pittdan77
Athletic Director
Don't know that ESPN can devalue one school or another. Split is done by the conference. Otherwise, I tend to agree. A lot can change in a few years.
Should the ACC add Pac 12 or Big 12 teams
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
Why is this? I know on Xfinity in the Harrisburg area, the HD channels begin in the 800’s (at least that’s what shows up when I filter by HD only). From 842 thru 863 is a cluster of sports networks - SEC, B1G, ESPNs, FS1, regional networks, NFL, golf, etc. No ACCN. I have to go up to the 1200s-1300s grouping to find ACCN (1325) in HD. Why is that? From the beginning, BTN and SEC were mixed right in with the rest. Why is ACCN more difficult to get to? Sure, it’s not difficult to get to 1325 if I want to go there. But I’m never watching ACCN because I scrolled by on the channel guide and saw something interesting. To me it’s a disadvantage that needs addressed.
The addition of WVU to the ACC might mean something to some Pitt fans, but to the majority of the other ACC teams, WVU wouldn’t mean anything more than if they added Bobby Mo.
If WVU was truly serious about an ACC invite, they’d immediately try to add ACC teams to their non-conference schedule. Show the rest of the ACC what (if anything) they’d bring to the table that would make them more attractive.
you are right about this because unfortunately, the majority of acc teams are pre-occupied, looking for ways to how they can get into the big 10 and SEC..
acc isnt poaching anyone and well the pac 12/10 might poach someone but it would be a non P5 team. we know this, it couldnt be clearer yet we keep bringing it up despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Football, nationally for sure Pitt-WVU is more of a big rivalry than Duke-UNC. Nobody cares about the latter football game. That said Pitt-WVU is not all that big a deal compared to really big football rivalries. I’d like to see the teams regularly play. But I’m not sure it’s a good financial thing for the ACC to bring WVU in just for that.
I would like a more competitive Acc or the Acc to dissolve.
I guess money is all that matters. But id want to see the best combos of bb/fb out there
Texas tech, Baylor, TCU, Kansas, wvu, Cincinnati..... and add pac 10 teams .
The coast to coast conference
But I guess that's just not gunna happen
I guess money is all that matters. But id want to see the best combos of bb/fb out there
Texas tech, Baylor, TCU, Kansas, wvu, Cincinnati..... and add pac 10 teams .
The coast to coast conference
But I guess that's just not gunna happen
But football isn't the ONLY sport. Pitt/wvu are only big in this region Duke & UNC play every year in every sport. Not Pitt/wvu.
Actually, I was reading something the other day that extrapolated out from the number of subscribers and the amount that they get per subscriber and estimated some of the costs and posited that ESPN is making a ton of money from the ACCN.
They can’t.
But I mean in context of “saving the ACC.” People seem to think that ESPN has a financial interest in preventing its collapse. And so will do something before it gets to that point.
I was just saying that ESPN might not have such an interest. The ACC collapsing might not be that bad for ESPN.
You are creating a wider TV market that goes from Coast to Coast that encourages ND full time as they can be a National Team.
You have a West coast with Arizona, ASU, Berkeley Cal U, Stanford, Univ of Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, WSU.
The East Coast Division BC, Clemson, Notre Dame, Duke, Georgia Tech, FSU, NC State, NC, Miami, ND, PITT, Virginia, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech and Wake Forest
The West coast division can add 5 teams. We played four OOC games last year. Make two of them games against the western coast division. A Championship of East Vs West. We would be the only conference from coast to coast. Imagine if we did this when USC and UCLA were in play? Its either think big or get carved up. This is a phenomenal list of prestigious Universities.
I wouldn’t mind seeing this just from general fan interest. I recognize and appreciate the finances it enables but as a competitive body, the ACC isn’t very interesting to me, particularly with the baffling diminishing of ACC basketball in recent years. Both the ACC retreat to mediocrity as well as Pitt’s own basketball free fall (hopefully this season is not a one off) has disillusioned much of the original appeal of joining it. And yes I realize Pitt football has (eventually) realized success while in the conference. But it is really a marriage of convenience. Most of the opponents inspire no particular feelings for me one way or the other. Believe me I realize the same is true for those schools about Pitt as well.
Would this large confederation improve that? Well, honestly there is much of the same…USC and UCLA would have helped there, but alas not to be. At least the novelty of it would help, for awhile. Would it translate to more dollars? Dunno. But standing pat and doing nothing seems a doomed proposition.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I won't pretend I know but ESPN has put money into the ACC and increased its payout. Fought with Comcast. I don't think they'd do that if it wasn't worth it to them.
All of them. Let us be the first truly Coast to Coast league relegating others to regional
You are creating the first coast to coast NATIONAL league that encompasses markets across this nation. You go big or go home. Your views are not part of the solution. It takes a forward posture to survive and its expansion on this level that catapults the ACC/PAC forward and provides long term survival.
If you are going to grow, then think big. This is the way, or you can wait to be picked apart from the buzzards.
From numbers I can find on ACC TV revenue:
2017-18 $277m
2018-19 $288m
Aug 2019 - ACC Network Launch
2019-20 $332.8
2020-21 $397.4
Assuming a 4% TV contract escalation (based on delta from 17-18 to 18-19), base with no ACC network would be around $311m 20-21. That's $87m from ACCN. This is before Comcast and several others. It's surely well north of $100m now. ESPN gets the same number since they split 50/50, and the schools help with the broadcasting.
Not a massive number for ESPN, but it's a growth market that is new revenue.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
ok, lets be the second coast to coast NATIONAL league that encompasses markets across this nation.
Put me in the dissolve the ACC, Big 12 and PAC 12, the better public schools from those three conferences along with Stanford, Duke and Miami go off and form their own conference.
