Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 61
  1. #11

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    559
    Exactly my point. If the ACC is so weak, they didn't need to keep the non-con patsy's on the schedule because WFU, BC, Duke, et. al. offer enough to go around (in-conference). So why not increase the conference games and schedule more match-ups with VT, UNC, Pitt, etc..? To me it seems a bit disingenuous to claim the ACC is too weak, then refuse to increase the conference schedule... unless you're scheduling strictly BCS level non-con games.

    Also, comparing WFU to Chas. So. is ... well... hard to take serious.

    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    Home/Away with WFU, or a home/home vs. Charleston Southern. That's why.
    Last edited by crabcake77; Tue Apr 16 2013 at 12:07 PM.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckd4vt View Post
    ...There's little reason for ESPN to cough up much more money...
    Sure there is. Coughing up some more money will help to keep the ACC intact, and that will be a boon to ESPN.

    In the long term, it's not going to be about conference networks. That's cable. Old school. The next step is streaming video, which is not limited to a specific channel that needs to be carried on a cable network in order to be viewed. It's about having the content available to stream out to viewers. Having ACC content will be valuable in that respect.

    But to keep that content, they need to keep the ACC intact, which means bridging the gap to the time where streaming is the primary content delivery mechanism. And that means creating an ACC Network in order to bring the money up just enough that the ACC stays together. It's a highwire act, to be sure, but there's enough incentive down the road for ESPN to walk it.

    Just my $.02.
    FH

    P.S. Kudos to CobbCountyHokie for pointing out the future direction of TV rights in this post
    No trees were harmed in the making of this post. However, billions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

  3. #13
    Femoyer Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 20, 2003
    Location
    Glen Allen, VA
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    This is nice, but it really doesn't address the ACC's biggest problem: bad football. The ACC has, in any year, 3-4 schools that create a decent matchup. VT, Clemson, Miami, FSU, sometimes UNC and NCSU. GT maybe. That's what bothers FSU so much. Duke, Wake, BC, Pitt, UVa, and Syracuse won't ever be big time imo. How many years of success will it take for Louisville to be a truly interesting football opponent?

    Conference TV revenue is significant, but what really pays the bills are alumni donations and ticket sales. If Louisville hits a rough spot, and Pitt and Syracuse just continue to be who they are, has the ACC simply padded an already soft (and largely uninteresting) lineup?

    Let's hope Notre Dame comes on board full time, and Louisville takes off in football. Otherwise, we'll end up with too many home schedules that look like, well, VT's 2013 schedule.
    Truth hurts.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by crabcake77 View Post
    Exactly my point. If the ACC is so weak, they didn't need to keep the non-con patsy's on the schedule because WFU, BC, Duke, et. al. offer enough to go around (in-conference). So why not increase the conference games and schedule more match-ups with VT, UNC, Pitt, etc..? To me it seems a bit disingenuous to claim the ACC is too weak, then refuse to increase the conference schedule... unless you're scheduling strictly BCS level non-con games.

    Also, comparing WFU to Chas. So. is ... well... hard to take serious.
    FSU doesn't want to play 9 conference games in a weak conference. That's 9 mandatory home/aways. If you've got a lineup of patsies, at least schedule patsies that won't ask for a return game at their place. Maybe you missed it, but the FSU AD was screaming about the pathetic ACC home schedule as a reason to leave for the B12 - having new addition Syracuse dropped in your lap will do that. There is no mystery as to why FSU does not want 9 ACC games.

    You can create all kinds of convoluted arguments, but that doesn't change (what I consider) an obvious conclusion.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    October 13, 1999
    Posts
    575
    My interpretation was that he wasn't comparing Wake to Charleston Southern, he was comparing Home-AWAY to Home-HOME. If you're playing "crappy games" anyway, you might as well play them as home games and get the revenue. OK, maybe Wake isn't quite as crappy for FSU, but do either move the needle for FSU fans?

    Quote Originally Posted by crabcake77 View Post
    Exactly my point. If the ACC is so weak, they didn't need to keep the non-con patsy's on the schedule because WFU, BC, Duke, et. al. offer enough to go around (in-conference). So why not increase the conference games and schedule more match-ups with VT, UNC, Pitt, etc..? To me it seems a bit disingenuous to claim the ACC is too weak, then refuse to increase the conference schedule... unless you're scheduling strictly BCS level non-con games.

    Also, comparing WFU to Chas. So. is ... well... hard to take serious.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    October 14, 2003
    Posts
    10,282
    Playing Clemson and FSU as infrequently as we do now is already a problem. Enlarging the conference just makes it worse.
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    This is nice, but it really doesn't address the ACC's biggest problem: bad football. The ACC has, in any year, 3-4 schools that create a decent matchup. VT, Clemson, Miami, FSU, sometimes UNC and NCSU. GT maybe. That's what bothers FSU so much. Duke, Wake, BC, Pitt, UVa, and Syracuse won't ever be big time imo. How many years of success will it take for Louisville to be a truly interesting football opponent?

    Conference TV revenue is significant, but what really pays the bills are alumni donations and ticket sales. If Louisville hits a rough spot, and Pitt and Syracuse just continue to be who they are, has the ACC simply padded an already soft (and largely uninteresting) lineup?

    Let's hope Notre Dame comes on board full time, and Louisville takes off in football. Otherwise, we'll end up with too many home schedules that look like, well, VT's 2013 schedule.

