Beginning to come to light: ACCnetwork go decision by early 2016

[Bayside44]

They have played in 6 BCS bowl games and their record is 1-5 all time in BCS bowls. Please don't defend them. Getting there against sub par competition is one thing but actually being competitive against good teams, they are not.

So they go to New Years Day and lose to a top 5 or so opponent? Sounds terrible.

 

[CuseOnly]

So they go to New Years Day and lose to a top 5 or so opponent? Sounds terrible.

I understand the perception is good, but if the below is how they get there...yeah pretty bad.

Under Beamer Nov. 14, 1987 -- at No. 3 Miami: 27-13 loss
Sept. 3, 1988 -- at No. 4 Clemson: 40-7 loss
Nov. 12, 1988 -- at No. 5 Florida State: 41-14 loss
Sept. 29, 1990 -- at No. 2 Florida State: 39-28 loss
Oct. 12, 1991 -- vs. No. 1 Florida State (in Orlando): 33-20 loss
Oct. 24, 1992 -- vs. No. 1 Miami: 43-23 loss
Sept. 18, 1993 -- at No. 3 Miami: 21-2 loss
Jan. 4, 2000 -- vs. No. 1 Florida State (in Sugar Bowl/National Championship): 46-29 loss
Nov. 4, 2000 -- at No. 3 Miami: 41-21 loss
Dec. 1, 2001 -- vs. No. 1 Miami: 26-24 loss
Dec. 7, 2002 -- at No. 1 Miami: 56-45 loss
Nov. 1, 2003 -- vs. No. 2 Miami: 31-7 WIN!
Aug. 28, 2004 -- vs. No. 1 USC (at FedEx Field): 24-13 loss
Jan. 3, 2005 -- vs. No. 3 Auburn (in Sugar Bowl): 16-13 loss
Nov. 5, 2005 -- vs. No. 5 Miami: 27-7 loss
Sept. 8, 2007 -- at No. 2 LSU: 48-7 loss
Oct. 25, 2007 -- vs. No. 2 Boston College: 14-10 loss
Sept. 5, 2009 -- vs. No. 5 Alabama (in Atlanta): 34-24 loss
Sept. 6, 2010 -- vs. No. 3 Boise State (at FedEx Field): 33-30 loss
Jan. 3, 2011 -- vs. No. 5 Stanford (in Orange Bowl): 40-12 loss

I don't have the info for 12 and 13...but I do know they got blown out by Bama last year.

SU has a better Top 10 record than VTech does.
https://sites.google.com/site/collegefootballhistory/record-vs-top-10-teams-game-time

 

[texasorange]

You know, the sad thing is this was supposed to be about the ACC network. It's somehow has become a Virginia Tech bashing post. I don't get it...

 

[SU2NASA]

You know, the sad thing is this was supposed to be about the ACC network. It's somehow has become a Virginia Tech bashing post. I don't get it...

I'll allow it.

 

[HtownOrange]

You know, the sad thing is this was supposed to be about the ACC network. It's somehow has become a Virginia Tech bashing post. I don't get it...

My fault, CPA. I was attempting to distinguish between teams will substantive histories from those with flash in the pan, inflated histories. When people try to place the burden of carrying the ACC and the soon to be ACCN on the shoulders of VATech, BC and UNC football, you might as well claim FSU, Miami and BC hoops as the foundation of ACC hoops instead of Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Lousiville, ND, NCState hoops.

Obviously in football we need FSU, Clemson and Miami to be good, they are the biggest names. We also need the historical schools to rise up to there status, GATech, Pitt and Syracuse, maybe NCState. I am not slamming the other schools they just lack long term substantive history to strike memories in long time CFB fans, especially outside the ACC region. I like Louisville and what they have done, but they are no football power, they are relatively new to the game. Beamer has done a good job and built a fine record in Blacksburg but he lacks the substantive record to impress the long term CFB fans.

If a network is going to be built, the powers that be and the historical power must carry their weight. Louisville's history is barely a decade old. VATechs is barely two decades and has only one coach of note. Schools with substantive histories have the following traits, they:
1) win,
2) win big games,
3) win over time,
4) win big games over time,
5) with different coaches (PSU gets the waiver as JoePa was there 50 years).

One of the main reasons the SECN is an immediate success is that their product is historically a great product. No one believes that Vandy is the key to their success, though they have winning seasons every now and then. Their hoops is solely built on Kentucky and it will be interesting to see their viewership after the CFB season. Yes, they have some other good teams, but none carry a deep history that will compel non-SEC hoops fans to watch.

