(12-26-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 11:23 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 09:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 10:35 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Sounds about right.

If this comes to pass it'll be yet another ACCBBS fantasy that went down in flames. That the reason for the delay was to ensure that they were able to negotiate all of their carriage rates. Kind of hard for that to be true if we are going to have to endure a couple years of "brutal carriage fights".

The success or failure of the ACC Network is what it has always been: does it help close the massive revenue gap between us and the SEC/Big 10.

If the ACCN fails to generate enough revenue to satisfy Carolina or Florida State, then JR may get really happy.
The SEC would finally reel in the 'noles and would make another run at Texas. If ESPN thinks the 'Horns need to move west, the SEC might double up in South Carolina (big risk even with Clemson's content factor).
Carolina, which has now reached the top 5 in research, will with Georgia Tech in tow, will trot off to the B1G for a huge payday.
Whats left of the ACC: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, VT, NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, Miami, Louisville will pick up Notre Dame as a full member along with West Virginia to remain a 12 team league.

Would Wake even survive in that scenario? That would probably be dependent upon whether Clemson stayed or went. If Clemson left I doubt the remaining members would vote to keep Wake around since with BOTH football powerhouses gone they couldn't afford the perception of the two perceived albatrosses in football (Duke and Wake) hanging around the new league's necks. One could stay but unlikely both. Duke with its extreme value as a basketball power would win out over Wake which just doesn't have that kind of cache. Besides, I have always said in the modern era of college athletics the state of North Carolina simply does not warrant more than two teams in a single conference.

The FSU/Clemson-less remnants would likely add WVU, UCF, and Cincy to get to 12 all of whom would add equal value to the departing UNC, GT, and Wake while ND would remain indy for football with a modified scheduling arrangement with the new conference of 4 games a year but with no contractual stipulation of ever having to join the conference in the future. After all the new league would be far below the Irish's standards. But the new 12 team league would have perfect geographical balance and sensible rivalries in Pitt-WVU, SU-BC, VT-UVA, NCST-Duke, UL-UC, and Miami-UCF.

ESPN might even try to convince the league to consider a partial hybrid conference of 12/4 and get Georgetown, Villanova, and St. John's from the Big East so the basketball tournament could be played annually at MSG instead of having it rotated in order to get boring Greensboro in as part of the rotation.

And if that were successful, they might even want the league to sue and get the Big East name for the conference if that happened since why bother calling the conference the ACC when only three original members remain while eight are former Big East members. It's not as though the ACC EVER thought BIG anyway, might be best to disassociate from that loser name.

You know, I am actually starting to like this post-apocalyptic scenario. Let's face it - the true losses would be FSU and Clemson anyway. So what does the rest matter?

All in good fun, X-Lance.

Cheers,
Neil

If North Carolina becomes available to the Big 10 I would think they would add more than two and the SEC would as well. Virginia Tech would become an SEC prospect and possibly Duke/or N.C. State if the Big 10 didn't go after them.

It's hard to say what the mix would be but if N.D. still said "Nyet" to the Big 10 then 'Cuse, UNC, UVa, and Ga Tech might be appealing to them from a market and split political influence perspective.

Texas or Oklahoma from the West along with F.S.U. and Clemson (from a branding perspective) and perhaps a North Carolina or Virginia school would do it for us. We may not even look further West in that scenario.

I think the ACCN will yield 7 to 10 million within 5 or 6 years of startup. I just don't think that will close the gap with the SEC or Big 10 who also will be getting further boosts.

Hail JR!

My post was basically tongue-in-cheek to X's post about UNC and GT heading off to the Big Ten AFTER the SEC took FSU and possibly Clemson or one of Texas/OU. Which I am sure you knew, but for others who weren't sure, it was. However, in all seriousness now...

IF the SEC did start the dominoes falling by taking some combo of FSU with one of Texas/OU/Clemson that takes TWO of the best available content drivers off the table for the Big Ten. For these purposes let's say the SEC took FSU and OU.

For Delany's league to keep pace with the SEC, it's true rival for collegiate sports domination, it would have to pursue two of Texas, ND, and Clemson since while the Top 4 in the Big Ten (OSU, Mich, PSU, MSU) are cumulatively slightly better than the Top 4 in the SEC now (Ala, UGA, Fla, LSU), the SEC runs 7 teams deep (the previous 4 plus TAMU, Tenn, and Aub) and adding two more would tip the scales in terms of content drivers in the SEC's favor significantly. In order to keep pace the Big Ten would have to add two significant content drivers from amongst Texas, ND, and Clemson none of whom truly fit in the Big Ten or have a huge desire to join that league currently. But for sake of argument, let's say they get Texas and ND spooked by the SEC's move and hold their noses while joining the Big Ten.

Now further expansion beyond 16 is certainly possible at that point, so the SEC inviting two of Clemson, VT and NCST and the Big Ten inviting two of UNC, UVA and GT is likely - but the Big Ten's first response to the SEC taking FSU and OU will not be to get two of those three, not if they have any hope of keeping pace with the SEC. I don't see them "settling" for "market and political influence" candidates at all. But I have been known to be wrong before.

As for the ACCN, my predication remains the same that it has been for a while now $5-7 million per school in the first two-three years, $10-12 million per school thereafter. The power of the mouse is too strong now especially when they are bundling all of their respective channels together in one package ESPN, ESPN2, Disney Channel, SECN, and soon to be acquired FX all are in the Top 30 of current fees paid by subscribers each month.

But even with a slightly more favorable outlook on the ACCN than yourself (although yours is perfectly fine as well), I do agree the ACC will have a hard time to catch up with the B1G and the SEC. First it needs to get ahead of the B12 and PAC. PAC will probably happen within two years while getting ahead of the B12 might take a little longer due to that conference having one-third less mouths to feed.

As always, a pleasure.


Neil

(12-27-2018 12:56 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 11:23 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 09:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If this comes to pass it'll be yet another ACCBBS fantasy that went down in flames. That the reason for the delay was to ensure that they were able to negotiate all of their carriage rates. Kind of hard for that to be true if we are going to have to endure a couple years of "brutal carriage fights".

The success or failure of the ACC Network is what it has always been: does it help close the massive revenue gap between us and the SEC/Big 10.

