(10-31-2013 10:45 AM)adcorbett Wrote: (10-30-2013 12:34 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: (10-29-2013 10:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote: It would be UCLA, Cal, USC (or Oregon), and Stanford (or UW), not a full-blown scheduling agreement. Forget Oregon State, WSU, Utah, etc.
Yes, because the Pac 12 would absolutely be willing to have its best teams travel across the country to play ACC dregs without getting return games for its own dregs.
The Pac 12 would be perfectly fine with a one-sided arrangement. Makes perfect sense.
Despite the manner in which he expressed it, Marge has a very good point that should be addressed here nzmorange... 
He actually doesn’t. He is trolling and nothing more, which is why I stopped responding to him. Contrary to his claim, the PAC is receiving something in return. You must have missed it because it was explained earlier in the conversation. Since you’re joining late, I’ll give you the high points. Without going into details, it is a basketball for football trade. Before you scoff at the idea, keep in mind that the ACC arguably has 4 of the top 5-6 basketball properties in the nation, whereas the Pac has a really, really down UCLA and an inconsistent (at best) Arizona. The ACC would be trading Duke, Syracuse, Louisville, and UNC basketball games for UW, Oregon, UCLA, and Cal football games. I know that it sounds crazy to trade basketball games for football games because football games are generally worth way more than basketball games, and the two conferences are on opposite ends of the country, but keep in mind that Pac schools traveling to the east coast isn’t rare. Quickly off the top of my head, Oregon played UVA and Tennessee this year (UTk is very close to the NC schools), USC played Syracuse last year and the year before that, and UW played Syracuse each of the two years before USC did. UVA and Syracuse are mid-tier ACC schools as of right now, which means that elite schools in the Pac-12 are already playing average ACC schools. This would just formalize it. Sure, under a formalized agreement, there would be games @Wake and @Duke, which probably aren’t particularly attractive to west coast schools, but for every one of those, there are two home games against Clemson/Miami/FSU/Virginia Tech which are attractive for both financial and recruiting reasons. So it really isn’t as big of a hurdle as Marge is making it sound. Furthermore, the participating Pac schools would be getting something in return. In addition to east coast exposure, which is why they all consistently play eastern teams, they would be getting basketball. To put things in perspective, SU will sell out both the Duke and UNC basketball games, which means that we will sell over 35,000 tickets to each game. The minimum ticket price is $45. $45*35,000 tickets is $1,575,000 in attendance, assuming that each ticket is sold at the minimum price. Given that there is a HUGE discrepancy between the good seats at SU and the bad ones, and that the good ones are already selling for about $5k on the secondary market, I don’t think that it’s unfair to guess that the average ticket price is at least $70 (roughly 50% higher than the lowest price). That puts ticket sales over $2,000,000 for the game. As of a couple of years ago, FSU football had ticket sales of about $14 million/yr (this seems low, but it’s not counting donations to get the right to buy tickets, concessions, and so forth). Assuming that there were 7 home games that season, Duke basketball has the potential to make as much as a decent football game in ticket sales (obviously this doesn’t include concessions, donations, and so on). Sure you can write off some of the high ticket sales to the novelty of the situation, but how often does the Syracuse men’s basketball team walk into the University of Washington’s gymnasium for a regular season game? I can assure you that it isn’t very often, so to pretend like the participating Pac schools aren’t getting something in return is crazy. Also, being able to tell recruits that in their four year stint, they can be on one of four teams within a 2,000 mile radius that is guaranteed to play Duke, UNC, Syracuse, and Louisville is a HUGE recruiting advantage which would breathe life into the dormant pac-12 programs. And, as much as everyone wants to pretend otherwise, basketball is exceedingly important. On its own it might not make as much as football, but having one’s basketball house in order is half the equation for having a balanced athletic department. Keep in mind that in ’01, SU’s athletics department made more than any school in the ACC or the BIG EAST at the time. That includes UNC, Duke, FSU, Clemson, and Miami. The reason why we were so profitable is because we had a very good football program and a very good basketball program. We weren’t elite in either, but we were very good in both. Sure UND/Duke basketball probably made more than SU basketball, but SU football made a LOT more than UNC/Duke football. Similarly, FSU and Clemson football probably made more than SU football, but SU basketball made a LOT more than FSU and Clemson basketball. With balance in mind, I think that basketball will be the next point of emphasis amongst the big dogs of the Pac. Oregon built a new gymnasium, Washington has been dumping money into their program, and UCLA is desperately doing everything that they can to stop the bleeding. There is simply too much of an investment/risk, and too much potential for a chance to build alliances with elite programs to pass up without serious consideration. Throw in the fact that it is amicable to university presidents because scheduling games and building rivalries against ACC teams is probably one of the easiest and most effective ways of marketing a school to high quality potential students, and there are a number of direct advantages to the participating Pac schools involved. However beyond that, the conference as a whole might promote the idea, given that 1. basketball is the driving force in conference network revenue and the Pac-12 just dumped a TON of money into developing a network that they cannot afford to have fail, and thus desperately need a basketball revival, and 2. adding east coast fans is the quickest way to increase subscribers.
Anyway, if this was coupled with financial incentives to make ACC revenue athletics more competitive (i.e. penalties for underfunding athletic departments), which I think that it should be, the burden on the football programs of the Pac schools involved is even further reduced, and may even be reversed.*
So what does the ACC get? From an athletic perspective, the ACC would get a 9 game regular season that consists of 8 ACC games, 5/14ths of a Notre Dame game, 5/14ths of a Texas game, 1/14th of a UCLA game, 1/14th of a Cal game, 1/14th of a Stanford/Oregon (probably Oregon) game, and 1/14th of a USC/UW game (probably UW). Not only is that a solid schedule, but it is recruiting GOLD. Every ACC team would be able to promise almost every recruit at least one game against a high profile North Carolina, Texas, Cali, and Florida team, and a game against Notre Dame, as well as occasional games in places like South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Western PA, and Kentucky. That’s HUGE. From an academic perspective, every ACC school would get to rub elbows with the likes of UCLA, Cal, USC/UW, and possibly Stanford, while gaining nation-wide exposure (especially in California, which exports more high quality students than any other state). That’s also a big deal.
How is it different from the B1G proposal? The B1G wanted a full scheduling agreement, and wouldn’t budge on exempting USC and Stanford. That would mean that USC and Stanford would be faced with either dropping their yearly rivalry game with Notre Dame, dropping a bought home game or having absolutely no flexibility in their schedule. Since the ACC should be willing to sub UW and Oregon for USC and Stanford, by not demanding a full scheduling agreement, it is MUCH less of a commitment by the Pac. Furthermore, the B1G didn’t offer anything else in return. Here, the ACC is offering elite basketball in return for good football. Combined, those two factors mean that this proposal would be asking for MUCH less from the Pac and offering MUCH more. Comparing the two agreements is like comparing apples and oranges.
*This goes beyond the scope of your comment, but I think that there should be financial incentives to fully fund athletic programs for both competitive reasons and for general fairness reasons. From a competitive standpoint, I am for it because I am a fan of the ACC and I think that it would make the conference better. I also think that it is fairer. If the big football schools are dumping money into their programs to make this agreement more attractive to Pac football fans, and the big basketball schools are dumping money into their programs to make the agreement more attractive to Pac basketball fans, the other schools shouldn’t be allowed to free ride and burden the other schools with their weight.
