(01-04-2012 09:22 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Why does everyone assume the end game is for conferences of 16 or that all the power conferences want to go beyond 12 schools? The PAC is stuck at 12 unless it can poach the Big12. NFW does Boise, CSU or any MWC team gets into the PAC. Utah was the best get and there is no one else the PAC is interested in.

Agree about 16 not necessarily being the end-game for conferences. I still believe that the Pac-16 has a 50/50 chance of coming about with the Texahoma schools, mainly because I think the LHN will ultimately prove to be a failure in the long run.

The real problem with four 16-team conferences as an end-game strategy will be with the BiG and the ACC. The loser of the ND sweepstakes between the two simply will not want to expand the four or two extra teams required to get to 16 without the Irish for academic reasons more so than for athletic reasons.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-05-2012 11:43 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 04:43 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  I have asked this question many times as well. The fact remains that there has not been a single 16+ team model put forward where the payout per school does not result in LESS per institution. If the conferences could increase their PER SCHOOL payouts by going to 16, it would already have been done by now.

My theory is that fans who perceive their schools will benefit from a move to 16 will ignore the obvious financial drawbacks of such an action. This is why, for example, you have some Uconn and RU fans claiming the ACC "must" go to 16 to pre-empt the B10 and "lock up the East Coast." Of course, this is a fine stategy if you are playing Monopoly or planning a military campaign. In the business of college sports, however, such notions are worthless if they result in less of a payout per school. THE ONLY thing that matters is the payout per school and, in the ACC's case, unless ND is one of the 15 and 16, going beyond 14 makes zero financial sense, regardless of what other conferences do.

I do happen to agree with this but as with any situation conditions are fluid. If suddenly a Rutgers & UConn package increased payouts in a substantial enough way and ND isn't budging they MIGHT opt to lock up the East Coast.

Unfortunately, the best avenue to have helped Rutgers and UConn achieve this status was with a relatively healthy and stable Big East for another decade or so.

Fortunately, for SU at least, the ACC didn't wait. So I'm not complaining.

Cheers,
Neil

Are we good enough yet?

(01-05-2012 10:31 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  Are we good enough yet?

Temple basketball will always be attractive. And I have no doubt that SU, Pitt, Maryland, Duke, and UNC would all love to have a Philly presence in the league for basketball reasons. I'd include BC in that grouping but then they seem to have forgotten how to play.

But the plain truth of the matter is that Temple's academics is a non-starter for this conference. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm an advocate for WVU to the ACC. So obviously I don't care.

Cheers,
Neil

lol

(01-04-2012 04:43 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 09:22 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-03-2012 10:42 AM)Rabonchild Wrote:  When the ACC goes to 16 and the Big 12 goes to 14 and most of the teams come from the Big East; that will open the door for the new conference that is being discussed as per an AD from one of the schools on the outside looking in. The new conference may not be AQ but it will make sense as an East Coast Conference. The (ACE) "Athletic Conference of the East". Buffalo, UMASS, Temple, Marshall, ECU, Middle TN, UAB, S. Miss, FAU, (Navy & Army wish list), Delaware, Charlotte, Georgia St.

Why does everyone assume the end game is for conferences of 16 or that all the power conferences want to go beyond 12 schools? The PAC is stuck at 12 unless it can poach the Big12. NFW does Boise, CSU or any MWC team gets into the PAC. Utah was the best get and there is no one else the PAC is interested in.

I have asked this question many times as well. The fact remains that there has not been a single 16+ team model put forward where the payout per school does not result in LESS per institution. If the conferences could increase their PER SCHOOL payouts by going to 16, it would already have been done by now.

My theory is that fans who perceive their schools will benefit from a move to 16 will ignore the obvious financial drawbacks of such an action. This is why, for example, you have some Uconn and RU fans claiming the ACC "must" go to 16 to pre-empt the B10 and "lock up the East Coast." Of course, this is a fine stategy if you are playing Monopoly or planning a military campaign. In the business of college sports, however, such notions are worthless if they result in less of a payout per school. THE ONLY thing that matters is the payout per school and, in the ACC's case, unless ND is one of the 15 and 16, going beyond 14 makes zero financial sense, regardless of what other conferences do.

