(12-16-2014 07:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 05:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 04:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC's marketing situation is much different from other conferences, in that we have to compete with other conferences within our own footprint except in North Carolina, Virginia, New York and Massachusetts. Because of that we must have better penetration in our marginal areas.

But didn't you just suggest WVU and South Carolina? West Virginia is a new market, correct? Meanwhile, the least important state in the ACC geographically is South Carolina. So I don't see why that helps that much.

If the ACC wants better penetration in their key states, then Georgia, Florida, and Penn State are the programs they should consider.

Cheers,
Neil

1. Florida was looking to move in the 70's, they are no longer looking to move. Penn State might have moved in the 80's, but MD blocked it, MD blocked Florida and PSU in fact. Georgia has NEVER made an overture to the ACC and it's not a social match.


2. If you look at the geography of West Va, you will note that Pitt, VT, and VA DMA's as well as large broadcast stations penetrate most of West Va. The only part of West Va., that is "new" would the be Huntington area which bleeds over into Ohio.

3. XLance - do you think the exit of MD is enough for SC to even consider such a move? IIRC it was UNC and Duke to a lesser degree, they hated, even though the big on court fights were with MD. After being screwed with the 800 SAT rule, do you really think the PTB in Columbia would risk an association with Duke, BC, ND, UVa, WF, and GT. When Spurrier is gone, SC football will sink again.

The premise of THIS thread was to forget about what was likely to happen and tell us who you want as #16. I didn't think it necessary to say there was no chance it would come about.

I think wanting WVU or USCe over Florida, Georgia, or PSU is strange, and I still do.

Cheers,
Neil

If the ACC could have absolutely ANYONE for #16, I'll take Ohio State.
GAME OVER.

(12-18-2014 12:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 11:50 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Maryland & Rutgers were added for their huge fan bases, LMFAO! They're fan bases are extremely limited due to all the pro sports surrounding them. They were added for their markets to bolster the B1G network payout plain & simple. Making Penn St happy was an added bonus.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Nobody said that they were added for *their* fan bases (my post is below and as you can see I never claimed that either UMD or Ru had huge fan bases). Those schools were added for PSU's huge fan base (as well as other concerns which are beyond the scope of TV money). Look at who donates to PSU and where they live if you don't believe me. Also, NJ and DC are great for recruiting, athletic and academic and, at least in UMD's case, created the potential possibility of additional ACC raids.

(12-16-2014 07:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...The B1G says PSU matters, and everyone on the planet agrees. PSU wants games close to home and games in front of rich alumni donors, not Midwestern corn fields. Notice the relative popularity of joining the ACC in GTS' poll? That isn't a random chance.

Also, removing UMD, which served as a link between the north (BC, SU, Pitt, and ND) and the south (UNC, NCSU, WF, FSU, GT, and Clemson) made the ACC less stable, thus increasing the possibility that the B1G could raid it and take schools with large fan bases in good recruiting areas (i.e. UNC). Notice Gordon Gee's comment about driving a wedge in the ACC?

Markets are irrelevant. Fans matter. If that wasn't the case, why did that Wisconsin (?) AD make that comment about PSU getting wandering eyes? Why was Nebraska added?

Feel free to come up with an economic argument that proves me wrong. If you disagree with me, then explain how you think value is/was created.

Imagine how different the world would look if UMD had not jumped to the B1G and PSU had jumped to the ACC. That, combined with the ever-present threat of ND going all in for football would dramatically alter the balance of power in the collegiate landscape.

I understand where you are coming from but it's not as though markets don't matter at all. I would say it's fans, brand/history, and then markets.

If teams are basically equal in the first two, then markets tend to matter. Conference realignment history seems to support this.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-18-2014 02:34 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 12:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 11:50 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Maryland & Rutgers were added for their huge fan bases, LMFAO! They're fan bases are extremely limited due to all the pro sports surrounding them. They were added for their markets to bolster the B1G network payout plain & simple. Making Penn St happy was an added bonus.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Nobody said that they were added for *their* fan bases (my post is below and as you can see I never claimed that either UMD or Ru had huge fan bases). Those schools were added for PSU's huge fan base (as well as other concerns which are beyond the scope of TV money). Look at who donates to PSU and where they live if you don't believe me. Also, NJ and DC are great for recruiting, athletic and academic and, at least in UMD's case, created the potential possibility of additional ACC raids.

(12-16-2014 07:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...The B1G says PSU matters, and everyone on the planet agrees. PSU wants games close to home and games in front of rich alumni donors, not Midwestern corn fields. Notice the relative popularity of joining the ACC in GTS' poll? That isn't a random chance.

Also, removing UMD, which served as a link between the north (BC, SU, Pitt, and ND) and the south (UNC, NCSU, WF, FSU, GT, and Clemson) made the ACC less stable, thus increasing the possibility that the B1G could raid it and take schools with large fan bases in good recruiting areas (i.e. UNC). Notice Gordon Gee's comment about driving a wedge in the ACC?

Markets are irrelevant. Fans matter. If that wasn't the case, why did that Wisconsin (?) AD make that comment about PSU getting wandering eyes? Why was Nebraska added?

Feel free to come up with an economic argument that proves me wrong. If you disagree with me, then explain how you think value is/was created.

Imagine how different the world would look if UMD had not jumped to the B1G and PSU had jumped to the ACC. That, combined with the ever-present threat of ND going all in for football would dramatically alter the balance of power in the collegiate landscape.

I understand where you are coming from but it's not as though markets don't matter at all. I would say it's fans, brand/history, and then markets.

If teams are basically equal in the first two, then markets tend to matter. Conference realignment history seems to support this.

Cheers,
Neil

"Conference realignment history seems to support this."
RU (added for PSU fan support), UMD (added for PSU fan support), Miami (added for BCS wins), BC (added to get to 12), and TCU (added for Texas fan support) are in big markets, and I'm not sure about MIZZOU (added because they were willing to leave and the SEC needed a #14 to accompany A&M).

Those schools aside leaves VT, Syr, Nebraska, USC, Utah, CU, and arguably A&M and WVU. I don't see the pattern of adding huge markets.

I do however, see the pattern of adding schools with favorable fan alignments.

