ACC Votes to Accept Louisville

[johnb]

I agree with the point of this article, that the Louisville move was done - oh novelty of novelties! - primarily to improve the ACC's poor football product. ...

I'd hesitate to say we have a poor product. The top half dozen teams--year in and year out--are competitive with the top half dozen teams in the Pac 12 and Big 12, though not at the level of the SEC or B1G; that's pretty good.

My concern is actually the blurring of academic boundaries that takes place in trying to recruit several dozen of the very best football players. The teams that are on or will soon be on probation are a testament to that.

And the Maryland financial fiasco is a testament to what happens when teams and administrators don't perform at at a high level; punishment is severe (except, somehow, for Kay Yow, but that's a different story).

Louisville is actually the best poised to honestly recruit athletes in the whole conference. It's a somehow-prosperous commuter school that has a mandate to accept and educate a broad array of students, ranging from students who could fit in comfortably at Duke to students who are marginal academically and drop out after a semester or two. My guess is that their football players aren't academically noteworthy on campus. At a Duke, a student with 1000 SAT's is very likely to be on the FB/BB team; if so, they are great athletes who have significant discipline and resolve and--from my perspective--belong, and they almost always graduate. Nevertheless, their SAT might be 500 points lower than the average person in their math class. They're not just bigger than their classmates, they're academic outliers. For a Duke (or a Carolina or Virginia, etc), there is legitimate room for conversation about whether they SHOULD compete in Div 1 football and basketball if they can't recruit kids who'd stand a good chance of getting accepted if their extracurricular was photography or the school newspaper rather than football. And no one, aside possibly from Stanford and Notre Dame, really does have enough of those recruits to field a competitive team (eg, http://www.suntimes.com/sports/15682...academics.html). I think Duke's compromise is reasonable, and I do like FB and BB, and the players have shown themselves to be deserving, but I can see alternative routes (eg, Georgetown, which seems to say, "ok, BB is 10 guys, but football is 85, so we'll just not do it at a top level).

[roywhite]

Reading some speculation about Georgia Tech jumping to the B1G.

The Atlanta TV market is certainly a big prize in the modern shuffle.

[Wander]

I'd hesitate to say we have a poor product. The top half dozen teams--year in and year out--are competitive with the top half dozen teams in the Pac 12 and Big 12, though not at the level of the SEC or B1G; that's pretty good.

I'm not sure why you think this. First of all, the Pac 12 and Big 12 are both better than the B1G. This year alone, Oregon, Stanford, Kansas State and Oklahoma would beat any ACC team, and USC, Oregon State, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma State, would crush any non-FSU/Clemson team. And honestly, that might be generous to the ACC in my selection of teams. When was the last time the ACC won a big bowl game against a non Big East opponent? ACC football is far below that of the Pac 12 and Big 12.

[dukejim1]

Louisville becomes second ACC team in BCS, congrats Cards. Now they must keep Strong

[formerdukeathlete]

I'd hesitate to say we have a poor product. The top half dozen teams--year in and year out--are competitive with the top half dozen teams in the Pac 12 and Big 12, though not at the level of the SEC or B1G; that's pretty good.

My concern is actually the blurring of academic boundaries that takes place in trying to recruit several dozen of the very best football players. The teams that are on or will soon be on probation are a testament to that.

And the Maryland financial fiasco is a testament to what happens when teams and administrators don't perform at at a high level; punishment is severe (except, somehow, for Kay Yow, but that's a different story).

Louisville is actually the best poised to honestly recruit athletes in the whole conference. It's a somehow-prosperous commuter school that has a mandate to accept and educate a broad array of students, ranging from students who could fit in comfortably at Duke to students who are marginal academically and drop out after a semester or two. My guess is that their football players aren't academically noteworthy on campus. At a Duke, a student with 1000 SAT's is very likely to be on the FB/BB team; if so, they are great athletes who have significant discipline and resolve and--from my perspective--belong, and they almost always graduate. Nevertheless, their SAT might be 500 points lower than the average person in their math class. They're not just bigger than their classmates, they're academic outliers. For a Duke (or a Carolina or Virginia, etc), there is legitimate room for conversation about whether they SHOULD compete in Div 1 football and basketball if they can't recruit kids who'd stand a good chance of getting accepted if their extracurricular was photography or the school newspaper rather than football. And no one, aside possibly from Stanford and Notre Dame, really does have enough of those recruits to field a competitive team (eg, http://www.suntimes.com/sports/15682...academics.html). I think Duke's compromise is reasonable, and I do like FB and BB, and the players have shown themselves to be deserving, but I can see alternative routes (eg, Georgetown, which seems to say, "ok, BB is 10 guys, but football is 85, so we'll just not do it at a top level).