If the ACCN fails to generate enough revenue to satisfy Carolina or Florida State, then JR may get really happy.
The SEC would finally reel in the 'noles and would make another run at Texas. If ESPN thinks the 'Horns need to move west, the SEC might double up in South Carolina (big risk even with Clemson's content factor).
Carolina, which has now reached the top 5 in research, will with Georgia Tech in tow, will trot off to the B1G for a huge payday.
Whats left of the ACC: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, VT, NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, Miami, Louisville will pick up Notre Dame as a full member along with West Virginia to remain a 12 team league.

Would Wake even survive in that scenario? That would probably be dependent upon whether Clemson stayed or went. If Clemson left I doubt the remaining members would vote to keep Wake around since with BOTH football powerhouses gone they couldn't afford the perception of the two perceived albatrosses in football (Duke and Wake) hanging around the new league's necks. One could stay but unlikely both. Duke with its extreme value as a basketball power would win out over Wake which just doesn't have that kind of cache. Besides, I have always said in the modern era of college athletics the state of North Carolina simply does not warrant more than two teams in a single conference.

The FSU/Clemson-less remnants would likely add WVU, UCF, and Cincy to get to 12 all of whom would add equal value to the departing UNC, GT, and Wake while ND would remain indy for football with a modified scheduling arrangement with the new conference of 4 games a year but with no contractual stipulation of ever having to join the conference in the future. After all the new league would be far below the Irish's standards. But the new 12 team league would have perfect geographical balance and sensible rivalries in Pitt-WVU, SU-BC, VT-UVA, NCST-Duke, UL-UC, and Miami-UCF.

ESPN might even try to convince the league to consider a partial hybrid conference of 12/4 and get Georgetown, Villanova, and St. John's from the Big East so the basketball tournament could be played annually at MSG instead of having it rotated in order to get boring Greensboro in as part of the rotation.

And if that were successful, they might even want the league to sue and get the Big East name for the conference if that happened since why bother calling the conference the ACC when only three original members remain while eight are former Big East members. It's not as though the ACC EVER thought BIG anyway, might be best to disassociate from that loser name.

You know, I am actually starting to like this post-apocalyptic scenario. Let's face it - the true losses would be FSU and Clemson anyway. So what does the rest matter?

All in good fun, X-Lance.

Cheers,
Neil

If North Carolina becomes available to the Big 10 I would think they would add more than two and the SEC would as well. Virginia Tech would become an SEC prospect and possibly Duke/or N.C. State if the Big 10 didn't go after them.

It's hard to say what the mix would be but if N.D. still said "Nyet" to the Big 10 then 'Cuse, UNC, UVa, and Ga Tech might be appealing to them from a market and split political influence perspective.

Texas or Oklahoma from the West along with F.S.U. and Clemson (from a branding perspective) and perhaps a North Carolina or Virginia school would do it for us. We may not even look further West in that scenario.

I think the ACCN will yield 7 to 10 million within 5 or 6 years of startup. I just don't think that will close the gap with the SEC or Big 10 who also will be getting further boosts.

Hail JR!

My post was basically tongue-in-cheek to X's post about UNC and GT heading off to the Big Ten AFTER the SEC took FSU and possibly Clemson or one of Texas/OU. Which I am sure you knew, but for others who weren't sure, it was. However, in all seriousness now...

IF the SEC did start the dominoes falling by taking some combo of FSU with one of Texas/OU/Clemson that takes TWO of the best available content drivers off the table for the Big Ten. For these purposes let's say the SEC took FSU and OU.

For Delany's league to keep pace with the SEC, it's true rival for collegiate sports domination, it would have to pursue two of Texas, ND, and Clemson since while the Top 4 in the Big Ten (OSU, Mich, PSU, MSU) are cumulatively slightly better than the Top 4 in the SEC now (Ala, UGA, Fla, LSU), the SEC runs 7 teams deep (the previous 4 plus TAMU, Tenn, and Aub) and adding two more would tip the scales in terms of content drivers in the SEC's favor significantly. In order to keep pace the Big Ten would have to add two significant content drivers from amongst Texas, ND, and Clemson none of whom truly fit in the Big Ten or have a huge desire to join that league currently. But for sake of argument, let's say they get Texas and ND spooked by the SEC's move and hold their noses while joining the Big Ten.

Now further expansion beyond 16 is certainly possible at that point, so the SEC inviting two of Clemson, VT and NCST and the Big Ten inviting two of UNC, UVA and GT is likely - but the Big Ten's first response to the SEC taking FSU and OU will not be to get two of those three, not if they have any hope of keeping pace with the SEC. I don't see them "settling" for "market and political influence" candidates at all. But I have been known to be wrong before.

As for the ACCN, my predication remains the same that it has been for a while now $5-7 million per school in the first two-three years, $10-12 million per school thereafter. The power of the mouse is too strong now especially when they are bundling all of their respective channels together in one package ESPN, ESPN2, Disney Channel, SECN, and soon to be acquired FX all are in the Top 30 of current fees paid by subscribers each month.

But even with a slightly more favorable outlook on the ACCN than yourself (although yours is perfectly fine as well), I do agree the ACC will have a hard time to catch up with the B1G and the SEC. First it needs to get ahead of the B12 and PAC. PAC will probably happen within two years while getting ahead of the B12 might take a little longer due to that conference having one-third less mouths to feed.

As always, a pleasure.


Neil

I don't find any fault with your reasoning Neil. They would definitely go after Texas and Notre Dame if the SEC's moves were F.S.U. and Oklahoma.

However, my pet theory is that the Big 12 will go first. And the initial battle will be for Texas and Oklahoma and the SEC might wind up with one of those and Kansas since the Jayhawks aren't of much value to the Big 10.

The other plus Colorado might be a solid play for the Big 10. I'm sure the Irish would get overtures but I expect them to resist until it is no longer practical or possible.

Should that happen I fully expect the PAC to pick off a few that could add value to them.

ESPN will have a choice to make at that point pertaining to the ACC. Perhaps you pick up more schools, or if we do move to 4 conferences perhaps you finally get N.D. fully.

I can see a P4 locking up the top power bowls, but keeping the CFP at 4. If we move to a champs only I can see the CCG's moving to the best two teams instead of division winners.

That way the Cotton, Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Peach, Gator, and Capital One, Music City, the one in Charlotte, and a few others take the best of the rest if they aren't CFP dedicated.