I think if you look at the future streams of revenue, it would make sense for the ACC to add Rutgers and UConn (assuming Notre Dame would turn down the ACC first). This would do two things: prevent B1G from poaching these two teams and it would give the ACC two more markets.
In the short term perhaps it would not add more dollars per school but what happens if the ACC decided to build a cable TV network. Having two extra wealthy states in the ACC footprint certainly would help. It would help to capture the NYC market and a position on its cable TV dial. This would add big $$$ down the road.
There are other sources of income that the ACC could build upon, pay per view, deals with Verizon and AT&T for content. Exclusive TV converage for mobile phone subscribers. The thing is that these new sources of revenue require more people and more exposure. This could be achieved by locking up the entire east coast. Advertisers would certainly like this and would be more willing to pay higher rates for ACC content.

(01-06-2012 02:50 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 04:43 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 09:22 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-03-2012 10:42 AM)Rabonchild Wrote:  When the ACC goes to 16 and the Big 12 goes to 14 and most of the teams come from the Big East; that will open the door for the new conference that is being discussed as per an AD from one of the schools on the outside looking in. The new conference may not be AQ but it will make sense as an East Coast Conference. The (ACE) "Athletic Conference of the East". Buffalo, UMASS, Temple, Marshall, ECU, Middle TN, UAB, S. Miss, FAU, (Navy & Army wish list), Delaware, Charlotte, Georgia St.

Why does everyone assume the end game is for conferences of 16 or that all the power conferences want to go beyond 12 schools? The PAC is stuck at 12 unless it can poach the Big12. NFW does Boise, CSU or any MWC team gets into the PAC. Utah was the best get and there is no one else the PAC is interested in.

I have asked this question many times as well. The fact remains that there has not been a single 16+ team model put forward where the payout per school does not result in LESS per institution. If the conferences could increase their PER SCHOOL payouts by going to 16, it would already have been done by now.

My theory is that fans who perceive their schools will benefit from a move to 16 will ignore the obvious financial drawbacks of such an action. This is why, for example, you have some Uconn and RU fans claiming the ACC "must" go to 16 to pre-empt the B10 and "lock up the East Coast." Of course, this is a fine stategy if you are playing Monopoly or planning a military campaign. In the business of college sports, however, such notions are worthless if they result in less of a payout per school. THE ONLY thing that matters is the payout per school and, in the ACC's case, unless ND is one of the 15 and 16, going beyond 14 makes zero financial sense, regardless of what other conferences do.

I think if you look at the future streams of revenue, it would make sense for the ACC to add Rutgers and UConn (assuming Notre Dame would turn down the ACC first). This would do two things: prevent B1G from poaching these two teams and it would give the ACC two more markets.
In the short term perhaps it would not add more dollars per school but what happens if the ACC decided to build a cable TV network. Having two extra wealthy states in the ACC footprint certainly would help. It would help to capture the NYC market and a position on its cable TV dial. This would add big $$$ down the road.
There are other sources of income that the ACC could build upon, pay per view, deals with Verizon and AT&T for content. Exclusive TV converage for mobile phone subscribers. The thing is that these new sources of revenue require more people and more exposure. This could be achieved by locking up the entire east coast. Advertisers would certainly like this and would be more willing to pay higher rates for ACC content.

I'm not sold on UConn's added TV value to the ACC, though I support them for #16 with ND. Yes they are a wealthy state close to both the Boston and New York media markets but the ACC has a foothold in those cities with BC and Syracuse. I'm not sure they're added value is as good as Villanova's.

From a TV standpoint, I'd take Villanova over Rutgers if I were the ACC commissioner. You already have a foothold in NY and you'll get a much bigger share of Philly with Nova and they have a better USNWR ranking. I liked Temple as an option till I found out about Nova's academic ranking. Ever since I've been 100% in favor of Nova moving up because they may be needed to fill a hole in the ACC if the B10 ever gets serious about expanding. I could see them taking ACC schools if they get ND.

(01-05-2012 10:31 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  Are we good enough yet?

I’m glad someone posted this, thanks!

(01-05-2012 10:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-05-2012 10:31 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  Are we good enough yet?

Temple basketball will always be attractive. And I have no doubt that SU, Pitt, Maryland, Duke, and UNC would all love to have a Philly presence in the league for basketball reasons. I'd include BC in that grouping but then they seem to have forgotten how to play.

But the plain truth of the matter is that Temple's academics is a non-starter for this conference. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm an advocate for WVU to the ACC. So obviously I don't care.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil
I totally understand your point here, and I applaud your conference for its tough academic standards. However, what is frustrating is when I read 2 types of posts. The first saying Temples teams wouldn’t be competitive in the ACC. Now, am I not foolish enough to think Temple basketball and football can win the ACC that would be a big NO, not at this point. However, I am confident they can compete and be middle of the pack teams from day 1. I think basketball proved that Wednesday night and the football team did against Maryland in the fall.