  7. #17
    Edgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach
    Posts
    49,228
    If that's the case, would love to see exCUSE and Pitt start beating FSU on a regular basis. The ACC is perceived as weak because FSU, CU and scUM decided to take a decade off from football. CU has come storming back, FSU is almost back, and scUM is still floundering... Louisville and Pitt are great football (and roundball) additions to the ACC. exCUSE has the potential to be decent, but we'll see...

    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    FSU doesn't want to play 9 conference games in a weak conference. That's 9 mandatory home/aways. If you've got a lineup of patsies, at least schedule patsies that won't ask for a return game at their place. Maybe you missed it, but the FSU AD was screaming about the pathetic ACC home schedule as a reason to leave for the B12 - having new addition Syracuse dropped in your lap will do that. There is no mystery as to why FSU does not want 9 ACC games.

    You can create all kinds of convoluted arguments, but that doesn't change (what I consider) an obvious conclusion.
    "You start a conversation you can't even finish it
    You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything
    When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed
    Say something once, why say it again?"
    - David Byrne

  8. #18

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    559
    Won't increasing the number of conference games increase the value of the conference's media rights? Won't improved coaching improve the quality of the product thereby increasing the "strength" of the conference? Won't developing rivalries between new conference members, rekindling old ones that had been lost, and continuing/magnifying current ones make the ACC more interesting? Won't improving the conference's approach to scheduling put more butts in seats at more stadiums on more game days? Won't all these things improve the national appeal of the conference to the casual cfb fan and deliver more eyeballs to the media broadcasting those games? Can't the ACC do all these things? Haven't they already started to do some of them?

    It seems to me that if the ACC is "weak" and continues to be "weak," lack of vision and poor leadership (is that redundant?) are likely to be bigger reasons than conference membership - going forward that is.

    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    FSU doesn't want to play 9 conference games in a weak conference. That's 9 mandatory home/aways. If you've got a lineup of patsies, at least schedule patsies that won't ask for a return game at their place. Maybe you missed it, but the FSU AD was screaming about the pathetic ACC home schedule as a reason to leave for the B12 - having new addition Syracuse dropped in your lap will do that. There is no mystery as to why FSU does not want 9 ACC games.

    You can create all kinds of convoluted arguments, but that doesn't change (what I consider) an obvious conclusion.
    Last edited by crabcake77; Tue Apr 16 2013 at 01:46 PM.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    September 23, 2001
    Posts
    8,806
    Quote Originally Posted by crabcake77 View Post
    Won't increasing the number of conference games increase the value of the conference's media rights?
    Not necessarily. You could be trading 2 home games and 2 wins for 1 home/away game and 1 win/1 loss.
    Quote Originally Posted by crabcake77 View Post
    Won't improved coaching improve the quality of the product thereby increasing the "strength" of the conference?
    Sure! Nick Saban and Urban Meyer, come on down.
    Quote Originally Posted by crabcake77 View Post
    Won't developing rivalries between new conference members, rekindling old ones that had been lost, and continuing/magnifying current ones make the ACC more interesting?
    Easier said than done and takes a LOT of time. Time the ACC might not have.
    Quote Originally Posted by crabcake77 View Post
    Won't improving the conference's approach to scheduling put more butts in seats at more stadiums on more game days?
    That's a problem with the conference and its TV obligations, not any one school. Again, easier said than done.
    Quote Originally Posted by crabcake77 View Post
    Won't all these things improve the national appeal of the conference to the casual cfb fan and deliver more eyeballs to the media broadcasting those games?
    Not necessarily. The threat of competition can't be so easily discounted. There's more tradition, rivalry, and alumni found elsewhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by crabcake77 View Post
    Can't the ACC do all these things?
    It's not impossible, but highly unlikely for all of those pieces to come together.
    Quote Originally Posted by crabcake77 View Post
    Haven't they already started to do some of them?
    Some of them, maybe, but not all of them. To get all of these gears turning would take a long time and a lot of synchronization, which would assume shared goals and vision by all members. I'm not sure that exists in the ACC.

    Quote Originally Posted by crabcake77 View Post
    It seems to me that if the ACC is "weak" and continues to be "weak," lack of vision and poor leadership (is that redundant?) are likely to be bigger reasons than conference membership - going forward that is.
    It's lack of vision and poor leadership by the conference members... So it's the conference membership.
    Last edited by hokieball; Tue Apr 16 2013 at 02:34 PM.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by crabcake77 View Post
    Won't increasing the number of conference games increase the value of the conference's media rights? Won't improved coaching improve the quality of the product thereby increasing the "strength" of the conference? Won't developing rivalries between new conference members, rekindling old ones that had been lost, and continuing/magnifying current ones make the ACC more interesting? Won't improving the conference's approach to scheduling put more butts in seats at more stadiums on more game days? Won't all these things improve the national appeal of the conference to the casual cfb fan and deliver more eyeballs to the media broadcasting those games? Can't the ACC do all these things? Haven't they already started to do some of them?

    It seems to me that if the ACC is "weak" and continues to be "weak," lack of vision and poor leadership (is that redundant?) are likely to be bigger reasons than conference membership - going forward that is.
    FSU will never develop a rivalry with Wake - it's been how many years and that still hasn't happened. Duke, Wake, Syracuse, and BC - they are all no-win scenarios. If FSU wins, it's because they are supposed to. If FSU loses, it's not a loss in a hard-fought rivalry game, it's because FSU screwed up.

    The ACC is second-rate in football because it has too many small, privat(ish) schools with small stadiums (or no stadium), and small fanbases. The academic reputation is a great benefit and it doesn't seem to matter in basketball, but a few more buck from a TV network won't change any of those factors for football.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •