divisions would've preserved the natural rivalries as much as possible.

(03-21-2024 10:27 AM)b2b Wrote:  I always thought that once the ACC got to 14 members a Big East/ACC split made the most sense for TV.

North / Big East - Miami, VT, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and UVA (they're kind of the odd man out here but they get VT and can have a permanent cross-division rival in UNC)

South / ACC - NCSU, UNC, Duke, Wake, Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU (cross division rival is Miami)

I never understood why they couldn't agree to that. The north division would still get a school in Florida and 2 football powers in VT and Miami. Pittsburgh is still a good recruiting location. Both divisions would've preserved the natural rivalries as much as possible.

Because the divisions were put in place to satisfy Dook, UVa and UNC. Dook also wanted to keep playing GT and UVa obviously wanted VT to stay an annual game.

I also seem to remember the BE fans did not want to play in a division that was basically the Big East.

Lots of blame to go around for the money woes and wondering why our conference games struggle to get over a million viewers. I don’t really blame any particular school except when they push back on something that wouid have helped the overall health of the conference.

(03-21-2024 08:49 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  At the turn of the century, the ACC's TV contract was roughly 50% basketball and 50% football. As college football inventory continued to be desired by Fox and ESPN, the P5 dollars earned for football went up. However, the value of ACC football just couldn't get out of its own way. Having smaller public schools and so many private schools meant the larger fan bases in the B1G and SEC would prove a hinderance when it came time for the ACC to seek more football money.

ESPN2 was fairly new, ESPNU came along. Then FS1, FS2 and all the Fox Regionals. Then when HDTV came about college football really took off.

But the value of ACC football just couldn't get any traction. That's why adding low viewed private schools, other than Miami, just made zero sense. I guess the ACC figured it could increase its basketball value to compensate for its football lagging behind. But that turned out to be a terrible decision because football kept pulling away from basketball in terms of how the networks viewed the two sports.

The only reason Cuse and BC were chosen was because the ACC had a vision to create a conference network. Having NY and Mass would help but by the time it got off the ground, linear networks were no longer a hot commodity thanks to streaming, and the ACC sold its soul to get something already outdated the first day it launched.

The ACC has made a bunch of big mistakes.

So here we are....

You are missing the bigger picture. What drives the astronomical payouts are the biggest brands. You need Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama and/or Georgia. It is the massive football brands get viewership. It is the massive football brands that are driving the bus and making the rules.

Recognize that Texas and Oklahoma couldn't adequately hold together their conference at an elite level (and they had Nebraska, Texas A&M, et al as supporting brands). The Rocky Mountains couldn't protect the PAC, as western football brands needed to tie their fortunes to bigger players.

I'm not suggesting that the ACC didn't make mistakes. The much bigger problem is that other conferences are separating themselves financially because they have brands that are at a completely different level. FSU and Clemson (and TBD UNC & NCS) have determined that they don't want the risk associated with being outside the P2.

(03-21-2024 11:14 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 08:49 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  At the turn of the century, the ACC's TV contract was roughly 50% basketball and 50% football. As college football inventory continued to be desired by Fox and ESPN, the P5 dollars earned for football went up. However, the value of ACC football just couldn't get out of its own way. Having smaller public schools and so many private schools meant the larger fan bases in the B1G and SEC would prove a hinderance when it came time for the ACC to seek more football money.

ESPN2 was fairly new, ESPNU came along. Then FS1, FS2 and all the Fox Regionals. Then when HDTV came about college football really took off.

But the value of ACC football just couldn't get any traction. That's why adding low viewed private schools, other than Miami, just made zero sense. I guess the ACC figured it could increase its basketball value to compensate for its football lagging behind. But that turned out to be a terrible decision because football kept pulling away from basketball in terms of how the networks viewed the two sports.

The only reason Cuse and BC were chosen was because the ACC had a vision to create a conference network. Having NY and Mass would help but by the time it got off the ground, linear networks were no longer a hot commodity thanks to streaming, and the ACC sold its soul to get something already outdated the first day it launched.

The ACC has made a bunch of big mistakes.

So here we are....

You are missing the bigger picture. What drives the astronomical payouts are the biggest brands. You need Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama and/or Georgia. It is the massive football brands get viewership. It is the massive football brands that are driving the bus and making the rules.

Recognize that Texas and Oklahoma couldn't adequately hold together their conference at an elite level (and they had Nebraska, Texas A&M, et al as supporting brands). The Rocky Mountains couldn't protect the PAC, as western football brands needed to tie their fortunes to bigger players.