The second frustrating thing is when I see ACC member fans offering up teams that are supposedly better fits for the ACC then Temple, and they are ranked below TU’s academic ranking by USNWR (the only exception is Tulane). Below is a part of a post I made a while back.

Tulane #50
Temple #132
Cincinnati #143
Louisville #164
West Virginia #164
East Carolina #194

I guess my long convoluted point here is Temple not being a fit for the ACC because it’s not inside the top 101 for academics, that’s a solid factual based deal breaker, no argument there. What’s frustrating to me is seeing other teams mentioned as better fits, which are ranked lower academically.

(01-06-2012 09:33 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(01-05-2012 10:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-05-2012 10:31 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  Are we good enough yet?

Temple basketball will always be attractive. And I have no doubt that SU, Pitt, Maryland, Duke, and UNC would all love to have a Philly presence in the league for basketball reasons. I'd include BC in that grouping but then they seem to have forgotten how to play.

But the plain truth of the matter is that Temple's academics is a non-starter for this conference. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm an advocate for WVU to the ACC. So obviously I don't care.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil
I totally understand your point here, and I applaud your conference for its tough academic standards. However, what is frustrating is when I read 2 types of posts. The first saying Temples teams wouldn’t be competitive in the ACC. Now, am I not foolish enough to think Temple basketball and football can win the ACC that would be a big NO, not at this point. However, I am confident they can compete and be middle of the pack teams from day 1. I think basketball proved that Wednesday night and the football team did against Maryland in the fall.

The second frustrating thing is when I see ACC member fans offering up teams that are supposedly better fits for the ACC then Temple, and they are ranked below TU’s academic ranking by USNWR (the only exception is Tulane). Below is a part of a post I made a while back.

Tulane #50
Temple #132
Cincinnati #143
Louisville #164
West Virginia #164
East Carolina #194

I guess my long convoluted point here is Temple not being a fit for the ACC because it’s not inside the top 101 for academics, that’s a solid factual based deal breaker, no argument there. What’s frustrating to me is seeing other teams mentioned as better fits, which are ranked lower academically.

Fans are fans. They have their preferences. I'm quite sure the ones advocating Tulane over Temple are looking at it from both academics and private institution perspective but certainly not athletics and perhaps don't want the ACC to take any more of us Yanks.

As for those advocating Cincinnati, Louisville, and West Virginia over Temple it's likely they are looking at this more from an overall athletics perspective.

Not sure why anyone would be advocating ECU over Temple though.

j/k Pirates fans. The league could use more purple.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-06-2012 02:50 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  I think if you look at the future streams of revenue, it would make sense for the ACC to add Rutgers and UConn (assuming Notre Dame would turn down the ACC first). This would do two things: prevent B1G from poaching these two teams and it would give the ACC two more markets.

If the BiG truly wanted them, Rutgers would go in a heartbeat even if they were already in the ACC.

Quote:In the short term perhaps it would not add more dollars per school but what happens if the ACC decided to build a cable TV network. Having two extra wealthy states in the ACC footprint certainly would help. It would help to capture the NYC market and a position on its cable TV dial. This would add big $$$ down the road.

The BiG already has its network up and running and for whatever reason chose not to expand with Rutgers, UConn, and SU last time. So they obviously felt having this trio would not get them the NYC market for their conference channel. While I'm not a huge fan of BiG athletics, I don't discount their business savvy.


Cheers,
Neil

(01-06-2012 10:52 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-06-2012 02:50 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  I think if you look at the future streams of revenue, it would make sense for the ACC to add Rutgers and UConn (assuming Notre Dame would turn down the ACC first). This would do two things: prevent B1G from poaching these two teams and it would give the ACC two more markets.

If the BiG truly wanted them, Rutgers would go in a heartbeat even if they were already in the ACC.

Quote:In the short term perhaps it would not add more dollars per school but what happens if the ACC decided to build a cable TV network. Having two extra wealthy states in the ACC footprint certainly would help. It would help to capture the NYC market and a position on its cable TV dial. This would add big $$$ down the road.

The BiG already has its network up and running and for whatever reason chose not to expand with Rutgers, UConn, and SU last time. So they obviously felt having this trio would not get them the NYC market for their conference channel. While I'm not a huge fan of BiG athletics, I don't discount their business savvy.


