12

8/15/2011 2:14:55 PM

Good interview with Swofford. As much as we hate him, it sounds like he is really on top of the whole conference expansion issue. And I think he deserves at least a little bit of credit for keeping FSU and Clemson from moving to the SEC.

http://www.accsports.com/blogs/jim-young/2011081510827/swofford-acc-quietly-studied-14--and-16-team-models-last-year.php

8/16/2011 10:29:03 AM

Quote :

"he deserves at least a little bit of credit for keeping FSU and Clemson from moving to the SEC"

very little, seeing how the sec doesnt really want either of them.

and why are there state fans out there wanting to go to the sec? that would be a HUGE mistake.

8/16/2011 11:19:01 AM

^^ sorry to disagree, but he doesn't sound any more on top of the expansion issue than one would expect. i mean, he says "yeah, we're thinking about it, and have some possible contingencies", but he'd have to be amazingly incompentent not to. we're talking about these things on a message board, he'd better be discussing it with the university presidents.

i also disagree with him that the culture of the ACC is in tact after expansion - it's nothing like it was 10 years ago, and i'm sure he knows it...but hey, he led the league through a poorly thought out and executed expansion, he certainly has to defend it now.

8/16/2011 11:38:23 AM

Quote :

"he'd have to be amazingly incompentent"

Don't forget, you are posting on a State message board. We expect incompetence from our administrators. I think the expansion in 2003 was a really good move, unfortunately, one team (Miami) has completely dropped off, and BC was a last minute addition in place of Syracuse. But it was imperative to expand, and has put us in a much better position for the last TV contract negotiation, as well as reacting to expansion from other leagues.

8/16/2011 3:22:45 PM

Quote :

"we're talking about these things on a message board, he'd better be discussing it with the university presidents."

Given the things that are said on some message boards, I don't think this is a valid argument.

8/16/2011 3:29:37 PM

Expanding in and of itself in 2003 wasn't a bad move - picking up Miami and BC, two teams with largely disinterested fan bases, was a real mistake. One that any foresight and thought beyond "tv markets are great" would've prevented. And yes, our current TV contract is bigger than the previous one, but everything in sports has inflated the past decade. I dunno, do we think the contract is 33% higher than it would've been had we not expanded? I doubt it would've been - and it would need to be at least that much higher for the per team split to be better. That contract is driven by ESPN's desire to show UNC and Duke basketball games, not the conference's football.

I fully agree that we are used to incompetence though

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

8/16/2011 4:31:58 PM

Any update on the SEC expansion or ACC loss of teams? I've had my head stuck in a conference room last couple days.

8/17/2011 12:45:20 PM

USC
Oregon
Miami
UNC
OSU
Boise State
Georgia Tech
FSU
Tennessee
LSU
Auburn
....
....
....
....
....

8/17/2011 12:57:48 PM

ECU to the Big Ten. They wanted in on that tradition of the Spirit of the East.

It'll be hard to decide if they are Leaders or Legends.

8/17/2011 2:29:51 PM

Quote :

"do we think the contract is 33% higher than it would've been had we not expanded? "

yes - at least. without expansion, the ACC's television deal was probably about to decrease compared to the previous deal.

8/17/2011 2:33:25 PM

After Miami gets the death penalty, we'll need a new school to replace them. Doubt ECU's academics allow them to be the new team though

8/17/2011 2:37:30 PM

Quote :

"Expanding in and of itself in 2003 wasn't a bad move - picking up Miami and BC, two teams with largely disinterested fan bases, was a real mistake."

Well, to be fair, we thought we were getting a consistent top 10 team in football in 2003. Miami had won a national title in 2001 and went to the Orange Bowl that year. We didn't know they were going to crap out like that.

If we had to choose a different 12th team, it probably should have been Pitt. West Virginia adds nothing since their fanbase overlaps Pitt and VT largely. Pitt at least adds a team with tradition and a sizable TV market.

8/17/2011 2:38:59 PM

^^^^^the "ncaa shit list" confrence, the champion is the one who gets the most violations!

