ND's Swarbrick is happy with ACC and...

[Scooch]

shouldve taken miami, rutgers and bc.

pushed the rest of us inland, and the bigeast would likely still be together.

Nah, the ACC had it right. Well, their consultants had it right. Miami, BC, Syracuse.

Miami was the premium football brand they needed to pair with Florida State. It's remarkable how both programs fell apart right after expansion, but what can you do?

Syracuse was the best combination of brand, performance on field/court, and market. But BC was the best pure market, so they were the #2 choice for that reason. If SU was located in Westchester it wouldn't be close.

Rutgers was not just a bad brand, it was a historically bad brand. And due to that they weren't really a market. Think about that: Rutgers performance was so bad that it invalidated their geography. Let's not be revisionist historians. There was no possible way to sell expanding with Rutgers in 2003, none at all.

Anyway, to be honest at the time I thought the ACC should have gone big, especially since they were being forced to add VaTech, and taken Miami, VaTech, BC, Syracuse and Pitt. So it all worked out, eventually.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Nah, the ACC had it right. Well, their consultants had it right. Miami, BC, Syracuse.

Miami was the premium football brand they needed to pair with Florida State. It's remarkable how both programs fell apart right after expansion, but what can you do?

Syracuse was the best combination of brand, performance on field/court, and market. But BC was the best pure market, so they were the #2 choice for that reason. If SU was located in Westchester it wouldn't be close.

Rutgers was not just a bad brand, it was a historically bad brand. And due to that they weren't really a market. Think about that: Rutgers performance was so bad that it invalidated their geography. Let's not be revisionist historians. There was no possible way to sell expanding with Rutgers in 2003, none at all.

Anyway, to be honest at the time I thought the ACC should have gone big, especially since they were being forced to add VaTech, and taken Miami, VaTech, BC, Syracuse and Pitt. So it all worked out, eventually.

rutgers performance was so bad that it invalidated their geography.

thats message board gold right there. hell thats journalistic gold, but i doubt anyone other than a few secure columnists would have the balls to write it.

they shouldve taken rutgers over pitt, historically bad brand and all.

they get brand with Cuse, miami and vpi, geography with bc and rut.

pitt is useless.

 

[Scooch]

rutgers performance was so bad that it invalidated their geography.

thats message board gold right there. hell thats journalistic gold, but i doubt anyone other than a few secure columnists would have the balls to write it.

they shouldve taken rutgers over pitt, historically bad brand and all.

they get brand with Cuse, miami and vpi, geography with bc and rut.

pitt is useless.

If they were expanding in 2006/07 instead of 2003 you may be right.

I'm tired of this Chinese water torture of incremental expansion. For all the conspiracy theorists who think their is some master plan for conference to get to some magic number of members and optimal geographic footprint, THAT is the most damning evidence against it. I suspect the Commissioners are all for going for gold, but they have to deal with timid college Presidents and short-term thinking ADs and BOTs.

Once the ball got rolling when Nebraska joined the B1G, the ACC should have said screw it, let's add 'Cuse, Pitt, UConn, Rutgers, WVU, and ND and own the eastern seaboard. Larry Scott tried that for the Pac-10, and almost pulled it off.

 

[TexanMark]

Kaiser I want to playthe game of Risk with you someday...

Cuse is Northern Europe, Rutgers is Southern Europe, Pitt is Ural

 

[Bayside44]

Kaiser I want to playthe game of Risk with you someday...

Cuse is Northern Europe, Rutgers is Southern Europe, Pitt is Ural

Where is the bouncing chick?

 

[orangecuse]

Nah, the ACC had it right. Well, their consultants had it right. Miami, BC, Syracuse.

Miami was the premium football brand they needed to pair with Florida State. It's remarkable how both programs fell apart right after expansion, but what can you do?

Syracuse was the best combination of brand, performance on field/court, and market. But BC was the best pure market, so they were the #2 choice for that reason. If SU was located in Westchester it wouldn't be close.

Rutgers was not just a bad brand, it was a historically bad brand. And due to that they weren't really a market. Think about that: Rutgers performance was so bad that it invalidated their geography. Let's not be revisionist historians. There was no possible way to sell expanding with Rutgers in 2003, none at all.

Anyway, to be honest at the time I thought the ACC should have gone big, especially since they were being forced to add VaTech, and taken Miami, VaTech, BC, Syracuse and Pitt. So it all worked out, eventually.

I don't know if I've ever read a zinger better than that on this board...I'll go one further than Kaiser...that's pure Platinum!