Cheers,
Neil

I think the B1G's focus is the mid-west whereas the ACC's focus is the east coast. I think Rutgers and UConn are more valuable to the ACC than the B1G. With respect to getting an ACC network (when it eventually is launched) on the cable list in New York City, there is a more compelling argument with not only Syracuse but also with UConn and Rutgers. The argument for expanding is probably more compelling to do it than to sit around and wait for B1G or Big XII to do it first. It would also give the ACC more market to sign on advertisers to ACC products (although this is probably a few years off).

For the ACC I think it’s a matter of if they expand, and not who do they expand with. Take ND out of the picture because they are on everyone’s expansion plan, and if they considered joining it would be a no brainer they are in.

That being said UConn and Rutgers are the 2 easy and obvious choices. Both give you a stronger NYC, central and northern NJ, and Conn presence, basketball gets another chip (UConn) that strengthens the basketball conference as a whole, football teams would fit nicely from a competitive standpoint, and they both make the grade academically. It would give you pretty seamless coverage from upper NY state with Syracuse, to Fla so its attractive for TV. If not those 2 then who else brings a better entire package, academics, competitive in both sports (although RU Basketball has hit a rough patch but their new coach will turn that around), high profile with good TV potential?

Also, the self serving side of me likes it because it would open up 2 more spots in the Big East for Temple, which is where they belong anyway.

(01-06-2012 02:50 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 04:43 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 09:22 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-03-2012 10:42 AM)Rabonchild Wrote:  When the ACC goes to 16 and the Big 12 goes to 14 and most of the teams come from the Big East; that will open the door for the new conference that is being discussed as per an AD from one of the schools on the outside looking in. The new conference may not be AQ but it will make sense as an East Coast Conference. The (ACE) "Athletic Conference of the East". Buffalo, UMASS, Temple, Marshall, ECU, Middle TN, UAB, S. Miss, FAU, (Navy & Army wish list), Delaware, Charlotte, Georgia St.

Why does everyone assume the end game is for conferences of 16 or that all the power conferences want to go beyond 12 schools? The PAC is stuck at 12 unless it can poach the Big12. NFW does Boise, CSU or any MWC team gets into the PAC. Utah was the best get and there is no one else the PAC is interested in.

I have asked this question many times as well. The fact remains that there has not been a single 16+ team model put forward where the payout per school does not result in LESS per institution. If the conferences could increase their PER SCHOOL payouts by going to 16, it would already have been done by now.

My theory is that fans who perceive their schools will benefit from a move to 16 will ignore the obvious financial drawbacks of such an action. This is why, for example, you have some Uconn and RU fans claiming the ACC "must" go to 16 to pre-empt the B10 and "lock up the East Coast." Of course, this is a fine stategy if you are playing Monopoly or planning a military campaign. In the business of college sports, however, such notions are worthless if they result in less of a payout per school. THE ONLY thing that matters is the payout per school and, in the ACC's case, unless ND is one of the 15 and 16, going beyond 14 makes zero financial sense, regardless of what other conferences do.

I think if you look at the future streams of revenue, it would make sense for the ACC to add Rutgers and UConn (assuming Notre Dame would turn down the ACC first). This would do two things: prevent B1G from poaching these two teams and it would give the ACC two more markets.
In the short term perhaps it would not add more dollars per school but what happens if the ACC decided to build a cable TV network. Having two extra wealthy states in the ACC footprint certainly would help. It would help to capture the NYC market and a position on its cable TV dial. This would add big $$$ down the road.
There are other sources of income that the ACC could build upon, pay per view, deals with Verizon and AT&T for content. Exclusive TV converage for mobile phone subscribers. The thing is that these new sources of revenue require more people and more exposure. This could be achieved by locking up the entire east coast. Advertisers would certainly like this and would be more willing to pay higher rates for ACC content.

I disagree. From a pure business perspective, it does not make sense to add any additonal teams right now (unless one of them in ND). The models which have been reviewed are clear. Splitting the pie 16 ways will result in LESS per school. Could changes to CF in the future prompt the ACC to reconsider? Sure, but no business is going to make a decision to invest in additonal capacity (i.e., in this case, more teams), with the result being less earnings, UNLESS there is a clear model that provides for a greater return down the road. Right now, that doesn't exist, period. The ACC looked at many of the things you talked about (e.g., building a cable network, etc.). None of these options provide the revenues generated by the ESPN partnership.