Eventually ESPN will trim the minor bowls away and if they are smart they'll find a way to become destination bowls in a G4 playoff.

It's still fun to speculate, but if the ACC is breached first I think the SEC and Big 10 would go larger in an attempt to dominate their markets in order to command higher ad rates. And I think the Big 12 would try to get in on the best of the rest from the ACC.

(12-26-2018 11:23 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 09:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 10:35 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

Quote:The ACC Network launch will be considered a modified success.
The ACC Network’s launch will look more like that of the Big Ten Network — which endured a couple of years of brutal carriage fights — than the launch of the SEC Network — which nearly had full distribution from the start. ESPN already has a negotiating blueprint thanks to its Altice deal. Plus, you won’t find a better distribution executive than Justin Connolly, who was behind the SEC Network’s launch. It won’t be an unqualified success, but it will be good enough to keep schools happy.

Sounds about right.

If this comes to pass it'll be yet another ACCBBS fantasy that went down in flames. That the reason for the delay was to ensure that they were able to negotiate all of their carriage rates. Kind of hard for that to be true if we are going to have to endure a couple years of "brutal carriage fights".

The success or failure of the ACC Network is what it has always been: does it help close the massive revenue gap between us and the SEC/Big 10.

If the ACCN fails to generate enough revenue to satisfy Carolina or Florida State, then JR may get really happy.
The SEC would finally reel in the 'noles and would make another run at Texas. If ESPN thinks the 'Horns need to move west, the SEC might double up in South Carolina (big risk even with Clemson's content factor).
Carolina, which has now reached the top 5 in research, will with Georgia Tech in tow, will trot off to the B1G for a huge payday.
Whats left of the ACC: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, VT, NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, Miami, Louisville will pick up Notre Dame as a full member along with West Virginia to remain a 12 team league.

Would Wake even survive in that scenario? That would probably be dependent upon whether Clemson stayed or went. If Clemson left I doubt the remaining members would vote to keep Wake around since with BOTH football powerhouses gone they couldn't afford the perception of the two perceived albatrosses in football (Duke and Wake) hanging around the new league's necks. One could stay but unlikely both. Duke with its extreme value as a basketball power would win out over Wake which just doesn't have that kind of cache. Besides, I have always said in the modern era of college athletics the state of North Carolina simply does not warrant more than two teams in a single conference.

The FSU/Clemson-less remnants would likely add WVU, UCF, and Cincy to get to 12 all of whom would add equal value to the departing UNC, GT, and Wake while ND would remain indy for football with a modified scheduling arrangement with the new conference of 4 games a year but with no contractual stipulation of ever having to join the conference in the future. After all the new league would be far below the Irish's standards. But the new 12 team league would have perfect geographical balance and sensible rivalries in Pitt-WVU, SU-BC, VT-UVA, NCST-Duke, UL-UC, and Miami-UCF.

ESPN might even try to convince the league to consider a partial hybrid conference of 12/4 and get Georgetown, Villanova, and St. John's from the Big East so the basketball tournament could be played annually at MSG instead of having it rotated in order to get boring Greensboro in as part of the rotation.

And if that were successful, they might even want the league to sue and get the Big East name for the conference if that happened since why bother calling the conference the ACC when only three original members remain while eight are former Big East members. It's not as though the ACC EVER thought BIG anyway, might be best to disassociate from that loser name.

You know, I am actually starting to like this post-apocalyptic scenario. Let's face it - the true losses would be FSU and Clemson anyway. So what does the rest matter?

All in good fun, X-Lance.

Cheers,
Neil

Deja vu. The Big East absorbing the ACC.........a thread from this board circa 2009-2010?

(12-27-2018 12:56 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 11:23 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 09:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If this comes to pass it'll be yet another ACCBBS fantasy that went down in flames. That the reason for the delay was to ensure that they were able to negotiate all of their carriage rates. Kind of hard for that to be true if we are going to have to endure a couple years of "brutal carriage fights".

The success or failure of the ACC Network is what it has always been: does it help close the massive revenue gap between us and the SEC/Big 10.

If the ACCN fails to generate enough revenue to satisfy Carolina or Florida State, then JR may get really happy.
The SEC would finally reel in the 'noles and would make another run at Texas. If ESPN thinks the 'Horns need to move west, the SEC might double up in South Carolina (big risk even with Clemson's content factor).
Carolina, which has now reached the top 5 in research, will with Georgia Tech in tow, will trot off to the B1G for a huge payday.
Whats left of the ACC: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, VT, NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, Miami, Louisville will pick up Notre Dame as a full member along with West Virginia to remain a 12 team league.

Would Wake even survive in that scenario? That would probably be dependent upon whether Clemson stayed or went. If Clemson left I doubt the remaining members would vote to keep Wake around since with BOTH football powerhouses gone they couldn't afford the perception of the two perceived albatrosses in football (Duke and Wake) hanging around the new league's necks. One could stay but unlikely both. Duke with its extreme value as a basketball power would win out over Wake which just doesn't have that kind of cache. Besides, I have always said in the modern era of college athletics the state of North Carolina simply does not warrant more than two teams in a single conference.

The FSU/Clemson-less remnants would likely add WVU, UCF, and Cincy to get to 12 all of whom would add equal value to the departing UNC, GT, and Wake while ND would remain indy for football with a modified scheduling arrangement with the new conference of 4 games a year but with no contractual stipulation of ever having to join the conference in the future. After all the new league would be far below the Irish's standards. But the new 12 team league would have perfect geographical balance and sensible rivalries in Pitt-WVU, SU-BC, VT-UVA, NCST-Duke, UL-UC, and Miami-UCF.

ESPN might even try to convince the league to consider a partial hybrid conference of 12/4 and get Georgetown, Villanova, and St. John's from the Big East so the basketball tournament could be played annually at MSG instead of having it rotated in order to get boring Greensboro in as part of the rotation.

And if that were successful, they might even want the league to sue and get the Big East name for the conference if that happened since why bother calling the conference the ACC when only three original members remain while eight are former Big East members. It's not as though the ACC EVER thought BIG anyway, might be best to disassociate from that loser name.

You know, I am actually starting to like this post-apocalyptic scenario. Let's face it - the true losses would be FSU and Clemson anyway. So what does the rest matter?