I also have not heard an argument as to why "markets" even theoretically adds value that makes sense. I do however, see large market conference failing and small market conferences thriving. Markets do not directly matter for TV payouts.

(12-18-2014 02:18 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If the ACC could have absolutely ANYONE for #16, I'll take Ohio State.
GAME OVER.

Aren't there enough ****y driving Ohioans around the Upstate for you already?!

(12-18-2014 02:56 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  "Conference realignment history seems to support this."
RU (added for PSU fan support), UMD (added for PSU fan support), Miami (added for BCS wins), BC (added to get to 12), and TCU (added for Texas fan support) are in big markets, and I'm not sure about MIZZOU (added because they were willing to leave and the SEC needed a #14 to accompany A&M).

Those schools aside leaves VT, Syr, Nebraska, USC, Utah, CU, and arguably A&M and WVU. I don't see the pattern of adding huge markets.

I do however, see the pattern of adding schools with favorable fan alignments.

I also have not heard an argument as to why "markets" even theoretically adds value that makes sense. I do however, see large market conference failing and small market conferences thriving. Markets do not directly matter for TV payouts.

You are wrong on each of the bolded reasons. Rutgers and Maryland were added for the BTN. What you give as the reason was the tertiary reason at best since the likelihood of PSU moving was remote at best. All the statements by the BiG in article after article after article after article support the expansion of Rutgers and Maryland for getting into the NYC and DC markets and BTN. While two articles mention PSU as another reason, not the SOLE reason. To put forth this notion that they were only added because of PSU shows me how far off the rail you are on this topic. Which I find unusual because you are normally more on point.

Big 12 needed to get to at least 10 or have their recently negotiated TV contract reduced. That limited who they could get, but of the ones they could get TCU was available for immediate pick up and WVU was willing to do anything to get out of the Big East early. Had Pitt been willing to do that, it would have been Pitt and WVU. And had Louisville been willing to do it at the last minute (after TCU had already accepted) they might possibly have gotten in over WVU. They weren't, so we will never know for sure.

Miami was Miami - that goes to brand/history moreso than fans.

VT despite having more fans than either SU or BC got in due to political intervention.

Once the ACC rejected the East Coast conference for being SEC-lite and rejected on not needing 12 for their championship game (which they had promised Shalala at Miami), they then went after name teams - ND, Florida, and Georgia were all supposedly approached, but only ND was actually confirmed in articles in September of 2003.

With the fan supported teams being a no go, the ACC still had to make a decision between BC and SU. SU, of course, says they wouldn't have been interested even if asked, but we all know BC was chosen precisely because of market, not because of having more fans or a better brand.

Nebraska was the winner in the BiG sweepstakes back in 2010 precisely because Texas, Texas A&M and ND said no. They were the third/fourth preference of the fan/brand teams (probably third ahead of TAMU which was on the list moreso because of UT since it was unlikely TAMU would even consider the BiG without Texas), which demonstrated that the BiG at that time wanted at least one more fan/brand name to go along with OSU, UM, and PSU.

Once Miami joined the ACC and Nebraska joined the BiG that truly only left ND, Texas, Oklahoma and A&M as the fan/big brand teams left anyway.

And A&M was taken off the board by the SEC, who then needed a fourth and went with Mizzou over WVU for what reason? WVU has slightly more fans and more brand history and would have slid into the SEC East division much better than the Tigers. What does Mizzou have that WVU doesn't? Market is what is left.

Again, fans, brand/history, and then markets. And sometimes, rarely, markets trumpet even brand/history, but massive fan following cannot be beat.

As for your last statement. Did any of the conferences expand and see their TV contracts reduced as a result? So obviously, even the additions of Rutgers and Maryland for the BiG and Pitt and SU for the ACC helped. And let's face it, all these four teams offered in reality were new markets.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-18-2014 03:40 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 02:56 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  "Conference realignment history seems to support this."
RU (added for PSU fan support), UMD (added for PSU fan support), Miami (added for BCS wins), BC (added to get to 12), and TCU (added for Texas fan support) are in big markets, and I'm not sure about MIZZOU (added because they were willing to leave and the SEC needed a #14 to accompany A&M).

Those schools aside leaves VT, Syr, Nebraska, USC, Utah, CU, and arguably A&M and WVU. I don't see the pattern of adding huge markets.

I do however, see the pattern of adding schools with favorable fan alignments.

I also have not heard an argument as to why "markets" even theoretically adds value that makes sense. I do however, see large market conference failing and small market conferences thriving. Markets do not directly matter for TV payouts.

You are wrong on each of the bolded reasons. Rutgers and Maryland were added for the BTN. What you give as the reason was the tertiary reason at best since the likelihood of PSU moving was remote at best. All the statements by the BiG in article after article after article after article support the expansion of Rutgers and Maryland for getting into the NYC and DC markets and BTN. While two articles mention PSU as another reason, not the SOLE reason. To put forth this notion that they were only added because of PSU shows me how far off the rail you are on this topic. Which I find unusual because you are normally more on point.

Big 12 needed to get to at least 10 or have their recently negotiated TV contract reduced. That limited who they could get, but of the ones they could get TCU was available for immediate pick up and WVU was willing to do anything to get out of the Big East early. Had Pitt been willing to do that, it would have been Pitt and WVU. And had Louisville been willing to do it at the last minute (after TCU had already accepted) they might possibly have gotten in over WVU. They weren't, so we will never know for sure.

Miami was Miami - that goes to brand/history moreso than fans.

VT despite having more fans than either SU or BC got in due to political intervention.

Once the ACC rejected the East Coast conference for being SEC-lite and rejected on not needing 12 for their championship game (which they had promised Shalala at Miami), they then went after name teams - ND, Florida, and Georgia were all supposedly approached, but only ND was actually confirmed in articles in September of 2003.

With the fan supported teams being a no go, the ACC still had to make a decision between BC and SU. SU, of course, says they wouldn't have been interested even if asked, but we all know BC was chosen precisely because of market, not because of having more fans or a better brand.

Nebraska was the winner in the BiG sweepstakes back in 2010 precisely because Texas, Texas A&M and ND said no. They were the third/fourth preference of the fan/brand teams (probably third ahead of TAMU which was on the list moreso because of UT since it was unlikely TAMU would even consider the BiG without Texas), which demonstrated that the BiG at that time wanted at least one more fan/brand name to go along with OSU, UM, and PSU.

Once Miami joined the ACC and Nebraska joined the BiG that truly only left ND, Texas, Oklahoma and A&M as the fan/big brand teams left anyway.

And A&M was taken off the board by the SEC, who then needed a fourth and went with Mizzou over WVU for what reason? WVU has slightly more fans and more brand history and would have slid into the SEC East division much better than the Tigers. What does Mizzou have that WVU doesn't? Market is what is left.

Again, fans, brand/history, and then markets. And sometimes, rarely, markets trumpet even brand/history, but massive fan following cannot be beat.

As for your last statement. Did any of the conferences expand and see their TV contracts reduced as a result? So obviously, even the additions of Rutgers and Maryland for the BiG and Pitt and SU for the ACC helped. And let's face it, all these four teams offered in reality were new markets.

Cheers,
Neil

"All the statements by the BiG in article after article after article after article support the expansion of Rutgers and Maryland for getting into the NYC and DC markets and BTN."

What's the Big Ten to say? "We were afraid that our 3rd/4th most valuable property would jump ship to our 1st/2nd biggest enemy, potentially convincing our most desired target to join as a full member, thus causing them to surpass us as the #2 most powerful conference." That storyline doesn't flow too well.

"Had Pitt been willing to do that, it would have been Pitt and WVU."
No. They needed the vote of Texas' AD, which favored a Texas team for a whole host of reasons, most of which centered around political realities in the state of Texas and increasing/maintaining their presence/popularity in the state.

"Miami was Miami - that goes to brand/history moreso than fans."
Right. I chalked that up to BCS wins. We're using different words to say the same thing. Either way it wasn't because of the Miami TV market. There were other concerns.

"VT despite having more fans than either SU or BC got in due to political intervention."
I'm not sure that VT has more fans than SU on the whole (i.e. counting basketball and non-local football fans), but regardless, I agree. Their addition was politically motivated (to get UVA's vote for Miami). It was not a move to capture a TV market.

"rejected on not needing 12 for their championship game (which they had promised Shalala at Miami), they then went after name teams - ND, Florida, and Georgia were all supposedly approached, but only ND was actually confirmed in articles in September of 2003.

With the fan supported teams being a no go, the ACC still had to make a decision between BC and SU. SU, of course, says they wouldn't have been interested even if asked, but we all know BC was chosen precisely because of market, not because of having more fans or a better brand."
You're right until the bold. BC was chosen because they were the best fit who was willing to talk to the ACC. The ACC wanted a Syracuse-like school (see expansion talks in '91, '98, and '03), and BC is the closest thing to Syracuse not called Syracuse, and unlike any other school, BC was actively lobbying to get into the ACC. Their addition was *not* market driven.

Furthermore, you have Mizzou and WVU reversed. Pittsburgh is WAY bigger than Saint Louis. If the SEC cared about markets, it would have added WVU over Mizzou.

"Did any of the conferences expand and see their TV contracts reduced as a result? So obviously, even the additions of Rutgers and Maryland for the BiG and Pitt and SU for the ACC helped."
Your logic is heavily flawed. First, Syracuse has a ton of fans. All things being equal, one would expect a media payout to go up because of our addition. Second, all other things aren't equal. There's a rising market. Renegotiation clauses aside, the payouts would have gone up regardless of whether or not any of those schools were added. And, like I said and you touched upon, there are other reasons to add a school that go beyond TV money.

Think about it, though. There has to be value creation, or at least perceived value creation for an increase in a payout. Where is that value creation? How does randomly adding markets create value (all other factors equal)?

(12-18-2014 03:10 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 02:18 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If the ACC could have absolutely ANYONE for #16, I'll take Ohio State.
GAME OVER.

Aren't there enough ****y driving Ohioans around the Upstate for you already?!

Yes, so they might as well be buying tickets to the ACC Championship Game!

(12-18-2014 04:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 03:40 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 02:56 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  "Conference realignment history seems to support this."
RU (added for PSU fan support), UMD (added for PSU fan support), Miami (added for BCS wins), BC (added to get to 12), and TCU (added for Texas fan support) are in big markets, and I'm not sure about MIZZOU (added because they were willing to leave and the SEC needed a #14 to accompany A&M).

Those schools aside leaves VT, Syr, Nebraska, USC, Utah, CU, and arguably A&M and WVU. I don't see the pattern of adding huge markets.

I do however, see the pattern of adding schools with favorable fan alignments.

I also have not heard an argument as to why "markets" even theoretically adds value that makes sense. I do however, see large market conference failing and small market conferences thriving. Markets do not directly matter for TV payouts.

You are wrong on each of the bolded reasons. Rutgers and Maryland were added for the BTN. What you give as the reason was the tertiary reason at best since the likelihood of PSU moving was remote at best. All the statements by the BiG in article after article after article after article support the expansion of Rutgers and Maryland for getting into the NYC and DC markets and BTN. While two articles mention PSU as another reason, not the SOLE reason. To put forth this notion that they were only added because of PSU shows me how far off the rail you are on this topic. Which I find unusual because you are normally more on point.

Big 12 needed to get to at least 10 or have their recently negotiated TV contract reduced. That limited who they could get, but of the ones they could get TCU was available for immediate pick up and WVU was willing to do anything to get out of the Big East early. Had Pitt been willing to do that, it would have been Pitt and WVU. And had Louisville been willing to do it at the last minute (after TCU had already accepted) they might possibly have gotten in over WVU. They weren't, so we will never know for sure.

Miami was Miami - that goes to brand/history moreso than fans.

VT despite having more fans than either SU or BC got in due to political intervention.

Once the ACC rejected the East Coast conference for being SEC-lite and rejected on not needing 12 for their championship game (which they had promised Shalala at Miami), they then went after name teams - ND, Florida, and Georgia were all supposedly approached, but only ND was actually confirmed in articles in September of 2003.