I agree there is legitimate room for the conversation you suggest. I might offer the following for additional perspective.

At the Ivies, few Football or Basketball recruits would be admitted were their speciality the latest in digital photography, rather than Football or Basketball. The Ivy League miniumum is about a combination of a 3.3 GPA with a 1070 math verbal and a school may take just one or two Football players at that level each year, out of 30 preferred admits. The SAT averages on Ivy teams are 1300 math verbal plus, still maybe less than half of the preferred Football admits would have a shot in admissions without some other preference. Based on information one can gather on line, the math verbal SAT average on Stanford's Football team is into the 1200s. I dont think Notre Dame is close to that, though it does seem that Notre Dame is recruiting a better student student athlete these days. For example, when the NCAA passed Proposition 48 in 1986, an article in the NYT pointed out that in the prior 5 years 32 Football players were admitted to Notre Dame with academics below the newly established NCAA minimums. http://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/09/sp...-48-image.html And, in 1997, the last year the NCAA released SAT information by school,

Table 1 - SAT scores and Graduation Rates (Div. I-A Top 10 and others)

Rank School Football Ave. SAT Football Grad. %
1 Stanford 1108 94%
2 Northwestern 1102 92%
3 Rice 1083 48%
4 Duke 1068 86%
5 Vanderbilt 1049 86%
6 Purdue 1005 43%
7 UCLA 1002 63%
8 Tulsa 1002 41%
9 Missouri 994 60%
10 Indiana 990 65%

The rest of the Pac-10…

Rank School Football Ave. SAT Football Grad. %
24 Oregon 958 57%
26 Washington 955 59%
30 U$C 953 59%
37 Arizona State 947 39%
61 Washington State 915 41%
70 Cal 877 44%
73 Arizona 873 65%
73 Oregon State 873 63%

Some other Notables…

Rank School Football Ave. SAT Football Grad. %
12 Ohio State 984 29%
16 Texas 970 56%
21 Penn State 960 71%
25 Syracuse 957 67%
27 Iowa 954 61%
29 North Carolina 953 48%
35 Colorado 948 53%
46 Michigan 929 38%
49 Virginia 927 80%
51 Notre Dame 925 87%
65 BYU 900 48%
69 Florida 883 53%
72 Wisconsin 876 63%
73 San Jose State 873 ???
81 Rutgers 864 38%
84 Nebraska 860 63%
88 Tennessee 847 25%
100 Florida State 827 71%
101 Hawaii 826 64%
106 Michigan State 798 44%
107 Utah 795 22%
108 Southern Mississippi 785 60%

** Source: 1997 NCAA Division I Graduation-Rates Report [SAT Data: 1993-1996 entering freshmen classes; Graduation Rates from 1990-91 entering classes of those exhausting eligibility].

http://stanford.scout.com/3/1997_SAT_Analysis.html

Stanford's academic criteria have improved since this data was released, though the SAT was recurved after 1993 whereby what was an 1100 math verbal became about a 1200 - both roughly 80th percentile. Notre Dame was below North Carolina at the time.

Because of the numbers of players involved, your Georgetown example, Basketball is 10 or 12 guys. Truly elite players may be here a couple of years. They will play right away. But, Football is a different story. We have 85 scholarship players, the largest squad on campus, plus preferred walk-ons. For the very most part, they know they will be here for 4 or more years. They need to be credible students and want to be at Duke academically.

[COYS]

Reading some speculation about Georgia Tech jumping to the B1G.

The Atlanta TV market is certainly a big prize in the modern shuffle.

This is an honest question. How big is GaTech's market share in Atlanta? I grew up just outside of ATL. While GaTech does have some followers, the state is owned by UGA. Most Tech fans actually went to Tech, which is a smaller school than UGA. Virtually everyone else in the state has adopted UGA, even if they didn't actually attend the school. The Atlanta area is also populated by fans of other SEC schools who probably outnumber GaTech fans, as well. Would GaTech really bring in a significant portion of the Atlanta market? A GaTech football game against Minnesota would be an afterthought to most Atlantans who are otherwise watching SEC clashes. It's true that a GaTech football game against Boston College is probably not much better, but at least Tech will play FSU, Clemson and the Carolina schools, which also have a lot of fans in the Atlanta area. If GaTech joined the B1G, I would imagine that interest in Tech's games in the Atlanta area would actually dwindle as the lack of regional opponents would cause fans of schools like Clemson, FSU, Duke, UNC, and NCState to stop tuning in.

[YmoBeThere]

This is an honest question. How big is GaTech's market share in Atlanta? I grew up just outside of ATL. While GaTech does have some followers, the state is owned by UGA. Most Tech fans actually went to Tech, which is a smaller school than UGA. Virtually everyone else in the state has adopted UGA, even if they didn't actually attend the school. The Atlanta area is also populated by fans of other SEC schools who probably outnumber GaTech fans, as well. Would GaTech really bring in a significant portion of the Atlanta market? A GaTech football game against Minnesota would be an afterthought to most Atlantans who are otherwise watching SEC clashes. It's true that a GaTech football game against Boston College is probably not much better, but at least Tech will play FSU, Clemson and the Carolina schools, which also have a lot of fans in the Atlanta area. If GaTech joined the B1G, I would imagine that interest in Tech's games in the Atlanta area would actually dwindle as the lack of regional opponents would cause fans of schools like Clemson, FSU, Duke, UNC, and NCState to stop tuning in.

Keep in mind this appears to be about getting included in a channel programming tier to collect X.XX per month per person who has that tier. So, getting GaTech even if the ratings aren't great works out fine. Are you going to insist they take away your "Sports" tier, which would potentially get rid of you Fox regional sports network that would carry ACC programming so that you wouldn't have to watch GaTech? The key to all this changing is ala carte pricing which died a couple years ago but could be revived at any time. FWIW, there is some variant of the Big10 network that I get here in San Antonio(never watched it so can't tell you what it actually is). I would get rid of it if I could but I want the other programming in that tier.

[throatybeard]

UL may be losing their football coach:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...s-coaching-job

[Duvall]

So I was reading this article on ESPN.

It stated:



This doesn't make sense to me. If MD is leaving this summer, and Syracuse and Pitt are coming aboard, wouldn't the ACC have unbalanced divisions UNLESS Louisville comes in this summer? I just assumed we were getting them next year.

Color me confused, or am I forgetting something?


Edited to add -- same with Big Ten? Unless Maryland isn't leaving until after 2013-2014 season?

Maryland (and Rutgers) will be joining the Big Ten after the 2013-2014 season. Louisville can't come until Maryland leaves.

I suppose it's theoretically possible for Maryland and Rutgers to leave after the 2012-2013 season and have Louisville join the ACC then, but I don't think anyone really wants to do that.

[A-Tex Devil]

Maryland (and Rutgers) will be joining the Big Ten after the 2013-2014 season. Louisville can't come until Maryland leaves.

I suppose it's theoretically possible for Maryland and Rutgers to leave after the 2012-2013 season and have Louisville join the ACC then, but I don't think anyone really wants to do that.

Thanks. I deleted my post as I answered my question. I had it in my head that this was the last year Duke was playing Maryland. Maybe it was just the last game at Comcast if Duke doesn't have home and home with MD next year.

[wilson]

Apropos of this, the ACC is reportedly amenable to adding Notre Dame a year early should the Irish find that avenue possible amid the Big East's ever-swirling uncertainty.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...ording-sources

[Henderson]

Is there an antitrust or other impediment to the NCAA agreeing collectively to a package of broadcast rights for all the D1 schools, with some formula for revenue sharing? That way the schools could develop conferences that actually make sense from a sports point of view. I'm pretty tired of hearing that East Coast University is joining the 38 team Hawaiian Athletic Conference because it can get more $$ that way.

Or is it just the financial self-interest of the bigs that propels this insanity and prevents a more sensible solution?

[DukeAlumBS]

My friends,

I agree with Mike Corey and have made many comments on other forums about why we are bringing in Syracuse and Louisville to the ACC.
You can google and see what their goals are. It is not the student at all. The past 2 years of Syracuse basketball has not been about the student. This has been obvious.
The 2 are not Research or Academic Institutions as well. As Duke,Wake Forest , UNC CH or UVA as well which have 4 year graduation rates of 100 percent.
It bothers me this happened and will show in time just like 2 big coaches that were guided out the past 2-3 years because of this very issue . One from the ACC.
I think a very sad state, that upsets me a great deal.

Hve nice day my friends,

Jimmy

[jimsumner]

Maryland (and Rutgers) will be joining the Big Ten after the 2013-2014 season. Louisville can't come until Maryland leaves.

I suppose it's theoretically possible for Maryland and Rutgers to leave after the 2012-2013 season and have Louisville join the ACC then, but I don't think anyone really wants to do that.

With the football schedules in place, I'm not even sure it's theoretically possible.

[Nugget]

Is there an antitrust or other impediment to the NCAA agreeing collectively to a package of broadcast rights for all the D1 schools, with some formula for revenue sharing? That way the schools could develop conferences that actually make sense from a sports point of view. I'm pretty tired of hearing that East Coast University is joining the 38 team Hawaiian Athletic Conference because it can get more $$ that way.

It appears that the NCAA tried that, or something close to that (albeit for a different asserted justification -- to try to protect the live attendance/ticket sales, rather than to discourage conference jumping) and the Supreme Court found it an antitrust violation.

It is somewhat ironic that the result of this decision was to move the tv contracting power for football from the NCAA to the conferences -- that, of course, is what leads to the stratification between leagues based on their individual football-driven contracts and the incentive to jump/poach leagues. What makes this all football/conference driven is that while the major $ value in basketball is rights to the NCAA tournament (controlled by the NCAA not the conferences), there is no NCAA football playoff -- so the BCS and other football post-season revenue is controlled by the conferences not the NCAA. The NCAA could actually get back much of the power if it wanted to by authorizing an 8 or 16 team playoff, for which it would control the tv rights and it could do the same kind of revenue sharing it does for the NCAA basketball tournament, because a playoff that large would to some degree overshadow (and devalue) the regular season rights controlled by the conferences.

Here's the Supreme Court's summary (which I've modified a bit into plainer english) of that decision, NCAA v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. OF OKLA., 468 U.S. 85 (1984).

“In 1981, [the NCAA adopted a plan to protect attendance at games by limiting the total number of televised games and the number of times any one member could appear on television each year.] The NCAA has separate agreements with [ABC and CBS . . . ]. Each network agreed to pay a specified "minimum aggregate compensation" to the participating NCAA members, and was authorized to negotiate directly with the members for the right to televise their games. [Certain of the NCAA member schools – the major football playing schools except the Big 10 and Pac 10] . . . claimed that they should have a greater voice in the formulation of football television policy than they had in the NCAA. The CFA [contracted with NBC for more coverage/money for CFA members]. . . . [T]he NCAA announced it would take disciplinary action against any CFA member that complied with the CFA-NBC contract. [The CFA schools sued and the trial court found that] the controls exercised by the NCAA over the televising of college football games violated [antitrust law]. The court found that competition in the relevant market - defined as "live college football television" - had been restrained in three ways: (1) the NCAA fixed the price for particular telecasts; (2) its exclusive network contracts were tantamount to a group boycott of all other potential broadcasters and its threat of sanctions against its members constituted a threatened boycott of potential competitors; and (3) its plan placed an artificial limit on the production of televised college football. . . .

Held: The NCAA's television plan violates section 1 of the Sherman Act.

(a) [The Supreme Court noted that, although price fixing and output limitations between competitors are “ordinarily . . . ‘illegal per se,’”, that rule does not apply to this case because the nature of the product (football games) requires some restraints on competition between the members for the product to be supplied at all. Therefore, the question is whether the particular restraints are reasonable – which is judged by “whether or not [they] enhance competition”.]