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 2:40 PM. Reason : ^]

8/17/2011 2:39:45 PM

West Virginia academics are on about the same level as ECU, little chance they get invited.

Pitt/Louisville/Syracuse/UConn/Cincy/Rutgers probably be candidates.

8/17/2011 2:44:17 PM

I think Pitt would fit in. Consistent 6-8 win team, good basketball, & academics aren't an issue

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 2:46 PM. Reason : Would love to hear duke & unc bitch about their physical bball teams every year too]

8/17/2011 2:45:45 PM

i wouldn't mind Syracuse, except for the football program...yikes

8/17/2011 2:50:02 PM

yeah I don't want to bring in any of those slow ass basketball teams though like pitt or any of the big 10 schools

Its bad enough we have coaches in the league wanting to run that slowdown nonsense

8/17/2011 2:56:32 PM

A good team is a good team.

I'd like to see more style variety.

8/17/2011 4:43:55 PM

Quote :

"yes - at least. without expansion, the ACC's television deal was probably about to decrease compared to the previous deal. "

We'll just have to disagree on that one homey. The Big 12's new deals (from this past March) give them ~$130M per year for 10 teams, which was a huge bump from their previous deal - and the conference SHRUNK last summer. The ACC's deal is $155 for 12 teams, which is actually slightly less per team than the Big 12's deal. So I don't buy the argument that expansion has driven our TV deals up. Not when a conference that was at risk of dissolving a year ago just signed contracts higher than the ACC's...

8/17/2011 4:49:13 PM

He didn't say it went up with expansion, he said it would have gone down without expansion.

The ACC at 9 had nowhere near the negotiating power as the Big-12 at 10. We had FSU as a national football presence. The Big 12(10) has Okla and Texas, both of which have a bigger national presence than FSU did by 2003.

8/17/2011 4:57:20 PM

The ACC contract is as much about basketball as football. In basketball, we have Duke and UNC. That's the ONLY REASON we got a decent deal, and that has nothing to do with our crappy football or any of the 3 teams we added.

8/17/2011 5:00:49 PM

Not buying for a second that if we were sitting at 9 teams we would have gotten as good of a deal. It isn't comparable to the Big 12 at all, that is a totally different beast you can't say because they got a good payday going down from 12 to 10 that we would have gotten an as good or better deal staying at 9.

UNC and Duke basketball drove the deal to some extent, but football is still king. Bad college football gets good ratings, it will beat out good college basketball. That is why high school games and even Pop Warner games are on ESPN.

So to think that somehow gaining Miami(not looking good today but still), VT, and BC(not great football but a northern market) plus a championship game that has sucked but again still will pull ratings didn't help with the deal is nuts.

8/17/2011 5:33:19 PM

not nuts at all. in our last TV deals, that were separate, the basketball deal for the ACC was more lucrative than the football deal. that's an actual fact. and that deal was signed just post-expansion. but hey, guess all y'all know better than me. BC football is more attractive as a TV product than duke/unc basketball. yup, that's what's up.

and don't get me wrong, i'm not saying as good a deal in sum. i'm saying as good a deal, if not better, on a per team basis...

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 7:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2011 7:56:42 PM

Still waiting on the collapse of the Big East. Once the Big 12 goes this year or next, they'll be the next ones to be poached.

8/17/2011 7:57:58 PM

^^ Dude that is proving the point.

Before we added the teams the basketball deal was more lucrative than the football deal.

We added those 3 teams(2 football schools, and a northeast market), which led to additional football markets, a championship game, and our next deal is bigger. If our basketball didn't improve, but our football in theory did, than doesn't that stand to reason that the football + expansion is what led to the more lucrative deal?

If we were a 9 team league we would not have gotten as lucrative a deal on a team by team basis. No fucking way. Football is what drives those deals. How many times have you heard them talking about conference expansion and going after a basketball school to add to the mix?

8/17/2011 9:12:27 PM

no, the previous deal was done after expansion, not before. thus, my point was that even after expansion, for the ACC basketball was/is more lucrative. I agree, for every conference other than the ACC and Big East football is more important - and hey, we tried to become a football conference, but it absolutely hasn't happened. fortunately for the ACC, there's still enough basketball pedigree for us to get decent TV deals despite our lack of football prowess. our failed attempt at becoming a football conference has in no way increased our revenue on a $/school basis. to think that somehow the shitty football content the expanded ACC has provided the past 6 years led to an increase in TV revenue above and beyond what we would've gotten otherwise is foolish.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 11:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2011 11:36:35 PM

Quote :

"very little, seeing how the sec doesnt really want either of them. and why are there state fans out there wanting to go to the sec? that would be a HUGE mistake."

It's almost football seasons and the SEC has more big name national powers than the ACC right now. State fans over on packpride are having fantasies about when we join the SEC and beat Florida, LSU, Auburn, and Alabama every year. There are a lot of comments like "We'll take our beatings at first."

8/18/2011 1:21:52 AM

debbie yow shot it down in chat yesterday so its pretty much not happening. I disagree with her but she thinks we were a founder and need to win to carry the torch for our "home" conference. She said she loves the sec but likes being "home" in the acc. whatever that bullshit means.

8/18/2011 1:30:03 AM

^I don't see us leaving the ACC, but her comment was pretty standard. In that situation you don't say, "Yes we want to leave for another conference, if they offer us more money." You just make the normal comment about how you are happy with the current situation. Then 48 hours later, or 10 years later when you have the chance to do something like switch conferences and it is the right move then you do it.

8/18/2011 1:34:46 AM

^ What he said.

Yow's comment was exactly what you want your AD to say.

8/18/2011 8:49:43 AM

Quote :

"to think that somehow the shitty football content the expanded ACC has provided the past 6 years led to an increase in TV revenue above and beyond what we would've gotten otherwise is foolish."

Ok by your logic then the Big East should have a nice fat contract coming their way because of the quality of their basketball the past few years right?

Just because the ACC football has been down doesn't mean it doesn't get ratings, doesn't mean it won't improve, and doesn't mean that the schools in the ACC still have quality football tradition and followings. College basketball is great, and the tournament is great and a big money maker, but football is where the money is, even bad football. Football is what is driving all this, not fucking college basketball.

8/18/2011 10:40:04 AM

Tobacco Road is the heart of the ACC. no way any of its schools are leaving the conference

8/18/2011 12:08:23 PM

Quote :

"football is where the money is, even bad football."

people don't like that this is true, but this is true.

8/18/2011 12:26:20 PM

Quote :

"yeah I don't want to bring in any of those slow ass basketball teams though like pitt or any of the big 10 schools Its bad enough we have coaches in the league wanting to run that slowdown nonsense"

Haha, Duke/UNC would shit themselves if they had to play against a Pitt style rock fight team night after night..

^ this is true. Of the top 25 most profitable programs in college sports exactly one is basketball. Louisville at 21, though that program was more profitable than any ACC, Pac10 or Big East football program..

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 12:31 PM. Reason : X]

8/18/2011 12:27:28 PM

^ For better or for worse.

8/18/2011 12:29:22 PM

^^ really? louisville must not be spending any money on recruiting to be more profitable than than the dozen or so better basketball programs. or maybe they just make a ton of money on naming rights for the embarrassing KFC Yum! Center.

8/18/2011 12:36:52 PM

Louisville makes the most $ from premium seating of any team in the country by far. 30% higher than #2. And the new building was wholly privately financed and they get money from their practice facility being sponsored as well.

Tom Jurich is the best AD in the country, one bad football hire aside.

8/18/2011 12:44:00 PM

good to know, although best AD in the country might be a bit strong.

8/18/2011 12:53:50 PM

Oh, i completely understand that in general football brings in more money than basketball. And to that point, the only reason we DIDN'T get a huge TV contract is because our football is awful. but y'all acting like ACC basketball is the WNBA, the leftovers we force networks to take to carry our awesome football games. and that's not the case.

8/18/2011 1:50:11 PM

WTF are you talking about? We did get a big deal even with our shitty football.

You are the one saying that if we stayed at 9 teams and had great basketball we would have somehow gotten a lucrative deal, and that somehow the only is really just from UNC and Duke bball? The lucrative deal comes from 12 teams, those 3 additional teams adding to the football side of things. The lucrative deal comes from the following that Miami, FSU, Clemson, GT, VT all have. Why do you think they added 3 teams that really didn't fit into the conference at all in a basketball sense? Because they wanted their fucking football following.

Nobody said anything about the level of the basketball. Yes, from a fan point of view the 9 team league was much better for basketball. The problem is you are making a connection between the level of play and the money. It has nothing to do with that, leagues go up and down just because we are down in a sport now doesn't mean we will be for a long time. The potential for ACC football to be big is there, and the 12 team league is what created that potential.

Understand, EVERYONE watches football. Good football, bad football, shitty ACC football, it doesn't matter. I watched Toledo play football 3 times last year. By the end of this year I'll have seen a directional Michigan team play a college football game. That isn't the case with college basketball. Look at ratings for shitty bowl games, and NFL preseason games. Its all crap football and the ratings are great and that is what the networks all want a piece of.

It has nothing to do with college basketball at all, that is just an added bonus. You are wrong, just admit that and quit backtracking out of your argument and using words like "y'all" to try and soften the blow of how wrong you are. Oh wait, I take that back you are right, I hear Butler just got invited to join the Big 10.

8/18/2011 3:14:31 PM

^ whoa, level of play has nothing to do with the money? come on now. you know better than that. level of play = more fans = more tickets sold and more TV draw. sure, some schools like Ole Miss it doesn't matter, but in general that's the case.

Look, I've stated two facts - 1) in our previous deal, that was signed with 12 teams, the basketball contract was worth more than the football contract, thus showing that for the ACC basketball actually does have some TV value. and 2) the 10-team Big 12 (that is close to falling apart) just signed a deal that is more lucrative than the ACC deal on a per team basis, so one does not HAVE to be a 12-team super-conference to attract TV money. that is a fact. So I apologize if generalized arguments of "no way a 9-team ACC would make more money per school than a 12 team ACC with football powerhouses miami and BC in it" do not persuade me.

My ideal scenario would be that now that Miami is about to get the death penalty, we dump them and BC, and have a 10-team league with the old ACC + va tech. round robin basketball, better football match-ups, and more fan interest. but hey, guess we need those awesome TV markets in boston and miami to compete with the big boys!!

8/18/2011 3:55:19 PM

you, sir, are a stubborn ass

and that is coming from a stubborn ass

8/18/2011 4:01:07 PM

hahaha, probably so! but i mean, i've taken graduate level classes in sports business and entertainment marketing, and done consulting work for a few large sports organizations around revenue generation, so i figure i have some basis for my thinking on this one. and i'm sorry, i just don't buy into the idea that ACC expansion has been good for the league - unfortunately, there's no way to prove/disprove that point now, and we're all entitled to our own opinions. it could have been great had we been more thoughtful with who we added and why, but we added two teams with apathetic fan bases. thank God for va tech.

8/18/2011 4:15:42 PM

the only answer I have to point #2 is Texas.

8/18/2011 4:18:50 PM

Quote :

" That isn't the case with college basketball. Look at ratings for shitty bowl games, and NFL preseason games. Its all crap football and the ratings are great and that is what the networks all want a piece of. "

This needs to be addressed. It's not true. A quarter of the bowl games last year had ratings under 2.0. All but three non-bcs games were under 5.0. Most well under.

No NCAA tourney day had less than a 5.0 from what I can see..

8/18/2011 4:40:16 PM

Do NCAA tourney days affect the conference tv deals though? I don't think it does. I was trying to find some individual game numbers/averages yesterday, but had no luck.

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 4:50 PM. Reason : by individual games I mean ACC reg season or ACC tournie games]

8/18/2011 4:49:49 PM

I had something typed out.

But I'm done arguing this one. I'm going to go take some graduate classes and I'll get back to you.

8/18/2011 5:22:50 PM

Did we get the SEC invitation yet?

8/20/2011 2:08:49 PM

set 'em up

8/20/2011 10:59:28 PM