Ways to Save ACC / Get ND In?

[JasonEvans]

I have been waiting for an opportunity to use this

Attachment 14755

Oolong!!

[uh_no]

I have been waiting for an opportunity to use this

Attachment 14755

it's sweden. and there was wine. what's there not to get :P :P :P

[Acymetric]

it's sweden. and there was wine. what's there not to get :P :P :P

Why the rest of us weren't invited?

Enjoy the trip!

[wavedukefan70s]

Every national talking head I have heard has taken for granted that the ACC will be sold for scraps. I don't hear anyone assuming the ACC can survive in anything close to its current incarnation.

I may change my mind, but as of right now.if the acc disintegrates I'll be heartbroken . I grew up with the ACC .
Not sure if I'll watch much anymore .
Just doesn't seem natural .wasn't to big
On the expansion either .

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I may change my mind, but as of right now.if the acc disintegrates I'll be heartbroken . I grew up with the ACC .
Not sure if I'll watch much anymore .
Just doesn't seem natural .wasn't to big
On the expansion either .

I've been in the record as saying I'll watch Duke play in the Sun Belt or Big East or whatever. But I'm starting to doubt my own sincerity. If the ACC is sold for parts, it will just be one more huge change for my Duke interests. Along with the OAD, transfer portal, K retirement, NIL money - it could prove a bridge too far.

I'm not saying I would give up overnight. But it would be taking one of my favorite hobbies and standing it on its head.

[budwom]

I may change my mind, but as of right now.if the acc disintegrates I'll be heartbroken . I grew up with the ACC .
Not sure if I'll watch much anymore .
Just doesn't seem natural .wasn't to big
On the expansion either .

I also grew up with the old ACC, though what we have now with BC, Lville et al is so much less attractive...I have no idea what the future holds, but trust that Nina King and the board realize the peril we may be in and will do their best to find us a soft landing spot, be it in the ACC or elsewhere.

[arnie]

I also grew up with the old ACC, though what we have now with BC, Lville et al is so much less attractive...I have no idea what the future holds, but trust that Nina King and the board realize the peril we may be in and will do their best to find us a soft landing spot, be it in the ACC or elsewhere.

I’m not sure Nina or the Board can impact Duke’s ultimate destiny. It’s a numbers game and doubt politicking matters. However; if we wind up in the Big East I’ll still be a big fan.

[Phredd3]

I’m not sure Nina or the Board can impact Duke’s ultimate destiny. It’s a numbers game and doubt politicking matters. However; if we wind up in the Big East I’ll still be a big fan.

Politicking includes salesmanship. I think Duke has plenty to offer. While the football numbers aren't there, the basketball numbers are. Remember that Duke draws over a million viewers fairly regularly NOT counting the post-season. For example, Duke-Gonzaga just last year drew 3.1 million views, which is equivalent to about third place or so in an average football week. On a weekly basis, a Duke basketball in-conference game draws an audience that is equivalent to roughly a top-20 drawing football game. Yes, I understand that's not comparatively enormous, but it ain't chopped liver.

Also, I think there's something to be said for driving viewership in parts of the season when football isn't active. ESPN (and other networks, but especially ESPN which drive the ACCN and SECN) cares about that airtime, too, and is willing to pay to have it filled with something that actually turn a profit, instead of the Olympic sports filler they are forced to carry starting in mid-April.

NBA total revenue is about a third as much as the NFL. I expect the ratio of college football to college basketball isn't quite that high, but I also expect it isn't that far off, either. It can't be neatly separated, given how the TV deals are structured and distributed, so there's no way to tell for sure, but I think a reasonable guess would be 5:1.

So yes, football is primarily driving the bus. But basketball will get at least some consideration, especially when it comes to Duke, which is almost certainly the biggest college basketball brand. Would a football conference want UNC more? Yes, of course. Would they consider preserving the number one basketball rivalry as part of that deal? I think they'd be foolish not to give it serious consideration. Leaving even just a few percent of your possible revenue off the table is not good business, and Duke offers more than a few percent, I'm guessing.

There is a lot of gloom and doom around here, and I do understand the angst. But I think Duke has more to bring to the table than some are giving it credit for. (Sorry, I'm not picking on arnie, specifically, but it's been a general theme throughout.)

[TheDevilMadeMeDoIt]

Politicking includes salesmanship. I think Duke has plenty to offer. While the football numbers aren't there, the basketball numbers are. Remember that Duke draws over a million viewers fairly regularly NOT counting the post-season. For example, Duke-Gonzaga just last year drew 3.1 million views, which is equivalent to about third place or so in an average football week. On a weekly basis, a Duke basketball in-conference game draws an audience that is equivalent to roughly a top-20 drawing football game. Yes, I understand that's not comparatively enormous, but it ain't chopped liver.