(b) The NCAA television plan [restrains] . . . operation of a free market, and the District Court's findings establish that the plan has operated to raise price and reduce output (i.e., there would be more televised football, at a lower per game price, absent the restraints). . . [So, the burden shifts to the NCAA to prove that its television plan enhanced competition] . . .

(c) The record does not support the NCAA's [argument that is plan is] a cooperative "joint venture" which assists in the marketing of broadcast rights and hence is procompetitive. [this is how the pro leagues are viewed]

(d) [The plan does not protect live attendance because it allows games to be televised during all hours that other games are played. And, even if it did protect live ticket sales, doing it this way on the assumption that a game between A and B is “insufficiently attractive to draw live attendance” against a televised game between C and D is not a legitimate justification under the Sherman Act].

(e) The [NCAA’s asserted] interest in maintaining competitive balance . . . is not related to any neutral standard or to any readily identifiable group of competitors [nor] . . . tailored to serve such an interest. It does not regulate the amount of money that any college may spend on its football program or the way the colleges may use football revenues, but simply imposes a restriction on one source of revenue that is more important to some colleges than to others. There is no evidence that such restriction produces any greater measure of equality throughout the NCAA than would a restriction on alumni donations, tuition rates, or any other revenue-producing activity. Moreover, the District Court's well-supported finding that many more games would be televised in a free market than under the NCAA plan, is a compelling demonstration that the plan's controls do not serve any legitimate procompetitive purpose.

[Dev11]

I see on Twitter that Louisville will be serving beer for a dollar at their spring game. I welcome this important addition to ACC country.

[Duvall]

With the football schedules in place, I'm not even sure it's theoretically possible.

And my dream of getting a Maryland-free world a year early is crushed.

[JasonEvans]

I had it in my head that this was the last year Duke was playing Maryland. Maybe it was just the last game at Comcast if Duke doesn't have home and home with MD next year.

While we do not know what Maryland's home slate will be next season, many folks seem to think that Duke and UNC, the two marquee opponents in the ACC around whom ticket packages can be built and sold, will not play at Maryland next season as a way of punishing the Terps for leaving the conference. Many seem to think Maryland will get a home slate of that includes BC, Wake, Ga Tech, Va Tech, Virginia, and Clemson... plus a couple other teams.

I have one friend who suggested that Maryland might be given only 5 or 6 ACC home games and the rest would be road games. If the Terps don't like it, we merely put it to a vote of the rest of the conference as to whether they agree with this plan

-Jason "I truly cannot wait for those low-lifes to leave the conference and enjoy sending their field hockey team on 1000+ mile field trips" Evans

[Henderson]

While we do not know what Maryland's home slate will be next season, many folks seem to think that Duke and UNC, the two marquee opponents in the ACC around whom ticket packages can be built and sold, will not play at Maryland next season as a way of punishing the Terps for leaving the conference. Many seem to think Maryland will get a home slate of that includes BC, Wake, Ga Tech, Va Tech, Virginia, and Clemson... plus a couple other teams.

That's an assumption I've heard too. With all the tough ACC teams away. I hope that doesn't happen. As much as I dislike the Terps, vindictive scheduling seems kind of low brow. Like torching your own town after a win. The "punishment" comes in the form of an exit fee. I hope the ACC leaves it at that.

[jimsumner]

While we do not know what Maryland's home slate will be next season, many folks seem to think that Duke and UNC, the two marquee opponents in the ACC around whom ticket packages can be built and sold, will not play at Maryland next season as a way of punishing the Terps for leaving the conference. Many seem to think Maryland will get a home slate of that includes BC, Wake, Ga Tech, Va Tech, Virginia, and Clemson... plus a couple other teams.

I have one friend who suggested that Maryland might be given only 5 or 6 ACC home games and the rest would be road games. If the Terps don't like it, we merely put it to a vote of the rest of the conference as to whether they agree with this plan

-Jason "I truly cannot wait for those low-lifes to leave the conference and enjoy sending their field hockey team on 1000+ mile field trips" Evans

I can see the ACC tweaking the schedule so that Maryland gets few if any marquee games at home. But I cannot imagine Maryland getting less than the requisite number of home games. It would make the ACC seem petulant and vindictive. Maybe this part of the thread is in jest.

I would add that I haven't talked to anyone who thinks the ACC-Big Ten Challenge will be renewed.