Contrast that with ACC hoops, Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville and ND draw well and get people to watch outside of the normal base. Nationally, no one cares whether BC, Clemson, FSU or Miami are playing hoops. In football, older CFB fans don't care about several ACC schools shifting the burden to the schools that can draw their attention, schools with histories.

Again, my fault and my apology for derailing the thread with a finer point and getting us off on a rabbit trail of bashing VATech.*

*Not that bashing VATech is a bad thing, we had a heated rivalry back in the ACC ... and we lead the series by 1 game, it just needs a separate thread.

 

[Alsacs]

I mean it is obvious VPI is a top 25 national program Syracuse isa a top 50 national program right nowz
The Jokies choke a lot but that key posted above is not anything to sneeze it.
2000 FSU, 2001 Miami, 2004 USC, 2007 LSU, 2009 Alabama all NC that season and those Miami teams from 2000-2003 had 17 first round NFL picks on the roster.
People can rag on VPI/Beamer all they want they are light years ahead of us currently in CF realm and the ACC needs them to stay top 25 to help the ACC network. VPI started last year 7-1 and were #14 in the BCS before losing to Duke, Maryland, BC and UCLA. I mean that was a disappointing year for them because of Logan Thomas regressing when was the last time SU started 7-1?

 

[Alsacs]

My fault, CPA. I was attempting to distinguish between teams will substantive histories from those with flash in the pan, inflated histories. When people try to place the burden of carrying the ACC and the soon to be ACCN on the shoulders of VATech, BC and UNC football, you might as well claim FSU, Miami and BC hoops as the foundation of ACC hoops instead of Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Lousiville, ND, NCState hoops.

Obviously in football we need FSU, Clemson and Miami to be good, they are the biggest names. We also need the historical schools to rise up to there status, GATech, Pitt and Syracuse, maybe NCState. I am not slamming the other schools they just lack long term substantive history to strike memories in long time CFB fans, especially outside the ACC region. I like Louisville and what they have done, but they are no football power, they are relatively new to the game. Beamer has done a good job and built a fine record in Blacksburg but he lacks the substantive record to impress the long term CFB fans.

If a network is going to be built, the powers that be and the historical power must carry their weight. Louisville's history is barely a decade old. VATechs is barely two decades and has only one coach of note. Schools with substantive histories have the following traits, they:
1) win,
2) win big games,
3) win over time,
4) win big games over time,
5) with different coaches (PSU gets the waiver as JoePa was there 50 years).

One of the main reasons the SECN is an immediate success is that their product is historically a great product. No one believes that Vandy is the key to their success, though they have winning seasons every now and then. Their hoops is solely built on Kentucky and it will be interesting to see their viewership after the CFB season. Yes, they have some other good teams, but none carry a deep history that will compel non-SEC hoops fans to watch.

Contrast that with ACC hoops, Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville and ND draw well and get people to watch outside of the normal base. Nationally, no one cares whether BC, Clemson, FSU or Miami are playing hoops. In football, older CFB fans don't care about several ACC schools shifting the burden to the schools that can draw their attention, schools with histories.

Again, my fault and my apology for derailing the thread with a finer point and getting us off on a rabbit trail of bashing VATech.*

*Not that bashing VATech is a bad thing, we had a heated rivalry back in the ACC ... and we lead the series by 1 game, it just needs a separate thread.

How is Clemson a bigger brand than VPI? Google Clemsoning its the same as VPI choking but before a big game.

 

[TheCusian]

I mean it is obvious VPI is a top 25 national program Syracuse isa a top 50 national program right nowz The Jokies choke a lot but that key posted above is not anything to sneeze it. 2000 FSU, 2001 Miami, 2004 USC, 2007 LSU, 2009 Alabama all NC that season and those Miami teams from 2000-2003 had 17 first round NFL picks on the roster. People can rag on VPI/Beamer all they want they are light years ahead of us currently in CF realm and the ACC needs them to stay top 25 to help the ACC network. VPI started last year 7-1 and were #14 in the BCS before losing to Duke, Maryland, BC and UCLA. I mean that was a disappointing year for them because of Logan Thomas regressing when was the last time SU started 7-1?

You had me until the light years better currently line. They were pretty mediocre the last two seasons and seem to be on a slight decline. Their offense was bad all of last year...

 

[Alsacs]

You had me until the light years better currently line. They were pretty mediocre the last two seasons and seem to be on a slight decline. Their offense was bad all of last year...