All in good fun, X-Lance.

Cheers,
Neil

If North Carolina becomes available to the Big 10 I would think they would add more than two and the SEC would as well. Virginia Tech would become an SEC prospect and possibly Duke/or N.C. State if the Big 10 didn't go after them.

It's hard to say what the mix would be but if N.D. still said "Nyet" to the Big 10 then 'Cuse, UNC, UVa, and Ga Tech might be appealing to them from a market and split political influence perspective.

Texas or Oklahoma from the West along with F.S.U. and Clemson (from a branding perspective) and perhaps a North Carolina or Virginia school would do it for us. We may not even look further West in that scenario.

I think the ACCN will yield 7 to 10 million within 5 or 6 years of startup. I just don't think that will close the gap with the SEC or Big 10 who also will be getting further boosts.

Hail JR!

My post was basically tongue-in-cheek to X's post about UNC and GT heading off to the Big Ten AFTER the SEC took FSU and possibly Clemson or one of Texas/OU. Which I am sure you knew, but for others who weren't sure, it was. However, in all seriousness now...

IF the SEC did start the dominoes falling by taking some combo of FSU with one of Texas/OU/Clemson that takes TWO of the best available content drivers off the table for the Big Ten. For these purposes let's say the SEC took FSU and OU.

For Delany's league to keep pace with the SEC, it's true rival for collegiate sports domination, it would have to pursue two of Texas, ND, and Clemson since while the Top 4 in the Big Ten (OSU, Mich, PSU, MSU) are cumulatively slightly better than the Top 4 in the SEC now (Ala, UGA, Fla, LSU), the SEC runs 7 teams deep (the previous 4 plus TAMU, Tenn, and Aub) and adding two more would tip the scales in terms of content drivers in the SEC's favor significantly. In order to keep pace the Big Ten would have to add two significant content drivers from amongst Texas, ND, and Clemson none of whom truly fit in the Big Ten or have a huge desire to join that league currently. But for sake of argument, let's say they get Texas and ND spooked by the SEC's move and hold their noses while joining the Big Ten.

Now further expansion beyond 16 is certainly possible at that point, so the SEC inviting two of Clemson, VT and NCST and the Big Ten inviting two of UNC, UVA and GT is likely - but the Big Ten's first response to the SEC taking FSU and OU will not be to get two of those three, not if they have any hope of keeping pace with the SEC. I don't see them "settling" for "market and political influence" candidates at all. But I have been known to be wrong before.

As for the ACCN, my predication remains the same that it has been for a while now $5-7 million per school in the first two-three years, $10-12 million per school thereafter. The power of the mouse is too strong now especially when they are bundling all of their respective channels together in one package ESPN, ESPN2, Disney Channel, SECN, and soon to be acquired FX all are in the Top 30 of current fees paid by subscribers each month.

But even with a slightly more favorable outlook on the ACCN than yourself (although yours is perfectly fine as well), I do agree the ACC will have a hard time to catch up with the B1G and the SEC. First it needs to get ahead of the B12 and PAC. PAC will probably happen within two years while getting ahead of the B12 might take a little longer due to that conference having one-third less mouths to feed.

As always, a pleasure.


Neil

Neil, realistically the B1G would have to pursue Texas, Notre Dame and Virginia Tech (instead of Clemson, less content, better fit and a regional bridge).

(12-27-2018 05:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 11:23 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 09:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 10:35 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Sounds about right.

If this comes to pass it'll be yet another ACCBBS fantasy that went down in flames. That the reason for the delay was to ensure that they were able to negotiate all of their carriage rates. Kind of hard for that to be true if we are going to have to endure a couple years of "brutal carriage fights".

The success or failure of the ACC Network is what it has always been: does it help close the massive revenue gap between us and the SEC/Big 10.

If the ACCN fails to generate enough revenue to satisfy Carolina or Florida State, then JR may get really happy.
The SEC would finally reel in the 'noles and would make another run at Texas. If ESPN thinks the 'Horns need to move west, the SEC might double up in South Carolina (big risk even with Clemson's content factor).
Carolina, which has now reached the top 5 in research, will with Georgia Tech in tow, will trot off to the B1G for a huge payday.
Whats left of the ACC: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, VT, NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, Miami, Louisville will pick up Notre Dame as a full member along with West Virginia to remain a 12 team league.

Would Wake even survive in that scenario? That would probably be dependent upon whether Clemson stayed or went. If Clemson left I doubt the remaining members would vote to keep Wake around since with BOTH football powerhouses gone they couldn't afford the perception of the two perceived albatrosses in football (Duke and Wake) hanging around the new league's necks. One could stay but unlikely both. Duke with its extreme value as a basketball power would win out over Wake which just doesn't have that kind of cache. Besides, I have always said in the modern era of college athletics the state of North Carolina simply does not warrant more than two teams in a single conference.

The FSU/Clemson-less remnants would likely add WVU, UCF, and Cincy to get to 12 all of whom would add equal value to the departing UNC, GT, and Wake while ND would remain indy for football with a modified scheduling arrangement with the new conference of 4 games a year but with no contractual stipulation of ever having to join the conference in the future. After all the new league would be far below the Irish's standards. But the new 12 team league would have perfect geographical balance and sensible rivalries in Pitt-WVU, SU-BC, VT-UVA, NCST-Duke, UL-UC, and Miami-UCF.

ESPN might even try to convince the league to consider a partial hybrid conference of 12/4 and get Georgetown, Villanova, and St. John's from the Big East so the basketball tournament could be played annually at MSG instead of having it rotated in order to get boring Greensboro in as part of the rotation.

And if that were successful, they might even want the league to sue and get the Big East name for the conference if that happened since why bother calling the conference the ACC when only three original members remain while eight are former Big East members. It's not as though the ACC EVER thought BIG anyway, might be best to disassociate from that loser name.

You know, I am actually starting to like this post-apocalyptic scenario. Let's face it - the true losses would be FSU and Clemson anyway. So what does the rest matter?

All in good fun, X-Lance.

Cheers,
Neil

Deja vu. The Big East absorbing the ACC.........a thread from this board circa 2009-2010?

Probably, but since this board started as a Big East board (and at that time, iirc, it still was), that only makes sense.