 

[KaiserUEO]

Kaiser I want to playthe game of Risk with you someday...

Cuse is Northern Europe, Rutgers is Southern Europe, Pitt is Ural

i can play risk and chess all day long.

video games??...ehh.

i leave that for the people who dont understand football, but now think they do because they play madden till 4am online.

 

[Chip]

thats the way i remember it too.

it was clearly botched.

they ended up with 11, 1 school who they didnt want, plus the whole goal was to go north with Syracuse and BC...and they got neither. miami was a no-brainer in, but only by going to 12.

after the smoke cleared, they realized they didnt have boston and said, holy fcuk.

the bigeast then went into cya mode, bc said no to something (help me out here) and once the bigeast said FU to bc...bc gave a nod to the ACC who quickly voted them in.

If I recall, didn't they try to get by without adding BC? I recall them requesting approval to hold a Conference Championship game with 11 teams. The NCAA turning them down. And then the ACC responding by going after BC.

That NCAA and their rulebook. Expansion may have taken the same shape regardless. But if not for some useless, nonsensical rule about Conf Championship games where you must have 12 teams, 2 divisions, the landscape could look different.

 

[omniorange]

thats the way i remember it too.

it was clearly botched.

they ended up with 11, 1 school who they didnt want, plus the whole goal was to go north with Syracuse and BC...and they got neither. miami was a no-brainer in, but only by going to 12.

after the smoke cleared, they realized they didnt have boston and said, holy fcuk.

the bigeast then went into cya mode, bc said no to something (help me out here) and once the bigeast said FU to bc...bc gave a nod to the ACC who quickly voted them in.

Again, as I heard it then, when they ended at 11 with VT and Miami they continued a courtship with ND (which is what they were doing behind the scenes as a partial with a commitment to join in 7 to 10 years) trying to get them to join as #12. ND actually countered with add them partial with a commitment to join full-time in the future but still add BC, Pitt, and SU then bringing the ACC to 14. That didn't end well at that time. The ACC supposedly then approached a few more southern teams Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky were mentioned before they settled on BC as #12. Which was only after they tried getting the NCAAs to allow a CCG with 11 teams as Chip just pointed out.

If what I heard back then was true, it's almost scary seeing how things look to be turning out now.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[omniorange]

Nah, the ACC had it right. Well, their consultants had it right. Miami, BC, Syracuse.

Miami was the premium football brand they needed to pair with Florida State. It's remarkable how both programs fell apart right after expansion, but what can you do?

Syracuse was the best combination of brand, performance on field/court, and market. But BC was the best pure market, so they were the #2 choice for that reason. If SU was located in Westchester it wouldn't be close.

Rutgers was not just a bad brand, it was a historically bad brand. And due to that they weren't really a market. Think about that: Rutgers performance was so bad that it invalidated their geography. Let's not be revisionist historians. There was no possible way to sell expanding with Rutgers in 2003, none at all.

Anyway, to be honest at the time I thought the ACC should have gone big, especially since they were being forced to add VaTech, and taken Miami, VaTech, BC, Syracuse and Pitt. So it all worked out, eventually.

As I was told, the main instrument used in the consultants' recommendations was the ESPN/TNS report from 2000.

The ideal three were Miami, ND, and PSU.

But assuming that ND and PSU were "No", BC to replace ND and SU to replace PSU.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Scooch]

As I was told, the main instrument used in the consultants' recommendations was the ESPN/TNS report from 2000.

The ideal three were Miami, ND, and PSU.

But assuming that ND and PSU were "No", BC to replace ND and SU to replace PSU.

Cheers,
Neil

That's wild on a few levels.

 

[Resonator]

If they were expanding in 2006/07 instead of 2003 you may be right.

I'm tired of this Chinese water torture of incremental expansion. For all the conspiracy theorists who think their is some master plan for conference to get to some magic number of members and optimal geographic footprint, THAT is the most damning evidence against it. I suspect the Commissioners are all for going for gold, but they have to deal with timid college Presidents and short-term thinking ADs and BOTs.

Once the ball got rolling when Nebraska joined the B1G, the ACC should have said screw it, let's add 'Cuse, Pitt, UConn, Rutgers, WVU, and ND and own the eastern seaboard. Larry Scott tried that for the Pac-10, and almost pulled it off.

UConn is going to be a VERY tough sell to ever get an invite. After Blumenthal went ahead with the lawsuits, that made him and UConn Public Enemy No 1 in most of the ACC. Unless anoher team leaves, I doubt they ever get one, either. I'd personally love to see them left out completely.

But, you never know.

 

[Jeepers]

Have a feeling UConn will end up in the b10. They should be doing everything they can to get into the AAU.

 

[omniorange]

That's wild on a few levels.

I assume you mean that it was available to the ACC without needing consultants, right?

Anyway, for those interested, here is a pdf of that 2000 TNS ESPN Favorite College Football team poll

 

[Townie72]

If the ACC and Miami had been forward thinking, they would have taken rutgirls over BC.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Not a chance.

In 2004 or 2005, I went into a Sports Authority in Lawrenceville, NJ which is about 25 miles from Rutgers in New Brunswick. In that huge store there were hats, t-shorts, jackets and sweatshirts from just about every college you can think of. But not a single thing had "Rutgers" on it. None. Nada. Zilch.

You do remember that in 2003 Rutgers had been averaging 20,000 fans for football for a decade and that the basketball program wasn't any better than it is today.

Even the B1G only wanted Rutgers for the cable TV boxes in their local area. Without those, Rutgers has little value. And without its own network --- which monetarizes those cable boxes --- to the ACC Rutgers had little value ... and still has little value today.

 

[Townie72]

ACC leadership would've been fired for suggesting taking a team at the time which was the equal to a mediocre 1-AA team.

But the ACC should've taken Cuse and Rutgers Sept 11 for the geography.

The geography has no value. Unless you are a land developer or something.

If you don't have your own TV network and a great utility for fcees from cable companies, Rutgers has little value.

Maryland, actually, has more value with mediocre football and pretty good basketball. Plus they have a fan base because they have been pretty good since the 1950's at least.

 

[rrlbees]

Not a chance.

In 2004 or 2005, I went into a Sports Authority in Lawrenceville, NJ which is about 25 miles from Rutgers in New Brunswick. In that huge store there were hats, t-shorts, jackets and sweatshirts from just about every college you can think of. But not a single thing had "Rutgers" on it. None. Nada. Zilch.

You do remember that in 2003 Rutgers had been averaging 20,000 fans for football for a decade and that the basketball program wasn't any better than it is today.

Even the B1G only wanted Rutgers for the cable TV boxes in their local area. Without those, Rutgers has little value. And without its own network --- which monetarizes those cable boxes --- to the ACC Rutgers had little value ... and still has little value today.

They aren't worth anymore today except someone realized the cable TV footprint which has nothing to do with how good or bad they are or what their brand is.

 

[Townie72]

They aren't worth anymore today except someone realized the cable TV footprint which has nothing to do with how good or bad they are or what their brand is.

That's right. And it has nothing to do with how many people will actually watch either Rutgers or Maryland.

It has everything to do with whether the Big Ten Network is part of the basic cable package or not. And that decsion is in the hands of the cable companies..

Right now, the Big Ten Network is available in the Rutgers and Maryland local areas as part of an extra-cost sports package. I get it as part of my sports package, but never watch it.

If the Big Ten Network becomes part of the basic package in an area that is part of the Big Ten market --- which now includes the areas around Rutgers and Maryland --- than the cable companies have to pay the Big Ten Network 80 cents per subscriber per month.

Cable companies could refuse to do that ... because that means they would have to increase the monthly basic cable package by at least 80 cents for every subscriber.

This is no slam dunk.

See the attached for a more thorough explanation.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...ght-keep-rutgers-and-maryland-off-its-network

 

[rrlbees]

That's right. And it has nothing to do with how many people will actually watch either Rutgers or Maryland.

It has everything to do with whether the Big Ten Network is part of the basic cable package or not. And that decsion is in the hands of the cable companies..

Right now, the Big Ten Network is available in the Rutgers and Maryland local areas as part of an extra-cost sports package. I get it as part of my sports package, but never watch it.

If the Big Ten Network becomes part of the basic package in an area that is part of the Big Ten market --- which now includes the areas around Rutgers and Maryland --- than the cable companies have to pay the Big Ten Network 80 cents per subscriber per month.

Cable companies could refuse to do that ... because that means they would have to increase the monthly basic cable package by at least 80 cents for every subscriber.

This is no slam dunk.

See the attached for a more thorough explanation.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...ght-keep-rutgers-and-maryland-off-its-network

i know all that. but the question was forward thinking. also to be considered in the nyc dma is who owns what, like the yankees which can be leveraged.

 

[Scooch]

I assume you mean that it was available to the ACC without needing consultants, right?

Anyway, for those interested, here is a pdf of that 2000 TNS ESPN Favorite College Football team poll

I'll cop to knowing very little about that process. But if that was the biggest bit of research those guys were working off of, then it just reinforces everything I believe about how utterly capricious the realignment process has been.