There is no long term survival. Adding the tallest midgets from the PAC 12 does nothing but make sure you’re a tall midget.
The ACC has the same problem right now that the Big 12 had when it had OU/UT.
People are marveling at how “proactive” the Big 12 is being, but when UT and OU were in the Big 12, the Big 12 did nothing. They couldn’t even get a conference network going.
And that’s because the Big 12 was dead as it relates to being a conference you mention with the SEC/B1G. And OU and UT knew that. And those two believed they were teams that belonged in a Top Tier conference, instead of a next tier conference.
So they refused to go along with any next tier moves, and just demanded unequal revenue payouts until they were ready to flee.
It’s only once the Big 12 has nothing but midgets left, that they could make moves to add more midgets, thereby strengthening themselves as the next tier conference.
None of this coast to coast conference stuff where the ACC adds Cal Berkeley and Pullman, Washington, is going to make the ACC a top tier conference. It’s over for that. If “survival” means being a top tier conference, then the ACC, just like the Big 12, is dead. It cannot be saved. There is no long term survival.
And the ACC, much like the Big 12 did during its stagnation period, has teams that believe, rightly or wrongly, that they belong in a top tier conference.
And they aren’t interested in *any* moves designed to challenge the Big 12 for the right to be the tallest midget. They are only interested in getting a payout at the level of Vanderbilt and Northwestern. And there’s only one way to get that payout.
It’s not a coincidence that the ACC is doing nothing and you’re hearing Clemson say, “we want an unequal revenue payout.” It’s the OU-UT model.
They have two teams on the left coast and rutgers/maryland/PSU representing the eastern flank. If we strike quickly, we could own the whole west coast and east coast be the true coast to coast conference.
Adding them takes the west coast elevates the conference. Its all about TV sets. Do you travel much? You don't think having the state of Colorado and Deion helps? We now have Washington, Oregon, Arizona and California linked to our conference. You the have one conference with the most populous states including the whole east and west coast. We could add 5 more teams to include texas. We can do this or bend over as you propose
This is like a wrestling fan fantasy booking the ‘80s Four Horsemen against the ‘90s NWO.
My computer is delaying when I type. It's coming out jumbled. Of course, it elevates the conference. We now have all of the most populous states in our fold. Why did the B10 take Rutgers, Maryland and UCLA? None of them will ever compete for a championship. They add TV sets, so they get more money. That is what is most important. I propose to own the east and west coasts and you want to bend over and quit. We can also add 5 more teams for balance. Maybe go after the state of Texas and others
ESPN and Fox thought WVU, Cincy, ISU, Houston, and Iowa State were worth $31 million/year. How much is Oregon, Washington, Deion, etc worth to ESPN in the ACC? More than UCF and Cincy you'd think. I'd add the top Pac 12 schools and see if ESPN will pay an additional $10 million/year per school since their contract is so undervalued.
If espn offers more money to expand the conference, then I could support it. Otherwise, I would just sit tight until we see how the new playoffs, starting in 2024, affect the situation.
The expansion to 12 teams can certainly change the landscape. Six conferences will qualify their champions for the playoffs. That should even out recruiting a bit because players know that their conference can be in the playoffs. No one has to go to the SEC just to be sure they can get a team to the playoffs.
Now, if the SEC continues to dominate the winner's circle, it may be a moot point. However, if other conferences manage to win, it could provide a shift in value. Nothing solves problems better than winning.
I, for one, am looking forward to the new playoffs and the potential parity it might create.
The expansion to 12 teams can certainly change the landscape. Six conferences will qualify their champions for the playoffs. That should even out recruiting a bit because players know that their conference can be in the playoffs. No one has to go to the SEC just to be sure they can get a team to the playoffs.
Now, if the SEC continues to dominate the winner's circle, it may be a moot point. However, if other conferences manage to win, it could provide a shift in value. Nothing solves problems better than winning.
I, for one, am looking forward to the new playoffs and the potential parity it might create.
The story has yet to be written. The ratings for big 10 games at the 3:30 slot and then the big 10 game at the 7:30 slot on saturdays versus what ESPN puts on with SEC or some combination of ACC and other conferences is going to be extremely important. ESPN has the SEC but really needs to have some ACC teams Jack it up big time so that they have options for Saturday night games and big ratings. Otherwise you are going to see the giant big 10 stadiums on Saturday nights that will have more national viewing interest. Ratings are crucial. ACC has to have 3-4 teams in the top 25 at all times and 1 or 2 of them have to be top 10. That’s the stuff that might make ESPN increase some payout. Otherwise their investment in college football that’s not named SEC is going to whither on the vine
Thanks for your concern Clemson, we can talk about that in more detail around 2035.
If Clemson and FSU can get $10 million more per year (hypothetically), you think they'd say no to adding Oregon, Washington, and a few others?
“And then rather than hit Dusty Rhodes with the chair, what if NWO Sting hit Hollywood Hulk Hogan who was holding up Rhodes, thereby revealing he had joined WCW.”
Why?
They are leaving in 2036 anyway. Why would they say no to $10 million per year extra (hypothetically) for playing Colorado and Washington instead of UVa and Pitt?
Totally agree. Especially with NBCSN going off the air on channel 848. You are right Comcast HD Sports channels:
842 SEC
843 ATT Sports (ex Fox Pittsburgh)
849 Golf
850 ESPN
851 ESPN 2
853 ESPN U
854 CBS Sports Network
855 BTN
857 FSN 1
858 NHL Network
859 MLB Network
860 NFL Network
861 Redzone
862 Tennis
863 NBA
1325 ACCN
If you are just surfing and aren't really looking for specifically the ACC Network, you completely miss it.
I don’t think they are staying until 2036.
I think their strategy is to “innocently” poison the well to set the stage for the legal battle ahead.
Similar threads