With the fan supported teams being a no go, the ACC still had to make a decision between BC and SU. SU, of course, says they wouldn't have been interested even if asked, but we all know BC was chosen precisely because of market, not because of having more fans or a better brand.

Nebraska was the winner in the BiG sweepstakes back in 2010 precisely because Texas, Texas A&M and ND said no. They were the third/fourth preference of the fan/brand teams (probably third ahead of TAMU which was on the list moreso because of UT since it was unlikely TAMU would even consider the BiG without Texas), which demonstrated that the BiG at that time wanted at least one more fan/brand name to go along with OSU, UM, and PSU.

Once Miami joined the ACC and Nebraska joined the BiG that truly only left ND, Texas, Oklahoma and A&M as the fan/big brand teams left anyway.

And A&M was taken off the board by the SEC, who then needed a fourth and went with Mizzou over WVU for what reason? WVU has slightly more fans and more brand history and would have slid into the SEC East division much better than the Tigers. What does Mizzou have that WVU doesn't? Market is what is left.

Again, fans, brand/history, and then markets. And sometimes, rarely, markets trumpet even brand/history, but massive fan following cannot be beat.

As for your last statement. Did any of the conferences expand and see their TV contracts reduced as a result? So obviously, even the additions of Rutgers and Maryland for the BiG and Pitt and SU for the ACC helped. And let's face it, all these four teams offered in reality were new markets.

Cheers,
Neil

"All the statements by the BiG in article after article after article after article support the expansion of Rutgers and Maryland for getting into the NYC and DC markets and BTN."

What's the Big Ten to say? "We were afraid that our 3rd/4th most valuable property would jump ship to our 1st/2nd biggest enemy, potentially convincing our most desired target to join as a full member, thus causing them to surpass us as the #2 most powerful conference." That storyline doesn't flow too well.

You are simply being stubborn in this. The BiG could have done nothing and PSU would still be in the BiG a decade later. They added for markets for the additional BTN revenue.

Quote:"Had Pitt been willing to do that, it would have been Pitt and WVU."
No. They needed the vote of Texas' AD, which favored a Texas team for a whole host of reasons, most of which centered around political realities in the state of Texas and increasing/maintaining their presence/popularity in the state.

Perhaps, but then TCU being chosen was still way more about expediency than any other factor.

Quote:"Miami was Miami - that goes to brand/history moreso than fans."
Right. I chalked that up to BCS wins. We're using different words to say the same thing. Either way it wasn't because of the Miami TV market. There were other concerns.

"VT despite having more fans than either SU or BC got in due to political intervention."
I'm not sure that VT has more fans than SU on the whole (i.e. counting basketball and non-local football fans), but regardless, I agree. Their addition was politically motivated (to get UVA's vote for Miami). It was not a move to capture a TV market.

"rejected on not needing 12 for their championship game (which they had promised Shalala at Miami), they then went after name teams - ND, Florida, and Georgia were all supposedly approached, but only ND was actually confirmed in articles in September of 2003.

With the fan supported teams being a no go, the ACC still had to make a decision between BC and SU. SU, of course, says they wouldn't have been interested even if asked, but we all know BC was chosen precisely because of market, not because of having more fans or a better brand."
You're right until the bold. BC was chosen because they were the best fit who was willing to talk to the ACC. The ACC wanted a Syracuse-like school (see expansion talks in '91, '98, and '03), and BC is the closest thing to Syracuse not called Syracuse, and unlike any other school, BC was actively lobbying to get into the ACC. Their addition was *not* market driven.

Yeah, SU was unwilling to talk with the ACC, but made it clear to the BE in June of that same year they would do what was best for SU and pursue other conferences like the Big Ten? Come on. Only the most diehard of SU fans still cling to this crap. If the ACC was truly interested in SU in September or October of 2003 then we'd have gone. We would have had no choice. SU knew that if it came down to us or BC, it would be BC and a large part of that was Boston.

Quote:Furthermore, you have Mizzou and WVU reversed. Pittsburgh is WAY bigger than Saint Louis. If the SEC cared about markets, it would have added WVU over Mizzou.

First, the St. Louis DMA is larger than Pittsburgh's, which WVU only has penetration into as a secondary team, not the primary one. Second Mizzou brings not just St. Louis, but penetration into the Kansas City DMA as well.

Total population of the state of Missouri, over 6 million. Total population of West Virginia plus the population of the Pittsburgh DMA, less than 2.5 million.

Quote:"Did any of the conferences expand and see their TV contracts reduced as a result? So obviously, even the additions of Rutgers and Maryland for the BiG and Pitt and SU for the ACC helped."
Your logic is heavily flawed. First, Syracuse has a ton of fans. All things being equal, one would expect a media payout to go up because of our addition. Second, all other things aren't equal. There's a rising market. Renegotiation clauses aside, the payouts would have gone up regardless of whether or not any of those schools were added. And, like I said and you touched upon, there are other reasons to add a school that go beyond TV money.

Think about it, though. There has to be value creation, or at least perceived value creation for an increase in a payout. Where is that value creation? How does randomly adding markets create value (all other factors equal)?

Don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but then it was basically my overall point. Yours was to eliminate market from the discussion altogether which is, quite frankly, daft.

Market has a place in the discussion, just not at the forefront.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-18-2014 02:05 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 05:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 04:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC's marketing situation is much different from other conferences, in that we have to compete with other conferences within our own footprint except in North Carolina, Virginia, New York and Massachusetts. Because of that we must have better penetration in our marginal areas.

But didn't you just suggest WVU and South Carolina? West Virginia is a new market, correct? Meanwhile, the least important state in the ACC geographically is South Carolina. So I don't see why that helps that much.

If the ACC wants better penetration in their key states, then Georgia, Florida, and Penn State are the programs they should consider.

Cheers,
Neil

1. Florida was looking to move in the 70's, they are no longer looking to move. Penn State might have moved in the 80's, but MD blocked it, MD blocked Florida and PSU in fact. Georgia has NEVER made an overture to the ACC and it's not a social match.


2. If you look at the geography of West Va, you will note that Pitt, VT, and VA DMA's as well as large broadcast stations penetrate most of West Va. The only part of West Va., that is "new" would the be Huntington area which bleeds over into Ohio.