Enjoy the northern regions once the Big Ten calls for UNC and GT. And take solace in being the Big Ten's "market and political influence candidates".



Cheers,
Neil

(12-27-2018 08:57 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 05:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 11:23 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 09:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If this comes to pass it'll be yet another ACCBBS fantasy that went down in flames. That the reason for the delay was to ensure that they were able to negotiate all of their carriage rates. Kind of hard for that to be true if we are going to have to endure a couple years of "brutal carriage fights".

The success or failure of the ACC Network is what it has always been: does it help close the massive revenue gap between us and the SEC/Big 10.

If the ACCN fails to generate enough revenue to satisfy Carolina or Florida State, then JR may get really happy.
The SEC would finally reel in the 'noles and would make another run at Texas. If ESPN thinks the 'Horns need to move west, the SEC might double up in South Carolina (big risk even with Clemson's content factor).
Carolina, which has now reached the top 5 in research, will with Georgia Tech in tow, will trot off to the B1G for a huge payday.
Whats left of the ACC: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, VT, NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, Miami, Louisville will pick up Notre Dame as a full member along with West Virginia to remain a 12 team league.

Would Wake even survive in that scenario? That would probably be dependent upon whether Clemson stayed or went. If Clemson left I doubt the remaining members would vote to keep Wake around since with BOTH football powerhouses gone they couldn't afford the perception of the two perceived albatrosses in football (Duke and Wake) hanging around the new league's necks. One could stay but unlikely both. Duke with its extreme value as a basketball power would win out over Wake which just doesn't have that kind of cache. Besides, I have always said in the modern era of college athletics the state of North Carolina simply does not warrant more than two teams in a single conference.

The FSU/Clemson-less remnants would likely add WVU, UCF, and Cincy to get to 12 all of whom would add equal value to the departing UNC, GT, and Wake while ND would remain indy for football with a modified scheduling arrangement with the new conference of 4 games a year but with no contractual stipulation of ever having to join the conference in the future. After all the new league would be far below the Irish's standards. But the new 12 team league would have perfect geographical balance and sensible rivalries in Pitt-WVU, SU-BC, VT-UVA, NCST-Duke, UL-UC, and Miami-UCF.

ESPN might even try to convince the league to consider a partial hybrid conference of 12/4 and get Georgetown, Villanova, and St. John's from the Big East so the basketball tournament could be played annually at MSG instead of having it rotated in order to get boring Greensboro in as part of the rotation.

And if that were successful, they might even want the league to sue and get the Big East name for the conference if that happened since why bother calling the conference the ACC when only three original members remain while eight are former Big East members. It's not as though the ACC EVER thought BIG anyway, might be best to disassociate from that loser name.

You know, I am actually starting to like this post-apocalyptic scenario. Let's face it - the true losses would be FSU and Clemson anyway. So what does the rest matter?

All in good fun, X-Lance.

Cheers,
Neil

Deja vu. The Big East absorbing the ACC.........a thread from this board circa 2009-2010?

Probably, but since this board started as a Big East board (and at that time, iirc, it still was), that only makes sense.

Enjoy the northern regions once the Big Ten calls for UNC and GT. And take solace in being the Big Ten's "market and political influence candidates".



Cheers,
Neil

Whew! It's bad enough having to travel to Boston and Syracuse once every six years as it is.

(12-27-2018 12:49 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 08:57 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 05:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 11:23 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  If the ACCN fails to generate enough revenue to satisfy Carolina or Florida State, then JR may get really happy.
The SEC would finally reel in the 'noles and would make another run at Texas. If ESPN thinks the 'Horns need to move west, the SEC might double up in South Carolina (big risk even with Clemson's content factor).
Carolina, which has now reached the top 5 in research, will with Georgia Tech in tow, will trot off to the B1G for a huge payday.
Whats left of the ACC: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, VT, NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, Miami, Louisville will pick up Notre Dame as a full member along with West Virginia to remain a 12 team league.

Would Wake even survive in that scenario? That would probably be dependent upon whether Clemson stayed or went. If Clemson left I doubt the remaining members would vote to keep Wake around since with BOTH football powerhouses gone they couldn't afford the perception of the two perceived albatrosses in football (Duke and Wake) hanging around the new league's necks. One could stay but unlikely both. Duke with its extreme value as a basketball power would win out over Wake which just doesn't have that kind of cache. Besides, I have always said in the modern era of college athletics the state of North Carolina simply does not warrant more than two teams in a single conference.

The FSU/Clemson-less remnants would likely add WVU, UCF, and Cincy to get to 12 all of whom would add equal value to the departing UNC, GT, and Wake while ND would remain indy for football with a modified scheduling arrangement with the new conference of 4 games a year but with no contractual stipulation of ever having to join the conference in the future. After all the new league would be far below the Irish's standards. But the new 12 team league would have perfect geographical balance and sensible rivalries in Pitt-WVU, SU-BC, VT-UVA, NCST-Duke, UL-UC, and Miami-UCF.

ESPN might even try to convince the league to consider a partial hybrid conference of 12/4 and get Georgetown, Villanova, and St. John's from the Big East so the basketball tournament could be played annually at MSG instead of having it rotated in order to get boring Greensboro in as part of the rotation.

And if that were successful, they might even want the league to sue and get the Big East name for the conference if that happened since why bother calling the conference the ACC when only three original members remain while eight are former Big East members. It's not as though the ACC EVER thought BIG anyway, might be best to disassociate from that loser name.

You know, I am actually starting to like this post-apocalyptic scenario. Let's face it - the true losses would be FSU and Clemson anyway. So what does the rest matter?

All in good fun, X-Lance.

Cheers,
Neil

Deja vu. The Big East absorbing the ACC.........a thread from this board circa 2009-2010?

Probably, but since this board started as a Big East board (and at that time, iirc, it still was), that only makes sense.

Enjoy the northern regions once the Big Ten calls for UNC and GT. And take solace in being the Big Ten's "market and political influence candidates".



Cheers,
Neil

Whew! It's bad enough having to travel to Boston and Syracuse once every six years as it is.

Well it's more likely Boston OR Syracuse once every 7 years (since the home and home for each is stretched out over 14 years), but I will cut you some slack there since this is football we are talking about and the first 14 year cycle hasn't been completed yet.

All in good fun.