Also, I think there's something to be said for driving viewership in parts of the season when football isn't active. ESPN (and other networks, but especially ESPN which drive the ACCN and SECN) cares about that airtime, too, and is willing to pay to have it filled with something that actually turn a profit, instead of the Olympic sports filler they are forced to carry starting in mid-April.

NBA total revenue is about a third as much as the NFL. I expect the ratio of college football to college basketball isn't quite that high, but I also expect it isn't that far off, either. It can't be neatly separated, given how the TV deals are structured and distributed, so there's no way to tell for sure, but I think a reasonable guess would be 5:1.

So yes, football is primarily driving the bus. But basketball will get at least some consideration, especially when it comes to Duke, which is almost certainly the biggest college basketball brand. Would a football conference want UNC more? Yes, of course. Would they consider preserving the number one basketball rivalry as part of that deal? I think they'd be foolish not to give it serious consideration. Leaving even just a few percent of your possible revenue off the table is not good business, and Duke offers more than a few percent, I'm guessing.

There is a lot of gloom and doom around here, and I do understand the angst. But I think Duke has more to bring to the table than some are giving it credit for. (Sorry, I'm not picking on arnie, specifically, but it's been a general theme throughout.)

I hope you are right. I do agree that ESPN needs Duke basketball in the winter. And I have a question. Does anyone watch ESPN between college basketball season and college football season? I know that I don’t. I do worry that Coach K’s retirement probably somewhat negatively impacts our appeal. Nothing against Jon, but K was a known entity.

[nocilla]

I hope you are right. I do agree that ESPN needs Duke basketball in the winter. And I have a question. Does anyone watch ESPN between college basketball season and college football season? I know that I don’t. I do worry that Coach K’s retirement probably somewhat negatively impacts our appeal. Nothing against Jon, but K was a known entity.

I only watch ESPN during college basketball season.
I will watch during football season if Duke is playing but that doesn’t happen very often.

[budwom]

Politicking includes salesmanship. I think Duke has plenty to offer. While the football numbers aren't there, the basketball numbers are. Remember that Duke draws over a million viewers fairly regularly NOT counting the post-season. For example, Duke-Gonzaga just last year drew 3.1 million views, which is equivalent to about third place or so in an average football week. On a weekly basis, a Duke basketball in-conference game draws an audience that is equivalent to roughly a top-20 drawing football game. Yes, I understand that's not comparatively enormous, but it ain't chopped liver.

Also, I think there's something to be said for driving viewership in parts of the season when football isn't active. ESPN (and other networks, but especially ESPN which drive the ACCN and SECN) cares about that airtime, too, and is willing to pay to have it filled with something that actually turn a profit, instead of the Olympic sports filler they are forced to carry starting in mid-April.

NBA total revenue is about a third as much as the NFL. I expect the ratio of college football to college basketball isn't quite that high, but I also expect it isn't that far off, either. It can't be neatly separated, given how the TV deals are structured and distributed, so there's no way to tell for sure, but I think a reasonable guess would be 5:1.

So yes, football is primarily driving the bus. But basketball will get at least some consideration, especially when it comes to Duke, which is almost certainly the biggest college basketball brand. Would a football conference want UNC more? Yes, of course. Would they consider preserving the number one basketball rivalry as part of that deal? I think they'd be foolish not to give it serious consideration. Leaving even just a few percent of your possible revenue off the table is not good business, and Duke offers more than a few percent, I'm guessing.

There is a lot of gloom and doom around here, and I do understand the angst. But I think Duke has more to bring to the table than some are giving it credit for. (Sorry, I'm not picking on arnie, specifically, but it's been a general theme throughout.)

Exactly. Sitting back and hoping for the best isn't a strategy. It's certainly true that Nina and Duke can only do so much, but getting out and selling Duke is likely to be required if the ACC folds. As you say, we simply don't know what value the B1G would place on hoops in general and Duke in particular, but it's definitely worth something, despite the obvious fact that futbol is the primary driver.
I have zero information on this, but would be stunned if she isn't having some quiet discussions. Because I have no doubt that a lot of our "colleagues" in the ACC have to be looking around right now as well.