3. XLance - do you think the exit of MD is enough for SC to even consider such a move? IIRC it was UNC and Duke to a lesser degree, they hated, even though the big on court fights were with MD. After being screwed with the 800 SAT rule, do you really think the PTB in Columbia would risk an association with Duke, BC, ND, UVa, WF, and GT. When Spurrier is gone, SC football will sink again.

The premise of THIS thread was to forget about what was likely to happen and tell us who you want as #16. I didn't think it necessary to say there was no chance it would come about.

I think wanting WVU or USCe over Florida, Georgia, or PSU is strange, and I still do.

Cheers,
Neil

If the premise of the thread is who do you want as 16th without any constraints of reality, then I would vote as follows:

Alabama - contiguous, football power
Auburn - contiguous, football power
Tennessee - contiguous, football power
Penn State - football power in the footprint
LSU - football power, not contiguous - used to play basketball
Michigan State - contiguous football power - also plays basketball
Texas - a large prize, and a large headache.

(12-18-2014 05:22 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  [quote='omniorange' pid='11559373' dateline='1418929523']
[quote='lumberpack4' pid='11551916' dateline='1418775953']
[quote='omniorange' pid='11551672' dateline='1418769508']
[quote='XLance' pid='11551430' dateline='1418765324']
If the premise of the thread is who do you want as 16th without any constraints of reality, then I would vote as follows:

Alabama - contiguous, football power
Auburn - contiguous, football power
Tennessee - contiguous, football power
Penn State - football power in the footprint
LSU - football power, not contiguous - used to play basketball
Michigan State - contiguous football power - also plays basketball
Texas - a large prize, and a large headache.

Without any constraints of reality, you should probably go for an NFL team -- the Seahawks, maybe, or the Broncos, or even the Bengals, which represent a sizeable market and have a large, rabid fan base in spite of their dismal record over the years (I'd have suggested the Patriots also, but you've already got the Boston market sewed up with BC). As a practical matter, you'd have about as much success luring an NFL team into the fold as you would any of the teams listed above.

The ACC doesn't necessarily need new markets. It needs matchups that get better TV ratings. Notre Dame isn't a gem because it delivers northern Indiana and Chicago, but because Notre Dame gets TV ratings everywhere.

West Virginia would deliver better TV ratings than Cincinnati. But Texas or Penn St. would drive better ratings than any other candidate.

However, if you're looking at G5-level teams as the most realistic option - I believe that Navy is a front runner. Pitt-Navy, Syracuse-Navy, UNC-Navy, Georgia Tech-Navy, Boston College-Navy, etc. are matchups that would deliver ratings much more than Pitt-Cincinnati, Syracuse-Cincinnati, UNC-Cincinnati, etc. And, the Notre Dame-Navy matchup goes back to WWII or earlier.

(12-19-2014 02:11 PM)YNot Wrote:  The ACC doesn't necessarily need new markets. It needs matchups that get better TV ratings. Notre Dame isn't a gem because it delivers northern Indiana and Chicago, but because Notre Dame gets TV ratings everywhere.

West Virginia would deliver better TV ratings than Cincinnati. But Texas or Penn St. would drive better ratings than any other candidate.

However, if you're looking at G5-level teams as the most realistic option - I believe that Navy is a front runner. Pitt-Navy, Syracuse-Navy, UNC-Navy, Georgia Tech-Navy, Boston College-Navy, etc. are matchups that would deliver ratings much more than Pitt-Cincinnati, Syracuse-Cincinnati, UNC-Cincinnati, etc. And, the Notre Dame-Navy matchup goes back to WWII or earlier.

Love the military academies and give them mad respect, but what data set are you using to determine Navy delivers ratings?

There are two games that have significant ratings (above a 1.5 usually) that involve the military academies - ND vs Navy and the Army vs Navy games.

Now, if getting Navy (for football only) meant ND joins fully for football, then the ACC has to bite the bullet on that one and do so. But ND isn't likely to give up their semi-independence any time soon, IF ever.

Personally, I hope the ACC doesn't wait on ND because, imho that would be a mistake. Having said that, I don't think there are any compelling candidates at the moment that would require the ACC to take action. Better to stay put for now and see what develops - even if that means potentially losing Cincy to the Big 12 or UConn to the BiG.

Cheers,
Neil

Add two of Cincinnati, Vanderbilt, West Virginia or Navy (football only)/Georgetown all sports but football.

(12-18-2014 05:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 04:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  "All the statements by the BiG in article after article after article after article support the expansion of Rutgers and Maryland for getting into the NYC and DC markets and BTN."

What's the Big Ten to say? "We were afraid that our 3rd/4th most valuable property would jump ship to our 1st/2nd biggest enemy, potentially convincing our most desired target to join as a full member, thus causing them to surpass us as the #2 most powerful conference." That storyline doesn't flow too well.

You are simply being stubborn in this. The BiG could have done nothing and PSU would still be in the BiG a decade later. They added for markets for the additional BTN revenue.

Quote:"Had Pitt been willing to do that, it would have been Pitt and WVU."
No. They needed the vote of Texas' AD, which favored a Texas team for a whole host of reasons, most of which centered around political realities in the state of Texas and increasing/maintaining their presence/popularity in the state.

Perhaps, but then TCU being chosen was still way more about expediency than any other factor.

Quote:"Miami was Miami - that goes to brand/history moreso than fans."
Right. I chalked that up to BCS wins. We're using different words to say the same thing. Either way it wasn't because of the Miami TV market. There were other concerns.

"VT despite having more fans than either SU or BC got in due to political intervention."
I'm not sure that VT has more fans than SU on the whole (i.e. counting basketball and non-local football fans), but regardless, I agree. Their addition was politically motivated (to get UVA's vote for Miami). It was not a move to capture a TV market.

"rejected on not needing 12 for their championship game (which they had promised Shalala at Miami), they then went after name teams - ND, Florida, and Georgia were all supposedly approached, but only ND was actually confirmed in articles in September of 2003.