The other thing that people keep forgetting is that college FB, indeed all college sports, are a commodity and there is a limit on the value that they will produce. One cannot assume that revenues will keep going up at the present pace. (If you have any doubts as to this point, just think about the real estate market for a minute. Think about the bullish expectations for that market just a little more than a half decade or so ago.)

Could we be nearing the end of the continually steep revenue increases for this sport? I don't know. However, this year's lackluster bowl attendance and ratings for many of these games (including BCS games) should give one pause. IMO, these are the same kind of "canary in the coal mine" events that people dismissed during the real estate boom.

No conference, not one of them, is going to want to risk being in the position of excess capacity (read: too many mouths to feed) if the revenue spigot begins to slow. IMO, this is precisely why no one has gone to 16 yet and are unlikely to do so in the near future. It is also exactly why neither Uconn or RU are going anywhere any time soon.

Accordingly, there is no logical business reason why the ACC should take such a risk when it is not necessary to do so. IMO, people need to look at this more like business people and less like fans - because that is exactly how the Conferences and University Presidents look at it.

if the botom falls out on tv revenue like real estate, payouts would fall relative to 12 or 16, 16 would be more mouths to feed, 12 would be less money to feed them.

Granted NYC market has to be cultivated, with payouts equal in the beging.
other factors taking place [Conf network] can eventally pay more money

Ironiclly Bos Coll would gain quater million in travell cost & bump in Atten from
conn FB, BB, WBB. Bos Coll would start off million dollars ahead

(01-06-2012 02:36 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  if the botom falls out on tv revenue like real estate, payouts would fall relative to 12 or 16, 16 would be more mouths to feed, 12 would be less money to feed them.

Granted NYC market has to be cultivated, with payouts equal in the beging.
other factors taking place [Conf network] can eventally pay more money

Ironiclly Bos Coll would gain quater million in travell cost & bump in Atten from
conn FB, BB, WBB. Bos Coll would start off million dollars ahead

Thats not the way conference dollars are generated from TV revenue. The way it works breaks down something like this:

In their last TV contarct, the ACC deal was something like $1.55B for 10 years. Divided by 12 schools, that comes out to $12.5M per year (with each school probably receiving a bit less as a sliver of that goes back to the league office for admin. expenses). These numbers maybe slightly different in reality but for this purpose they will do.

The ACC has viewed their contract as undervalued. The only way to reopen it (and not wait 10 years for the contract to come up for renegotiation) was to add two teams. Now, if they are able to get the contract up to market levels - say for argument sake - $2.5B for 10 years - that nets out to almost $18M for each of the 14 schools. (Again, these numbers are illustrative as I have no idea what the actual negotiations will produce.) If, say Uconn and RU were to be added, under this scenario, they would have to by themselves bring in an incremental $360M for the 10 year period just to keep the per school payout for a now 16 league team flat. Frankly, few schools on their own could bring in that sort of incremental value. Pitt and SU could not have. HOWEVER, their inclusion allowed the ACC to reopen an undervalued deal so it was well worth it to add them. RU and Uconn are not needed to reopen the deal so the adiditonal incremetal value they they could bring would likely be insufficient.

If that weren't the case, the ACC would have already gone to 16.

When these deals are negotiated, the TV providers focus on the total payout to the conferences, not how the conference spread out the money to the schools and, as I said earlier, this total payout is not limitless.

With regard to BC, it would only benefit financially from a RU/Uconn add if the per school payout would go up - and not down and as I believe would be likely. The decline in the per school payouts would dwarf any minimal (if any) travel savings. (Frankly, I doubt there would be any travel savings as BC would still be traveling by air to go to Rutgers.)

Finally, the idea, that BC would receive some sort of "bump in attention" for playing Uconn is just some silly nonsense put forth by some Uconn fans. Frankly, BC fans have no real desire to play them. When they played at Chestnut Hill, the FB games were hardly sellouts. When you ask the average BC fan would they rather play either FSU/Clemson/Miami/GT - or Uconn - the answer would be the former, not the latter (and this is coming from a 30-year BC season ticket holder who is pretty familiar with the BC fan base.) Also, the addition of SU and Pitt to BC's schedule will have a far more positive impact as those are teams that have played against BC for DECADES and are known to BC fans. No comparable history exists between BC and Uconn for FB (and at BC FB drives the bus, followed by hockey).