Cheers,
Neil

The contrast of AAC ESPN 8 million a year and MWC Facebook .
That could lead to AAC raiding the MWC.
Adding BYU , Air Force football only CSU and SDSU would raise their profile.
The AAC conference championship would be the a best of the rest .
ESPN would gain access to Western games without the dead weight.
ACC has fifteen so sixteen can be done.
The MWC would back fill with two CUSA Texas teams no call ups.

The money would be different but MWC a few ESPN and FB for all games.
Big Sky has Pluto for all games and a few root sports pretty similar.
Idaho went from most games ESPN3 to all games PLUTO pretty much the same .

(12-27-2018 12:27 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I imagine Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke are a package deal. Georgia Tech may be in there, too.

Assuming that UVa or UNC are free to move without VT and NC State being happy is the wrong assumption. The interlocking politics are extreme. NC State is much more likely to be "allowed" to move than UNC-Ch is ever likely to move. Folks in Chapel Hill don't want to deal with folks in Columbus or Ann Arbor. They don't really want to deal with anyone in Texas, Knoxville, or the State of Alabama.

Barring a total dissolution of the ACC, VT and NCSU are the only two realistic options for the Big 10 out of the States of Va and NC. VT and NCSU are the only two "realistic" options for the SEC. You can't get UVa or UNC-Ch unless the league were to die.


On top of that the ptb in sports in Chapel Hill and Charlottesville do not want to see VT or NC State in either the B10 or SEC thinking it would be a recruiting advantage.


Short of major collusion and behind the scenes negotiations you keep coming back to the Gordian knot of how to separate VT/UVa/UNC/Duke/NCSU as well as WF, GT, and to a lesser degree - Clemson. From a social standpoint, neither UVa or UNC-Ch are "southern" - they are "eastern" and therein lies a real issue. NCSU is culturally "southern" but academically and functionally like other B10 schools.

(12-28-2018 03:04 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 12:27 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I imagine Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke are a package deal. Georgia Tech may be in there, too.

Assuming that UVa or UNC are free to move without VT and NC State being happy is the wrong assumption. The interlocking politics are extreme. NC State is much more likely to be "allowed" to move than UNC-Ch is ever likely to move. Folks in Chapel Hill don't want to deal with folks in Columbus or Ann Arbor. They don't really want to deal with anyone in Texas, Knoxville, or the State of Alabama.

Barring a total dissolution of the ACC, VT and NCSU are the only two realistic options for the Big 10 out of the States of Va and NC. VT and NCSU are the only two "realistic" options for the SEC. You can't get UVa or UNC-Ch unless the league were to die.


On top of that the ptb in sports in Chapel Hill and Charlottesville do not want to see VT or NC State in either the B10 or SEC thinking it would be a recruiting advantage.


Short of major collusion and behind the scenes negotiations you keep coming back to the Gordian knot of how to separate VT/UVa/UNC/Duke/NCSU as well as WF, GT, and to a lesser degree - Clemson. From a social standpoint, neither UVa or UNC-Ch are "southern" - they are "eastern" and therein lies a real issue. NCSU is culturally "southern" but academically and functionally like other B10 schools.

The ptb I know in Chapel Hill would not be displeased at all if NCSU were to move to the B1G.

(12-28-2018 12:58 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  The contrast of AAC ESPN 8 million a year and MWC Facebook .
That could lead to AAC raiding the MWC.
Adding BYU , Air Force football only CSU and SDSU would raise their profile.
The AAC conference championship would be the a best of the rest .
ESPN would gain access to Western games without the dead weight.
ACC has fifteen so sixteen can be done.
The MWC would back fill with two CUSA Texas teams no call ups.

The money would be different but MWC a few ESPN and FB for all games.
Big Sky has Pluto for all games and a few root sports pretty similar.
Idaho went from most games ESPN3 to all games PLUTO pretty much the same .

BYU might go for it....but I doubt it.

(12-26-2018 10:32 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 06:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Here is my take on this.

ACC: There are schools in that conference do terrible in tv ratings that are even worst that some C-USA, SBC, MAC and even some FCS schools. They are usually schools that are not UNC, Clemson of Florida State.

AAC: There are a couple of schools there only deserves like $500K instead of $8 million.More than half of the MWC are in the $8 million dollar range, a couple of C-USA, MAC and SBC plus James Madison, North Dakota State and Eastern Washington are close to that range in value.

MWC: Their games deserve to have equal rights to be on ESPN as AAC. They are more competitive to each other and have some great games.

The ACC Network will fail. After the Longhorn Network fiasco? Cable companies will start to refuse to carry another network. Look where the PAC 12 is at? The reason is that the cable companies will start to fight back to keep subscribers. Adding another conference network to raise cable fees would hurt the cable companies. Some smaller cable companies already went bye bye because they were forced to take the Longhorn Network, and they did not have the subscribers to cover the cost of that Network as well. Some of these cable companies happened to be in Oklahoma and had less than 200,000 costumers.

As far as the ratings, you believe this? Really? Explain yourself first. I can't believe the ratings of the MWC rank with the AAC.

Must be trollin'

Both conferences have deadweights.

Tulsa and Tulane struggles with fanbase and rating. MWC do have San Jose State as the weakest of them all, then UNLV, Utah State, Wyoming and New Mexico at the next level. The rest do have decent steady fanbase and ratings. They all at teams get over 1 million viewers for games. Same as the top AAC schools. Utah State's ratings might have gone up this year. UNR always do good in ratings. They have a winning season, and their men's basketball in the top 10 in the polls shows that the MWC is not dead, but returning to glory.

(12-28-2018 05:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-28-2018 12:58 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  The contrast of AAC ESPN 8 million a year and MWC Facebook .
That could lead to AAC raiding the MWC.
Adding BYU , Air Force football only CSU and SDSU would raise their profile.
The AAC conference championship would be the a best of the rest .
ESPN would gain access to Western games without the dead weight.
ACC has fifteen so sixteen can be done.
The MWC would back fill with two CUSA Texas teams no call ups.

The money would be different but MWC a few ESPN and FB for all games.
Big Sky has Pluto for all games and a few root sports pretty similar.
Idaho went from most games ESPN3 to all games PLUTO pretty much the same .