With the fan supported teams being a no go, the ACC still had to make a decision between BC and SU. SU, of course, says they wouldn't have been interested even if asked, but we all know BC was chosen precisely because of market, not because of having more fans or a better brand."
You're right until the bold. BC was chosen because they were the best fit who was willing to talk to the ACC. The ACC wanted a Syracuse-like school (see expansion talks in '91, '98, and '03), and BC is the closest thing to Syracuse not called Syracuse, and unlike any other school, BC was actively lobbying to get into the ACC. Their addition was *not* market driven.

Yeah, SU was unwilling to talk with the ACC, but made it clear to the BE in June of that same year they would do what was best for SU and pursue other conferences like the Big Ten? Come on. Only the most diehard of SU fans still cling to this crap. If the ACC was truly interested in SU in September or October of 2003 then we'd have gone. We would have had no choice. SU knew that if it came down to us or BC, it would be BC and a large part of that was Boston.

Quote:Furthermore, you have Mizzou and WVU reversed. Pittsburgh is WAY bigger than Saint Louis. If the SEC cared about markets, it would have added WVU over Mizzou.

First, the St. Louis DMA is larger than Pittsburgh's, which WVU only has penetration into as a secondary team, not the primary one. Second Mizzou brings not just St. Louis, but penetration into the Kansas City DMA as well.

Total population of the state of Missouri, over 6 million. Total population of West Virginia plus the population of the Pittsburgh DMA, less than 2.5 million.

Quote:"Did any of the conferences expand and see their TV contracts reduced as a result? So obviously, even the additions of Rutgers and Maryland for the BiG and Pitt and SU for the ACC helped."
Your logic is heavily flawed. First, Syracuse has a ton of fans. All things being equal, one would expect a media payout to go up because of our addition. Second, all other things aren't equal. There's a rising market. Renegotiation clauses aside, the payouts would have gone up regardless of whether or not any of those schools were added. And, like I said and you touched upon, there are other reasons to add a school that go beyond TV money.

Think about it, though. There has to be value creation, or at least perceived value creation for an increase in a payout. Where is that value creation? How does randomly adding markets create value (all other factors equal)?

Don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but then it was basically my overall point. Yours was to eliminate market from the discussion altogether which is, quite frankly, daft.

Market has a place in the discussion, just not at the forefront.

Cheers,
Neil

"You are simply being stubborn in this. The BiG could have done nothing and PSU would still be in the BiG a decade later. They added for markets for the additional BTN revenue."
Not according to actual AD's involved, but sure, I'll suspend belief if you can, for once, outline how specifically markets make money. I have yet to hear how that piece of magic happens. Until then, I'm going to side with logic and people who were actually involved in the decision-making process.

"Perhaps, but then TCU being chosen was still way more about expediency than any other factor."
I think that this is being dramatic, but my point is simply that TCU's addition wasn't market-driven. However, although it is outside the scope of this discussion, I do think that expediency played a substantial role. But, I think that there were other major factors, and most of those involved making Texas happy.

"If the ACC was truly interested in SU in September or October of 2003 then we'd have gone. We would have had no choice. SU knew that if it came down to us or BC, it would be BC and a large part of that was Boston."
Then why did the ACC talk to us first? If BC was the jewel, why were they not invited first (or at least second after Miami). Your entire argument, though heavily flawed on its face, is flawed on a second level. Look at the role of TV contracts at the time when compared to ticket sales. To put it this way, TV contracts were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to a couple million. Individual games themselves can make millions. Why would the ACC turn down a much bigger drawl (SU was a big deal back in the day - look at the posts around that time) for an extra hundred k in TV money? And yes, publicly speaking ill of the ACC definitely made it next to impossible for the ACC to take us for another decade. To think that it didn't is a little much. How would you have played it?

"First, the St. Louis DMA is larger than Pittsburgh's, which WVU only has penetration into as a secondary team, not the primary one. Second Mizzou brings not just St. Louis, but penetration into the Kansas City DMA as well.

Total population of the state of Missouri, over 6 million. Total population of West Virginia plus the population of the Pittsburgh DMA, less than 2.5 million."
How stupid do you think network execs are? Primary penetration v. secondary penetration? If fan support isn't the driving force, who cares? If markets play a role in and of themselves, being on TV is enough. And DMA's really? Do you honestly think that they are dumb enough to not see past arbitrary lines drawn in the sand? Based on my belief that network execs aren't completely incompetent, I think that this entire discussion is beyond stupid, but FWIW, WV has over 1.8 million inhabitants and Pitt has over 2.6 million inhabitants. That's 4.4 million without counting any of the other surrounding areas (including much of western PA). I have no idea where your 2.5 number is coming from. There are substantially more people in TV reach of WVU than Mizzou. Once again, this is completely irrelevant other than to show that Mizzou was picked over WVU for reasons other than "markets."

"Yours was to eliminate market from the discussion altogether which is, quite frankly, daft.

Market has a place in the discussion, just not at the forefront."
You keep saying this, but you A) cannot point to this happening in the real world, and B) cannot explain why you think this. I ask again, clearly, where is there value created inherently by markets? I can tell you EXACTLY and clearly how value is created by fans. If it's "daft" to dismiss markets, then surely it cannot be *that* difficult to explain why they are relevant to *anything* other than p*ssing contests amongst small schools in big markets.

(12-21-2014 12:46 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 05:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 04:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  "All the statements by the BiG in article after article after article after article support the expansion of Rutgers and Maryland for getting into the NYC and DC markets and BTN."

What's the Big Ten to say? "We were afraid that our 3rd/4th most valuable property would jump ship to our 1st/2nd biggest enemy, potentially convincing our most desired target to join as a full member, thus causing them to surpass us as the #2 most powerful conference." That storyline doesn't flow too well.

You are simply being stubborn in this. The BiG could have done nothing and PSU would still be in the BiG a decade later. They added for markets for the additional BTN revenue.

Quote:"Had Pitt been willing to do that, it would have been Pitt and WVU."
No. They needed the vote of Texas' AD, which favored a Texas team for a whole host of reasons, most of which centered around political realities in the state of Texas and increasing/maintaining their presence/popularity in the state.

Perhaps, but then TCU being chosen was still way more about expediency than any other factor.