BC's attendance issues this year have nothing to do with WHO they are playing and everything to do with HOW they are playing. Next year, both FB and BB will do considerably better and the improved attendance will reflect this.

There is a very valid reason for the Big 12 to go to 14 and the ACC to add Uconn and it is money. Take away the remaining big east east football schools and no big Big east contract. Redo contracts for Big 12 and ACC also sew up more money in bowl games and don't think Notre Dame hasn't already made some plans. Ask yourself why would Notre Dame as head of expansion for the Big East bring in a team from california if they want the Big East to suceed?

(01-06-2012 03:59 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(01-06-2012 02:36 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  if the botom falls out on tv revenue like real estate, payouts would fall relative to 12 or 16, 16 would be more mouths to feed, 12 would be less money to feed them.

Granted NYC market has to be cultivated, with payouts equal in the beging.
other factors taking place [Conf network] can eventally pay more money

Ironiclly Bos Coll would gain quater million in travell cost & bump in Atten from
conn FB, BB, WBB. Bos Coll would start off million dollars ahead

Thats not the way conference dollars are generated from TV revenue. The way it works breaks down something like this:

In their last TV contarct, the ACC deal was something like $1.55B for 10 years. Divided by 12 schools, that comes out to $12.5M per year (with each school probably receiving a bit less as a sliver of that goes back to the league office for admin. expenses). These numbers maybe slightly different in reality but for this purpose they will do.

The ACC has viewed their contract as undervalued. The only way to reopen it (and not wait 10 years for the contract to come up for renegotiation) was to add two teams. Now, if they are able to get the contract up to market levels - say for argument sake - $2.5B for 10 years - that nets out to almost $18M for each of the 14 schools. (Again, these numbers are illustrative as I have no idea what the actual negotiations will produce.) If, say Uconn and RU were to be added, under this scenario, they would have to by themselves bring in an incremental $360M for the 10 year period just to keep the per school payout for a now 16 league team flat. Frankly, few schools on their own could bring in that sort of incremental value. Pitt and SU could not have. HOWEVER, their inclusion allowed the ACC to reopen an undervalued deal so it was well worth it to add them. RU and Uconn are not needed to reopen the deal so the adiditonal incremetal value they they could bring would likely be insufficient.

If that weren't the case, the ACC would have already gone to 16.

When these deals are negotiated, the TV providers focus on the total payout to the conferences, not how the conference spread out the money to the schools and, as I said earlier, this total payout is not limitless.

With regard to BC, it would only benefit financially from a RU/Uconn add if the per school payout would go up - and not down and as I believe would be likely. The decline in the per school payouts would dwarf any minimal (if any) travel savings. (Frankly, I doubt there would be any travel savings as BC would still be traveling by air to go to Rutgers.)

Finally, the idea, that BC would receive some sort of "bump in attention" for playing Uconn is just some silly nonsense put forth by some Uconn fans. Frankly, BC fans have no real desire to play them. When they played at Chestnut Hill, the FB games were hardly sellouts. When you ask the average BC fan would they rather play either FSU/Clemson/Miami/GT - or Uconn - the answer would be the former, not the latter (and this is coming from a 30-year BC season ticket holder who is pretty familiar with the BC fan base.) Also, the addition of SU and Pitt to BC's schedule will have a far more positive impact as those are teams that have played against BC for DECADES and are known to BC fans. No comparable history exists between BC and Uconn for FB (and at BC FB drives the bus, followed by hockey).

BC's attendance issues this year have nothing to do with WHO they are playing and everything to do with HOW they are playing. Next year, both FB and BB will do considerably better and the improved attendance will reflect this.

I agree that it is risky in terms of revenue from adding UConn and Rutgers due to the lack of revenue streams for the ACC.
It would be prudent for the ACC to wait until there is an ACC TV cable network before inviting Rutgers and UConn except the risk that the B1G or Big XII scoop them up before.
The expansion with Syracuse and Pittsburgh was apparently done in consulation with ESPN (according to the BC AD). ESPN said that Syracuse would bring in the most money of the Big East candidates followed by UConn then Pittsburgh. UConn and Pittsburgh were close in dollar values though so it was basically a toss up. I guess we will see soon the extra value that Syracuse and Pittsburgh brought in when the new contract is signed.

Memphis and Tulane and call it a day......Puts u into the heart of Sec country as well.....The World Is Ours Memphis....

The ACC will not go to 16 until the SEC is ready to do the same.
The SEC still yearns for Texas.