They are light years ahead of us. Syracuse football has gone from one of the worst BCS teams to average BCS which from where we we're is great and upward trajectory. Syracuse football has NOT been discussed in real segment on College Gameday in the last decade except 1 time it was at out nadir after Syracuse lost to Akron. Until Syracuse has back to back 8 win seasons we can say we are approaching the VPIs of the conference. Htown can rightfully say I am wrong on UNC he is right they are on our level now but they have fertile recruiting and I like where they are headed. Syracuse needs to win as well but the top FB brands in the ACC are
1. Florida State 2. Miami...3. Virginia Tech,,4, Clemson

 

[HtownOrange]

How is Clemson a bigger brand than VPI? Google Clemsoning its the same as VPI choking but before a big game.

Again, this is where age may be the issue. Clemson won a national title, 1981, which in and of itself is a very high distinguishing credit. Clemson wins big games and wins bowl games. Clemson does not always choke, as does VATech. Yes, VATech had the better record for their first decade in the ACC compared to Clemson, but before that Clemson was light years ahead of VATech. Additionally, this proves my point that Beamer is an opportunist, he wins when teams are down and against weak teams but he fails to win the big games, which earns respect outside of a teams normal circles, read nationally. However, the last couple of years Clemson is by far a much stronger team than VATech.

To further my point, under your analysis, VATech should be dominating Syracuse because Syracuse went through the down period, stating shortly after Big East football formed. However, VATech at their best is even with Syracuse during a down period, 6-6 during the Big East years, the same period you anoint VATech the team the football prophecies say will carry the ACCN.

You can believe that VATech carries weight nationally. That is your viewpoint. My viewpoint is otherwise and is based on the facts that I have lived mostly outside of ACC territory for nearly 25 years in several states and within the other conference territories. VATech does not strike fear in any power team. Teamss that do not win big games and win bowl games and play pansy schedules do not get respect. GATech even won a championship in 1990.

Another proof of what people think is this link: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3842161 These are the Prestige Rankings: Syracuse 29th, VATech 37th. The list was compiled in 2009 when Syracuse was still digging out of the depths of our despair and VATech was riding at their peak!

Anyway, time to focus on the ACCN. Mods, we may need a VATech bashing thread. Perhaps a bashing thread for each ACC team?

 

[HtownOrange]

To clarify: I am not saying VATech winning is bad for the ACCN. Personally, I hope every ACC teams wins every OOC game which only improves our records overall (so long as we schedule decently and not just Pansy State U.). I believe that the more traditional names need to be in the thick of things if we want more national viewing of the ACCN. Others winning is always a good story, but people are interested based on what they know. They know Kansas State football is Bill Snyder. They know VATech loses big games. Peopel nationwide are not going to watch VATech get wasted by Oklahoma, USC, Michigan, LSU unless they like Oklahoma, USC, Michigan, LSU, there are too many other good games on and they already now the outcome.

 

[Alsacs]

I never said VPI will carry the ACCN I said them maintaining top 25 status was a key cog.
I think your overstating Clemson's rise its all happened under 1 QB Tajh Boyd let's see them have a decade before appointing them.

 

[SyracuseMiami]

Can we get back to discussing the ACCN or lock this thread? It's of the rails.

 

[GoSU96]

I mean, if we're quoting on-the-record interviews by ADs in major publications, we're not really talking about "whispers", right?

It's kinda more like, you know, sharing a link.

:noidea:

But there is the secret subtext between the lines

 

[Bayside44]

I understand the perception is good, but if the below is how they get there...yeah pretty bad.

Under Beamer Nov. 14, 1987 -- at No. 3 Miami: 27-13 loss
Sept. 3, 1988 -- at No. 4 Clemson: 40-7 loss
Nov. 12, 1988 -- at No. 5 Florida State: 41-14 loss
Sept. 29, 1990 -- at No. 2 Florida State: 39-28 loss
Oct. 12, 1991 -- vs. No. 1 Florida State (in Orlando): 33-20 loss
Oct. 24, 1992 -- vs. No. 1 Miami: 43-23 loss
Sept. 18, 1993 -- at No. 3 Miami: 21-2 loss
Jan. 4, 2000 -- vs. No. 1 Florida State (in Sugar Bowl/National Championship): 46-29 loss
Nov. 4, 2000 -- at No. 3 Miami: 41-21 loss
Dec. 1, 2001 -- vs. No. 1 Miami: 26-24 loss
Dec. 7, 2002 -- at No. 1 Miami: 56-45 loss
Nov. 1, 2003 -- vs. No. 2 Miami: 31-7 WIN!
Aug. 28, 2004 -- vs. No. 1 USC (at FedEx Field): 24-13 loss
Jan. 3, 2005 -- vs. No. 3 Auburn (in Sugar Bowl): 16-13 loss
Nov. 5, 2005 -- vs. No. 5 Miami: 27-7 loss
Sept. 8, 2007 -- at No. 2 LSU: 48-7 loss
Oct. 25, 2007 -- vs. No. 2 Boston College: 14-10 loss
Sept. 5, 2009 -- vs. No. 5 Alabama (in Atlanta): 34-24 loss
Sept. 6, 2010 -- vs. No. 3 Boise State (at FedEx Field): 33-30 loss
Jan. 3, 2011 -- vs. No. 5 Stanford (in Orange Bowl): 40-12 loss