Quote:"Miami was Miami - that goes to brand/history moreso than fans."
Right. I chalked that up to BCS wins. We're using different words to say the same thing. Either way it wasn't because of the Miami TV market. There were other concerns.

"VT despite having more fans than either SU or BC got in due to political intervention."
I'm not sure that VT has more fans than SU on the whole (i.e. counting basketball and non-local football fans), but regardless, I agree. Their addition was politically motivated (to get UVA's vote for Miami). It was not a move to capture a TV market.

"rejected on not needing 12 for their championship game (which they had promised Shalala at Miami), they then went after name teams - ND, Florida, and Georgia were all supposedly approached, but only ND was actually confirmed in articles in September of 2003.

With the fan supported teams being a no go, the ACC still had to make a decision between BC and SU. SU, of course, says they wouldn't have been interested even if asked, but we all know BC was chosen precisely because of market, not because of having more fans or a better brand."
You're right until the bold. BC was chosen because they were the best fit who was willing to talk to the ACC. The ACC wanted a Syracuse-like school (see expansion talks in '91, '98, and '03), and BC is the closest thing to Syracuse not called Syracuse, and unlike any other school, BC was actively lobbying to get into the ACC. Their addition was *not* market driven.

Yeah, SU was unwilling to talk with the ACC, but made it clear to the BE in June of that same year they would do what was best for SU and pursue other conferences like the Big Ten? Come on. Only the most diehard of SU fans still cling to this crap. If the ACC was truly interested in SU in September or October of 2003 then we'd have gone. We would have had no choice. SU knew that if it came down to us or BC, it would be BC and a large part of that was Boston.

Quote:Furthermore, you have Mizzou and WVU reversed. Pittsburgh is WAY bigger than Saint Louis. If the SEC cared about markets, it would have added WVU over Mizzou.

First, the St. Louis DMA is larger than Pittsburgh's, which WVU only has penetration into as a secondary team, not the primary one. Second Mizzou brings not just St. Louis, but penetration into the Kansas City DMA as well.

Total population of the state of Missouri, over 6 million. Total population of West Virginia plus the population of the Pittsburgh DMA, less than 2.5 million.

Quote:"Did any of the conferences expand and see their TV contracts reduced as a result? So obviously, even the additions of Rutgers and Maryland for the BiG and Pitt and SU for the ACC helped."
Your logic is heavily flawed. First, Syracuse has a ton of fans. All things being equal, one would expect a media payout to go up because of our addition. Second, all other things aren't equal. There's a rising market. Renegotiation clauses aside, the payouts would have gone up regardless of whether or not any of those schools were added. And, like I said and you touched upon, there are other reasons to add a school that go beyond TV money.

Think about it, though. There has to be value creation, or at least perceived value creation for an increase in a payout. Where is that value creation? How does randomly adding markets create value (all other factors equal)?

Don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but then it was basically my overall point. Yours was to eliminate market from the discussion altogether which is, quite frankly, daft.

Market has a place in the discussion, just not at the forefront.

Cheers,
Neil

"You are simply being stubborn in this. The BiG could have done nothing and PSU would still be in the BiG a decade later. They added for markets for the additional BTN revenue."
Not according to actual AD's involved, but sure, I'll suspend belief if you can, for once, outline how specifically markets make money. I have yet to hear how that piece of magic happens. Until then, I'm going to side with logic and people who were actually involved in the decision-making process.

"Perhaps, but then TCU being chosen was still way more about expediency than any other factor."
I think that this is being dramatic, but my point is simply that TCU's addition wasn't market-driven. However, although it is outside the scope of this discussion, I do think that expediency played a substantial role. But, I think that there were other major factors, and most of those involved making Texas happy.

"If the ACC was truly interested in SU in September or October of 2003 then we'd have gone. We would have had no choice. SU knew that if it came down to us or BC, it would be BC and a large part of that was Boston."
Then why did the ACC talk to us first? If BC was the jewel, why were they not invited first (or at least second after Miami). Your entire argument, though heavily flawed on its face, is flawed on a second level. Look at the role of TV contracts at the time when compared to ticket sales. To put it this way, TV contracts were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to a couple million. Individual games themselves can make millions. Why would the ACC turn down a much bigger drawl (SU was a big deal back in the day - look at the posts around that time) for an extra hundred k in TV money? And yes, publicly speaking ill of the ACC definitely made it next to impossible for the ACC to take us for another decade. To think that it didn't is a little much. How would you have played it?

"First, the St. Louis DMA is larger than Pittsburgh's, which WVU only has penetration into as a secondary team, not the primary one. Second Mizzou brings not just St. Louis, but penetration into the Kansas City DMA as well.

Total population of the state of Missouri, over 6 million. Total population of West Virginia plus the population of the Pittsburgh DMA, less than 2.5 million."
How stupid do you think network execs are? Primary penetration v. secondary penetration? If fan support isn't the driving force, who cares? If markets play a role in and of themselves, being on TV is enough. And DMA's really? Do you honestly think that they are dumb enough to not see past arbitrary lines drawn in the sand? Based on my belief that network execs aren't completely incompetent, I think that this entire discussion is beyond stupid, but FWIW, WV has over 1.8 million inhabitants and Pitt has over 2.6 million inhabitants. That's 4.4 million without counting any of the other surrounding areas (including much of western PA). I have no idea where your 2.5 number is coming from. There are substantially more people in TV reach of WVU than Mizzou. Once again, this is completely irrelevant other than to show that Mizzou was picked over WVU for reasons other than "markets."

"Yours was to eliminate market from the discussion altogether which is, quite frankly, daft.

Market has a place in the discussion, just not at the forefront."
You keep saying this, but you A) cannot point to this happening in the real world, and B) cannot explain why you think this. I ask again, clearly, where is there value created inherently by markets? I can tell you EXACTLY and clearly how value is created by fans. If it's "daft" to dismiss markets, then surely it cannot be *that* difficult to explain why they are relevant to *anything* other than p*ssing contests amongst small schools in big markets.

Actually I have given examples throughout this thread. The fact that you have refused to acknowledge them and hide behind nonsense like the Big Ten expanded for PSU alone just goes to show how closed you are in your stance.