I'm not suggesting that the ACC didn't make mistakes. The much bigger problem is that other conferences are separating themselves financially because they have brands that are at a completely different level. FSU and Clemson (and TBD UNC & NCS) have determined that they don't want the risk associated with being outside the P2.

This view has been repeated many times on this board, but it fails to recognize an important truth: it's T-shirt fans, not alumni, that matter most. Notre Dame is one of the smallest schools in the ACC, yet their T-shirt fandom is enormous. Saying the ACC never had a chance is a total cop-out. It still can compete, but past decisions have made it much, much harder now.

(03-21-2024 10:53 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I also seem to remember the BE fans did not want to play in a division that was basically the Big East.

Lots of blame to go around for the money woes and wondering why our conference games struggle to get over a million viewers. I don’t really blame any particular school except when they push back on something that wouid have helped the overall health of the conference.

Most Pitt and SU fans were excited to be in the ACC. They thought they would be playing VT and Miami regularly. That did not happen. Maybe the VT and Miami fans didnt want to play the other BE teams, but that would have been a far better setup than what the ACC had in the past. I get much more excited playing former BE teams in the ACC because its what I am used to.

(03-21-2024 10:33 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 10:27 AM)b2b Wrote:  I always thought that once the ACC got to 14 members a Big East/ACC split made the most sense for TV.

North / Big East - Miami, VT, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and UVA (they're kind of the odd man out here but they get VT and can have a permanent cross-division rival in UNC)

South / ACC - NCSU, UNC, Duke, Wake, Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU (cross division rival is Miami)

I never understood why they couldn't agree to that. The north division would still get a school in Florida and 2 football powers in VT and Miami. Pittsburgh is still a good recruiting location. Both divisions would've preserved the natural rivalries as much as possible.

Because the divisions were put in place to satisfy Dook, UVa and UNC. Dook also wanted to keep playing GT and UVa obviously wanted VT to stay an annual game.

The other members should've put their foot down if that's the case. The only thing that couldn't be accomplished with that setup is a yearly game for Duke vs UVA. Duke shouldn't get that much pull in football. Ridiculous.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

(03-21-2024 03:50 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 10:53 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I also seem to remember the BE fans did not want to play in a division that was basically the Big East.

Lots of blame to go around for the money woes and wondering why our conference games struggle to get over a million viewers. I don’t really blame any particular school except when they push back on something that wouid have helped the overall health of the conference.

Most Pitt and SU fans were excited to be in the ACC. They thought they would be playing VT and Miami regularly. That did not happen. Maybe the VT and Miami fans didnt want to play the other BE teams, but that would have been a far better setup than what the ACC had in the past. I get much more excited playing former BE teams in the ACC because its what I am used to.

Big East (North except Miami) / ACC (South) divisions would've accomplished that too.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

(03-21-2024 03:50 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 10:53 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I also seem to remember the BE fans did not want to play in a division that was basically the Big East.

Lots of blame to go around for the money woes and wondering why our conference games struggle to get over a million viewers. I don’t really blame any particular school except when they push back on something that wouid have helped the overall health of the conference.

Most Pitt and SU fans were excited to be in the ACC. They thought they would be playing VT and Miami regularly. That did not happen. Maybe the VT and Miami fans didnt want to play the other BE teams, but that would have been a far better setup than what the ACC had in the past. I get much more excited playing former BE teams in the ACC because its what I am used to.

2013/14 should have been the year we did the division shuffle and applied some of the lessons learned from the previous 8 or 9. The ACC could have literally done anything else and it would have been better. I specifically remember a VT fan not liking a division made of the old BE, I'm pretty sure I gauged the interest of other folks around that time and they seemed pretty unanimous that they did not want a BE division.

Before UMd exodus:

FSU - UM
UNC - UVA
Duke- UMd
GT - SU
NCSU- Pitt
Wake- BC
Clem- VT

After UMd exodus

FSU - UM
UNC - UVA
Duke-SU
GT - Pitt
NCSU- UL
Wake- BC
Clem- VT

The big thing that jumps out immediately is the new annual games of FSU vs GT, FSU vs UNC, Clem vs VT, even UMd vs VT has some appeal, those in addition to the big ratings stalwarts of FSU vs Clem, FSU vs UM. I think under this scenario VT, Miami and GT's brands would not have diminished and UNC's football image would have improved with regular games vs FSU and Clem. The contract at this point was already signed, so it would not help the media money problem, but possibly the image problem of the ACC that ultimately got us much less than the B1G and SEC.