That's quality research, for sure, but if there wasn't much more to it than just looking at favorite team rankers by region, then those consultants stole money. They may have come to the same Miami/BC/SU conculsion, but yeesh, that's so superficial.

 

[omniorange]

I'll cop to knowing very little about that process. But if that was the biggest bit of research those guys were working off of, then it just reinforces everything I believe about how utterly capricious the realignment process has been.

That's quality research, for sure, but if there wasn't much more to it than just looking at favorite team rankers by region, then those consultants stole money. They may have come to the same Miami/BC/SU conculsion, but yeesh, that's so superficial.

My understanding was it was the base document, but I'm sure everything began with the vision of making the conference truly the East Coast conference equivalent of the Pac-12 rather than SEC-lite. So in that regard, having this document at least confirms what they probably already knew anyway which is what teams move the dial in the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions. I'm sure they had Nielsen ratings for each of the target teams as well as background information on each institution such as endowments, athletic budgets, etc. Remember the ACC "teams" went out to each of the sites to inspect the current facilities, etc. themselves.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Scooch]

My understanding was it was the base document, but I'm sure everything began with the vision of making the conference truly the East Coast conference equivalent of the Pac-12 rather than SEC-lite. So in that regard, having this document at least confirms what they probably already knew anyway which is what teams move the dial in the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions. I'm sure they had Nielsen ratings for each of the target teams as well as background information on each institution such as endowments, athletic budgets, etc. Remember the ACC "teams" went out to each of the sites to inspect the current facilities, etc. themselves.

Cheers,
Neil

Makes sense.

 

[omniorange]

Makes sense.

One thing the document does show is that Rutgers definitely would not have been on the radar back then.

I'd love to see a new one of these with all the sub-regions to see how things have changed since 2000. I'm sure Rutgers has moved well up the Mid-Atlantic and we have moved down considerably. Also have to imagine that UConn is up to at least #4 in the New England area, if not #3.

And I wonder how far PSU will fall in the next couple of years.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Townie72]

i know all that. but the question was forward thinking. also to be considered in the nyc dma is who owns what, like the yankees which can be leveraged.

Do you really understand the NY/NJ sports "ethic". You may.

My observation is that the area only supports big winners at the highest level. They view with disdain that isn't the best or great.

Growing up in NJ, I watched and sometime rooted for the Princeton basketball team. They were good even in the years after Bill Bradley graduated. But they got no credit in Mercer County NJ because they were not as good as UCLA or North Carolina or Kentucky and they didn't play in the ACC or even the Missouri Valley Conference when the MVC was good. If I said, "Bill Bradley was good", they'd say, "He's not as good as Billy Cunningham." You could never win.

When Bradley got to the Knicks and the Knicks won big, they became Bradley fans. He was essentially the same player at Princeton ... but he wasn't seen as "big time" enough.

There's a reason that for most of the time Rutgers was in the Big East, they drew 20,000 in spite of being in the midst of millions and millions of potential fans.

If Rutgers doesn't win big ... and I mean really big, they'll be ignored. And the chances of that happening are slim. Their basketball has been in the Big East --- a great conference --- for 20+ years and they haven't had a winner yet. So that pretty much deflates the "They'll do better in a better conference" fantasy.

 

[rrlbees]

Do you really understand the NY/NJ sports "ethic". You may.

My observation is that the area only supports big winners at the highest level. They view with disdain that isn't the best or great.

Growing up in NJ, I watched and sometime rooted for the Princeton basketball team. They were good even in the years after Bill Bradley graduated. But they got no credit in Mercer County NJ because they were not as good as UCLA or North Carolina or Kentucky and they didn't play in the ACC or even the Missouri Valley Conference when the MVC was good. If I said, "Bill Bradley was good", they'd say, "He's not as good as Billy Cunningham." You could never win.

When Bradley got to the Knicks and the Knicks won big, they became Bradley fans. He was essentially the same player at Princeton ... but he wasn't seen as "big time" enough.

There's a reason that for most of the time Rutgers was in the Big East, they drew 20,000 in spite of being in the midst of millions and millions of potential fans.

If Rutgers doesn't win big ... and I mean really big, they'll be ignored. And the chances of that happening are slim. Their basketball has been in the Big East --- a great conference --- for 20+ years and they haven't had a winner yet. So that pretty much deflates the "They'll do better in a better conference" fantasy.

nothing you said has anything to do with the dma or why the btn may get on basic cable in that dma. you're talking brand and wins/losses again.