NO ONE but you believes that not only did the Big Ten take Rutgers and Maryland for PSU, but that it is THE ONE and only reason.

As for how markets make $$$, if there is a conference network and I am charging cable subscribers more in one area than I am in other areas, then by virtue of the markets that are being charged more, those said markets are making money for the conference. I can't believe you don't know how the BTN, PTN, etc work at this point.

Also, you were proven wrong on Mizzou since by your own argument the SEC should have taken WVU over Mizzou. Btw, while the Pittsburgh metropopulation area is 2.2 million which includes parts of West Virginia so you are overlapping there. So minus out the West Virginia population and since WVU's penetration into the Pittsburgh DMA is tertiary at best - after Pittsburgh and PSU cut what is left by a third.

But go on believing what you want.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-21-2014 04:22 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Actually I have given examples throughout this thread. The fact that you have refused to acknowledge them and hide behind nonsense like the Big Ten expanded for PSU alone just goes to show how closed you are in your stance.

NO ONE but you believes that not only did the Big Ten take Rutgers and Maryland for PSU, but that it is THE ONE and only reason.

As for how markets make $$$, if there is a conference network and I am charging cable subscribers more in one area than I am in other areas, then by virtue of the markets that are being charged more, those said markets are making money for the conference. I can't believe you don't know how the BTN, PTN, etc work at this point.

Also, you were proven wrong on Mizzou since by your own argument the SEC should have taken WVU over Mizzou. Btw, while the Pittsburgh metropopulation area is 2.2 million which includes parts of West Virginia so you are overlapping there. So minus out the West Virginia population and since WVU's penetration into the Pittsburgh DMA is tertiary at best - after Pittsburgh and PSU cut what is left by a third.

But go on believing what you want.

Cheers,
Neil

You actually haven't given any examples. With no evidence, you insist that BC was a market-driven move, despite the fact that TV values couldn't have been a primary consideration for the move (TV revenue was a small fraction of gate attendance at the time - and BC fielded very competitive teams and was a model of consistency). You said TCU, but then changed your mind. You then said Miami was BCS motivated. You said VT was politically motivated. You said TAMU was driven by fan support. Then you said Mizzou/WVU, UMD, and RU, which will be addressed below:

"That northeast corridor, all the way to the south, continues to grow…Jim felt that someday, if we didn’t have anyone else in that corridor, someday it wouldn’t make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league. That they would go into a league somewhere on the east coast. By doing that, it keeps us in the northeast corridor." - Barry Alvarez

How many leagues span the east coast, or at the vesy least, B1G aside, are willing to take schools from the northern part of the east coast? The only major one is the ACC. Wisconsin's very own athletic director is directly admitting that there was (and probably still is) a very clear danger of PSU jumping to the ACC, and UMD and RU were added to quell that. If you know *anything* about PSU, it's *very* clear why (rivalries in the ACC, recruiting in NJ and the mid Atlantic region - football and academic, major donors/alumni, etc. - look at a whole host of fans forums around that time). Then imagine PSU, Pitt, SU, BC, Miami, Clemson, and FSU in the same league from ND's perspective. If ND was ever going to join a conference for football, it would be that one. How would that have looked for the B1G? How would that have looked for the ACC? Then look at the heat that the B1G/Barry took after his comments? Why would they repeat that storyline? Look at the blind faith that people have in the markets narrative. Why not sell it? It's like the myth of AAU membership. It means next to nothing, but people who have no idea what they're talking about buy into it. Once again, why not sell it? What do you expect the B1G to do - tell the truth and look weak, or lie and look strong?

Sure adding Ru and UMD benefited the conference as a whole in several areas (i.e. basketball recruiting, academic recruiting, UMD's Olympic sports brand, UMD's basketball brand, RU's location in close proximity to the largest concentration of B1G alumni/donors outside the Midwest), so PSU wasn't technically the SOLE reason. But it's crazy to think that the above reasons are what drove the bus for RU's and UMD's invite. Those benefits were icing on the cake. They were invited for PSU.

"As for how markets make $$$, if there is a conference network and I am charging cable subscribers more in one area than I am in other areas, then by virtue of the markets that are being charged more, those said markets are making money for the conference. I can't believe you don't know how the BTN, PTN, etc work at this point."

...And that raises the obvious questions: "why are cable subscribers willing to pay more in that area?," and "if there is slack in the current pricing system, why don't cable providers just up their rates without paying for the additional channels and pocket the difference?" Honestly, how stupid do you think people are? Cable companies will *only* raise their fees if it makes *them* money, and the *only* things that will make them money are things that provide value to *their* customers (i.e. provide customers with a service that they are willing to pay extra for). Otherwise, cable companies could (and should) just jack up rates as is. Now I ask you again, without giving my a shockingly half-baked explanation, how do markets inherently create value?

"since by your own argument the SEC should have taken WVU over Mizzou."

...no. You can't just make a wild claim and then not back it up. My argument is that there are a whole host of considerations (i.e. not having to put up with WVU fans, academic issues, cultural issues, etc.), but from a purely media standpoint, the school with the higher level of fan interest will provide more value. Please, instead of putting words in my mouth, show me where anything that I have ever said contradicts that. Im fact, I actually literally said "there are other reasons to add a school that go beyond TV money."

"So minus out the West Virginia population and since WVU's penetration into the Pittsburgh DMA is tertiary at best - after Pittsburgh and PSU cut what is left by a third."

Once again, if markets matter in and of themselves, who cares if they are primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, or something else? Why does it matter if their are "primary," "secondary," "tertiary," or something else?

And no, (as per Wikipedia FWIW) you are dramatically understating Pittsburgh, and ignoring substantial regions in WVU's broadcast range. I don't think that Pitt spills into WV (but I will admit that I may be wrong). Regardless, what about the other states that are in range (i.e. parts of Virginia, Ohio, etc. - Columbia is in the very middle of a big state, whereas Morgantown isn't)? All that said, though, I maintain that this doesn't matter as Mizzou was most certainly *not* picked for "market" reasons. Mizzou has a number of advantages over WVU. Some of them are related to TV money, but many of them aren't. Once again, there are reasons to align with a school that don't involve TV money.