BYU might go for it....but I doubt it

Your probably right they would need to buy into the P6 stuff.
Air Force football only and Colorado St could easily make the jump.
Probably take two and add two more later if desired.
The MWC and CUSA have lost the most out of G5 conferences after latest realignment.
Add to that Boise getting preferential treatment .
ESPN can add a couple Mountain time zone teams to add a few late games without overpaying the MWC.
Go play with a few former top level teams in Houston, Uconn, Cincinnati in bigger stadiums on ESPN.
Or play on Facebook in smaller stadiums with teams with less tradition fan support.

(12-26-2018 02:42 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Just a hunch on my part, but the ACC network viewership will be based more on basketball than football. Don't get me wrong, Football is the money making king. However, ACC basketball fans are more likely to want the ACC network than football fans. I can see Duke vs UNC move to the ACC network in Basketball for at least one game. With multiple top 25 basketball games moved to the ACC network. One thing, ESPN has as much interest in the ACC network working as the ACC. I am not expecting SEC Network money but I be happy with money moving the ACC past the B12 and PAC 12

You are correct. The ACC network has three legs -

ACC Basketball
ACC Football
Notre Dame Sports

People predicting "failure" are silly.

Personally I think ACC Baseball and ACC Soccer will do very well on the new network.

(12-29-2018 02:53 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 10:32 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 06:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Here is my take on this.

ACC: There are schools in that conference do terrible in tv ratings that are even worst that some C-USA, SBC, MAC and even some FCS schools. They are usually schools that are not UNC, Clemson of Florida State.

AAC: There are a couple of schools there only deserves like $500K instead of $8 million.More than half of the MWC are in the $8 million dollar range, a couple of C-USA, MAC and SBC plus James Madison, North Dakota State and Eastern Washington are close to that range in value.

MWC: Their games deserve to have equal rights to be on ESPN as AAC. They are more competitive to each other and have some great games.

The ACC Network will fail. After the Longhorn Network fiasco? Cable companies will start to refuse to carry another network. Look where the PAC 12 is at? The reason is that the cable companies will start to fight back to keep subscribers. Adding another conference network to raise cable fees would hurt the cable companies. Some smaller cable companies already went bye bye because they were forced to take the Longhorn Network, and they did not have the subscribers to cover the cost of that Network as well. Some of these cable companies happened to be in Oklahoma and had less than 200,000 costumers.

As far as the ratings, you believe this? Really? Explain yourself first. I can't believe the ratings of the MWC rank with the AAC.

Must be trollin'

Both conferences have deadweights.

Tulsa and Tulane struggles with fanbase and rating. MWC do have San Jose State as the weakest of them all, then UNLV, Utah State, Wyoming and New Mexico at the next level. The rest do have decent steady fanbase and ratings. They all at teams get over 1 million viewers for games. Same as the top AAC schools. Utah State's ratings might have gone up this year. UNR always do good in ratings. They have a winning season, and their men's basketball in the top 10 in the polls shows that the MWC is not dead, but returning to glory.

This (your bolded statement) just. isnt. true.
2018 million viewer games (non-bowl because the bowls get what they get and aren't a part of the packages to be negotiated soon) Bold indicates representative of the inventory up for negotiation.
AAC
Army Navy 8.0 million
UCF Mem (regular) 3.331M*
CCG 3.32 M
Cin UCF 3.09M
Ariz HOU 2.918M**
GT-USF 2.918M**
ND-Navy 2.447M
USF-HOU 2.350M*
UCF USF1.741
FAU-UCF 1.295M
Tem-UCF 1.191M
USF-Tulsa 1.170M
Hou-TxTech 1.079M
TCU-SMU 1.076M
Cin-UCLA 1.008M

mwc
Boise-OkState 1.438M
USU-Boise 1.078M
CCG 1.036M

That's all for 2018 - three games, only two conference controlled, with three total teams in the mwc got one million viewers. That compares poorly to fifteen games, twelve of which are part of the package being sold and nine of twelve teams represented for the AAC.

For 2015-2018, conference-controlled games over one million viewers (in fact dropping ND Navy '18 which isn't currently conference inventory though '20, '22, etc will be and I didn't count '16) AAC 35, mwc 5.

35 and 5 are not the same. Not even close. And it is year after year and trending up for the AAC.

(* these games were reverse mirror, so even cutting in half greater than million.
** These two AAC games were reverse mirror of each other, so AAC-controlled game got ALL those viewers)

(12-29-2018 04:38 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-29-2018 02:53 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 10:32 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 06:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Here is my take on this.

ACC: There are schools in that conference do terrible in tv ratings that are even worst that some C-USA, SBC, MAC and even some FCS schools. They are usually schools that are not UNC, Clemson of Florida State.

AAC: There are a couple of schools there only deserves like $500K instead of $8 million.More than half of the MWC are in the $8 million dollar range, a couple of C-USA, MAC and SBC plus James Madison, North Dakota State and Eastern Washington are close to that range in value.

MWC: Their games deserve to have equal rights to be on ESPN as AAC. They are more competitive to each other and have some great games.

The ACC Network will fail. After the Longhorn Network fiasco? Cable companies will start to refuse to carry another network. Look where the PAC 12 is at? The reason is that the cable companies will start to fight back to keep subscribers. Adding another conference network to raise cable fees would hurt the cable companies. Some smaller cable companies already went bye bye because they were forced to take the Longhorn Network, and they did not have the subscribers to cover the cost of that Network as well. Some of these cable companies happened to be in Oklahoma and had less than 200,000 costumers.

As far as the ratings, you believe this? Really? Explain yourself first. I can't believe the ratings of the MWC rank with the AAC.

Must be trollin'

Both conferences have deadweights.

Tulsa and Tulane struggles with fanbase and rating. MWC do have San Jose State as the weakest of them all, then UNLV, Utah State, Wyoming and New Mexico at the next level. The rest do have decent steady fanbase and ratings. They all at teams get over 1 million viewers for games. Same as the top AAC schools. Utah State's ratings might have gone up this year. UNR always do good in ratings. They have a winning season, and their men's basketball in the top 10 in the polls shows that the MWC is not dead, but returning to glory.