I don't have the info for 12 and 13...but I do know they got blown out by Bama last year.

SU has a better Top 10 record than VTech does.
https://sites.google.com/site/collegefootballhistory/record-vs-top-10-teams-game-time

They were most likely the underdog in 80% of those games.

As far a a program goes there were 92K people at those FedEx games in prime time.

They are a very good program, and have been a very good program for a long time.

 

[PeteCalvin]

What will happen first - this network happens, or NASA launches its new rocket.

I'm betting on NASA.

You NASA guys would be much farther ahead and probably have science stations on MARS already if you'd just get the government to share some that alien technology they have.

I think your "new rocket" stuff is a ruse to fool the world. You have sub-light drives and anti-grav propulsion systems just waiting to be unleashed. The guy who told is dead solid reliable. He also said Oklahoma to the BiG is signed and delivered, and we all know that is true, so he's legit.

 

[SU2NASA]

You NASA guys would be much farther ahead and probably have science stations on MARS already if you'd just get the government to share some that alien technology they have.

I think your "new rocket" stuff is a ruse to fool the world. You have sub-light drives and anti-grav propulsion systems just waiting to be unleashed. The guy who told is dead solid reliable. He also said Oklahoma to the BiG is signed and delivered, and we all know that is true, so he's legit.

Now I'm going to have to kill you.

 

[Alsacs]

Can we get back to discussing the ACCN or lock this thread? It's of the rails.

Dude c'mon a legit discussion VPI is not a hijacking its a legit argument with no name calling. If the ACCN has a chance to succeed the ACC needs atleast 4 annual top 25 teams. FSU, Miami, VPI, Clemson need to be that foundation IMO.

 

[HtownOrange]

I have created a VPI thread: http://syracusefan.com/threads/vatech-vpi-virtues-and-shortcomings.79009/

Now we can focus on Arb's posting and get back on track discussing how, when, $$$ of a new ACCN.

 

[HtownOrange]

Regarding the ACCN, I believe much work has been done and is being done now. I do not believe that ESPN and the ACC have been sitting in the background re: the ACCN as there is too much money to be made. The BTN has proven successful, the PACN is O.K., the SECN is already projected to run in the black and the ACCN has more households, covers all seasons and has many more names in the several sports worth watching.

Just some highlights a non-insider thinks he sees.

 

[CU44SE]

Im not sure many people are understanding this network. I see several people on this thread stating the football drives in the money. This is absolutely true, but not vital in creating a network. For a network to be successful you need a product. The conference and ESPN make money from people who subscribe to the channel. So it really doesn't matter if the football or the basketball is bringing in the subscribers, each subscriber is bringing in the same amount of money. You have to find your niche. ACC has a great basketball tradition and an amazing fan base. That is something the ACC network can draw on. Just like people in SEC territory are demanding SEC network for football, the ACC fan bases will do for basketball. I guess what I'm trying to say is that for this network, the ACC doesn't need to have the best football product to make money, it just needs to have a product that people in those territories will pay for, to access this content and ACC basketball does this. Not to mention, if people were to only subscribe during the periods they want, College basketball season is 5 months long compared to College football which is 3 months long. Who is to say that SEC fans don't just subscribe for those 3 months and then cancel service for the rest of the year?

 

[shantydaze]

Regarding the ACCN, I believe much work has been done and is being done now. I do not believe that ESPN and the ACC have been sitting in the background re: the ACCN as there is too much money to be made. The BTN has proven successful, the PACN is O.K., the SECN is already projected to run in the black and the ACCN has more households, covers all seasons and has many more names in the several sports worth watching.

Just some highlights a non-insider thinks he sees.

The PAC Networks, in some respects, is the best comparison to an ACC Network. The PAC and ACC have the best non-revenue sports programs of any conferences in the country. I have no idea how much the PAC Network shows Olympic sports because DirecTV does not put any value on it and I do not get the channel. It is no surprise that the two conference channels picked up by DirecTV are those with large football followings (notice I did not say good football, rather large football followings).