This (your bolded statement) just. isnt. true.
2018 million viewer games (non-bowl because the bowls get what they get and aren't a part of the packages to be negotiated soon) Bold indicates representative of the inventory up for negotiation.
AAC
Army Navy 8.0 million
UCF Mem (regular) 3.331M*
CCG 3.32 M
Cin UCF 3.09M
Ariz HOU 2.918M**
GT-USF 2.918M**
ND-Navy 2.447M
USF-HOU 2.350M*
UCF USF1.741
FAU-UCF 1.295M
Tem-UCF 1.191M
USF-Tulsa 1.170M
Hou-TxTech 1.079M
TCU-SMU 1.076M
Cin-UCLA 1.008M

mwc
Boise-OkState 1.438M
USU-Boise 1.078M
CCG 1.036M

That's all for 2018 - three games, only two conference controlled, with three total teams in the mwc got one million viewers. That compares poorly to fifteen games, twelve of which are part of the package being sold and nine of twelve teams represented for the AAC.

For 2015-2018, conference-controlled games over one million viewers (in fact dropping ND Navy '18 which isn't currently conference inventory though '20, '22, etc will be and I didn't count '16) AAC 35, mwc 5.

35 and 5 are not the same. Not even close. And it is year after year and trending up for the AAC.

(* these games were reverse mirror, so even cutting in half greater than million.
** These two AAC games were reverse mirror of each other, so AAC-controlled game got ALL those viewers)

That is after ESPN not showing the MWC games. When ESPN showed many MWC/WAC football games? The top big name MWC/WAC schools had over a million views. The history shows when ESPN showed more games of the schools from MWC/WAC do have the stats that the top MWC teams do get the ratings.

(12-30-2018 03:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-29-2018 04:38 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-29-2018 02:53 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 10:32 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 06:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Here is my take on this.

ACC: There are schools in that conference do terrible in tv ratings that are even worst that some C-USA, SBC, MAC and even some FCS schools. They are usually schools that are not UNC, Clemson of Florida State.

AAC: There are a couple of schools there only deserves like $500K instead of $8 million.More than half of the MWC are in the $8 million dollar range, a couple of C-USA, MAC and SBC plus James Madison, North Dakota State and Eastern Washington are close to that range in value.

MWC: Their games deserve to have equal rights to be on ESPN as AAC. They are more competitive to each other and have some great games.

The ACC Network will fail. After the Longhorn Network fiasco? Cable companies will start to refuse to carry another network. Look where the PAC 12 is at? The reason is that the cable companies will start to fight back to keep subscribers. Adding another conference network to raise cable fees would hurt the cable companies. Some smaller cable companies already went bye bye because they were forced to take the Longhorn Network, and they did not have the subscribers to cover the cost of that Network as well. Some of these cable companies happened to be in Oklahoma and had less than 200,000 costumers.

As far as the ratings, you believe this? Really? Explain yourself first. I can't believe the ratings of the MWC rank with the AAC.

Must be trollin'

Both conferences have deadweights.

Tulsa and Tulane struggles with fanbase and rating. MWC do have San Jose State as the weakest of them all, then UNLV, Utah State, Wyoming and New Mexico at the next level. The rest do have decent steady fanbase and ratings. They all at teams get over 1 million viewers for games. Same as the top AAC schools. Utah State's ratings might have gone up this year. UNR always do good in ratings. They have a winning season, and their men's basketball in the top 10 in the polls shows that the MWC is not dead, but returning to glory.

This (your bolded statement) just. isnt. true.
2018 million viewer games (non-bowl because the bowls get what they get and aren't a part of the packages to be negotiated soon) Bold indicates representative of the inventory up for negotiation.
AAC
Army Navy 8.0 million
UCF Mem (regular) 3.331M*
CCG 3.32 M
Cin UCF 3.09M
Ariz HOU 2.918M**
GT-USF 2.918M**
ND-Navy 2.447M
USF-HOU 2.350M*
UCF USF1.741
FAU-UCF 1.295M
Tem-UCF 1.191M
USF-Tulsa 1.170M
Hou-TxTech 1.079M
TCU-SMU 1.076M
Cin-UCLA 1.008M

mwc
Boise-OkState 1.438M
USU-Boise 1.078M
CCG 1.036M

That's all for 2018 - three games, only two conference controlled, with three total teams in the mwc got one million viewers. That compares poorly to fifteen games, twelve of which are part of the package being sold and nine of twelve teams represented for the AAC.

For 2015-2018, conference-controlled games over one million viewers (in fact dropping ND Navy '18 which isn't currently conference inventory though '20, '22, etc will be and I didn't count '16) AAC 35, mwc 5.

35 and 5 are not the same. Not even close. And it is year after year and trending up for the AAC.

(* these games were reverse mirror, so even cutting in half greater than million.
** These two AAC games were reverse mirror of each other, so AAC-controlled game got ALL those viewers)

That is after ESPN not showing the MWC games. When ESPN showed many MWC/WAC football games? The top big name MWC/WAC schools had over a million views. The history shows when ESPN showed more games of the schools from MWC/WAC do have the stats that the top MWC teams do get the ratings.

I think they showed 20 or so MW games on Disney controlled networks. They just didnt do that well for whatever reason.

(12-29-2018 03:41 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 02:42 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Just a hunch on my part, but the ACC network viewership will be based more on basketball than football. Don't get me wrong, Football is the money making king. However, ACC basketball fans are more likely to want the ACC network than football fans. I can see Duke vs UNC move to the ACC network in Basketball for at least one game. With multiple top 25 basketball games moved to the ACC network. One thing, ESPN has as much interest in the ACC network working as the ACC. I am not expecting SEC Network money but I be happy with money moving the ACC past the B12 and PAC 12

You are correct. The ACC network has three legs -

ACC Basketball
ACC Football
Notre Dame Sports

People predicting "failure" are silly.

Personally I think ACC Baseball and ACC Soccer will do very well on the new network.

Don't sleep on ACC Lacrosse either.

ACC Network now on Verizon/FIOS https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...-extension

(12-30-2018 08:40 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  ACC Network now on Verizon/FIOS https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...-extension

That contract alone represents about 25% of the Pac12 Network subscriber base. Hard to see how the ACC Network wont be at least a moderate success. I think its going to do just fine. Probably not SEC Net/Big10 Net fine---but with Disney/ABC behind it, I'd think it should get at least 50 to 75 percent of the subscriber base the B10N or SECN have (maybe more).