Therein lies the problem for ACC football that I am not sure would be fixed by the reemergence of historical powers. Keep in mind that the ACC Network will be receiving third tier games. So, if Miami is able to regain its swagger it will be on ESPN not the ACC network. What it needs is for the following of a team to tune in or for other ACC team fans to tune in.

ACC Basketball is great, but talks of it being as valuable as SEC football is doesn't pass the smell test. If great basketball could carry a network, the BE would have been offered a significant network deal and we all know how that worked out.

 

[omniorange]

Unfortunately, the current paradigm of these conference sports networks revolves around a top tier price for states within the conference footprint and then a much smaller price for those outside their footprint.

This paradigm is the biggest problem for an ACC Network because the perception/reality (I don't want to discuss which it is because that is a separate thread unto itself) is that the ACC footprint is only Virginia and North Carolina (in the strictest sense of this concept) and being generous maybe Massachusetts and upstate New York (which upstate New York is more populous than many other states).

An ACC Network will have to break the paradigm somewhat in that it will likely have to charge less for the states within its footprint that it shares (suchas Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania) but possibly charge more in metropolitan areas outside the perceived footprint (suchas NYC, DC, Philly, Chicago) due to the Notre Dame mystique and the basketball prowess of the likes of Duke, North Carolina, Louisville and Syracuse.

But even if the ACCN manages to break the current paradigm for itself, it is unlikely to generate the money of a BTN or SECN.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[HtownOrange]

The PAC Networks, in some respects, is the best comparison to an ACC Network. The PAC and ACC have the best non-revenue sports programs of any conferences in the country. I have no idea how much the PAC Network shows Olympic sports because DirecTV does not put any value on it and I do not get the channel. It is no surprise that the two conference channels picked up by DirecTV are those with large football followings (notice I did not say good football, rather large football followings).

Therein lies the problem for ACC football that I am not sure would be fixed by the reemergence of historical powers. Keep in mind that the ACC Network will be receiving third tier games. So, if Miami is able to regain its swagger it will be on ESPN not the ACC network. What it needs is for the following of a team to tune in or for other ACC team fans to tune in.

ACC Basketball is great, but talks of it being as valuable as SEC football is doesn't pass the smell test. If great basketball could carry a network, the BE would have been offered a significant network deal and we all know how that worked out.

I agree that hoops will not bring in the money that football does, which is why I think we need solid performances from the historical powers in addition to the factories. ACC fans will watch ACC games because they affect their favorite teams. Getting people outside the footprint to watch requires more than just a Top 25 ranking because we all know that rankings are fleeting and not based solely on logic. People will tune into teams of interest, who have done big things and have the ability to take down a rival school.

Hoops is a gravy train that no other P5 conference will have. They have inventory but lack the compelling stories to make the conference networks go to sites for college hoops unless their team is playing. Lacrosse and baseball may extend that gravy train. Olympic sports, not so much.

 

[HtownOrange]

Unfortunately, the current paradigm of these conference sports networks revolves around a top tier price for states within the conference footprint and then a much smaller price for those outside their footprint.

This paradigm is the biggest problem for an ACC Network because the perception/reality (I don't want to discuss which it is because that is a separate thread unto itself) is that the ACC footprint is only Virginia and North Carolina (in the strictest sense of this concept) and being generous maybe Massachusetts and upstate New York (which upstate New York is more populous than many other states).

An ACC Network will have to break the paradigm somewhat in that it will likely have to charge less for the states within its footprint that it shares (suchas Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania) but possibly charge more in metropolitan areas outside the perceived footprint (suchas NYC, DC, Philly, Chicago) due to the Notre Dame mystique and the basketball prowess of the likes of Duke, North Carolina, Louisville and Syracuse.

But even if the ACCN manages to break the current paradigm for itself, it is unlikely to generate the money of a BTN or SECN.

Cheers,
Neil

I get your points but the ACC has one thing the others do not: more people! The BTN is not getting $1/HHD in NYC as they projected, even in most of Jersey they are not getting that much, assuming what I have read is correct, I have not seen official numbers.

Having a larger pool to draw from allows the price to be lower while making the same or more. Personally, I am not concerned about making as much immediately as the BTN or SECN, so long as the ACCN gets up and running with quality productions. Once people realize what is available, then we will see where the true value lies. If advertising for hoops, lacrosse and baseball on the ACCN jumps to levels the BTN can only dream of post football season, then we will know the ACCN will be successful.