[RoseBowl1942]

Had a new idea come up last night to throw out there. Prefacing that this is obviously an extreme long shot that is not likely to ever be approved by university presidents, but the ACC schools have the ability to kick out members if they get a 3/4 vote. It’s very clear that BC, Syracuse, Pitt, and Wake don’t bring in their fair share of revenue. At 15 schools (ND gets a full vote in this), you would need 12 out of the 15 to give someone the boot. If the conference voted to boot BC, Syracuse, and Pitt (remember you would need at least 1 of the 4 to vote yes, and none would kick out a fellow member if the gun would just turn on them next; let’s say Wake is picked as the designated survivor given it was a founding member), would this be a way to stay relevant next time the GoR comes up in 2036 and/or help the revenue situation by cutting down the slices of the pie? Obviously if you’re Wake, you make a rule going forward that a 100% vote is needed for removal to ensure your survival. And maybe the ACC would negotiate a smaller share for Wake given they would have some leverage (saying we’ll just take 1 of the other 3 if you don’t go along), so can help the FB schools like Clemson close the gap to the SEC. But anyway, conference would look like the following, which I think could bring in some decent revenue at the next media deal. It’s an odd number, but you don’t need an even number with our conference set up anymore (can figure a way to make it work), or maybe can add WV to make it even (plus you get another solid FB brand in, and can maybe use this as leverage to open up the media contract from a position of better strength)

Big FB Brands — Clemson, FSU, Miami
Solid FB Brands — VTech, UNC, Louisville
Decent FB Brands — NCSU, GTech
Basketball Brands — Duke
Flagship State Schools — UVA
Designated Survivor — Wake

Any thoughts?

[JasonEvans]

Had a new idea come up last night to throw out there. Prefacing that this is obviously an extreme long shot that is not likely to ever be approved by university presidents, but the ACC schools have the ability to kick out members if they get a 3/4 vote. It’s very clear that BC, Syracuse, Pitt, and Wake don’t bring in their fair share of revenue. At 15 schools (ND gets a full vote in this), you would need 12 out of the 15 to give someone the boot. If the conference voted to boot BC, Syracuse, and Pitt (remember you would need at least 1 of the 4 to vote yes, and none would kick out a fellow member if the gun would just turn on them next; let’s say Wake is picked as the designated survivor given it was a founding member), would this be a way to stay relevant next time the GoR comes up in 2036 and/or help the revenue situation by cutting down the slices of the pie? Obviously if you’re Wake, you make a rule going forward that a 100% vote is needed for removal to ensure your survival. And maybe the ACC would negotiate a smaller share for Wake given they would have some leverage (saying we’ll just take 1 of the other 3 if you don’t go along), so can help the FB schools like Clemson close the gap to the SEC. But anyway, conference would look like the following, which I think could bring in some decent revenue at the next media deal. It’s an odd number, but you don’t need an even number with our conference set up anymore (can figure a way to make it work), or maybe can add WV to make it even (plus you get another solid FB brand in, and can maybe use this as leverage to open up the media contract from a position of better strength)

Big FB Brands — Clemson, FSU, Miami
Solid FB Brands — VTech, UNC, Louisville
Decent FB Brands — NCSU, GTech
Basketball Brands — Duke
Flagship State Schools — UVA
Designated Survivor — Wake

Any thoughts?

At less than 12 I believe you cannot have a conference championship game. That would be a revenue killer and a non-starter. ACC won't go below 12 total teams for that reason.

I am also far from convinced that Syracuse, with the powerful NY market, is not pulling its fair share in terms of revenues to the league. The same might be said for BC too.

[AustinDevil]

At less than 12 I believe you cannot have a conference championship game. That would be a revenue killer and a non-starter. ACC won't go below 12 total teams for that reason.

I am also far from convinced that Syracuse, with the powerful NY market, is not pulling its fair share in terms of revenues to the league. The same might be said for BC too.

I don't agree with any of this. The 12-team rule was killed at the instigation of the Big "Twelve" a few years ago. Relatively few people in NY watch Syracuse. No one in Boston watches BC.

[sagegrouse]

Had a new idea come up last night to throw out there. Prefacing that this is obviously an extreme long shot that is not likely to ever be approved by university presidents, but the ACC schools have the ability to kick out members if they get a 3/4 vote. It’s very clear that BC, Syracuse, Pitt, and Wake don’t bring in their fair share of revenue. At 15 schools (ND gets a full vote in this), you would need 12 out of the 15 to give someone the boot. If the conference voted to boot BC, Syracuse, and Pitt (remember you would need at least 1 of the 4 to vote yes, and none would kick out a fellow member if the gun would just turn on them next; let’s say Wake is picked as the designated survivor given it was a founding member), would this be a way to stay relevant next time the GoR comes up in 2036 and/or help the revenue situation by cutting down the slices of the pie? Obviously if you’re Wake, you make a rule going forward that a 100% vote is needed for removal to ensure your survival. And maybe the ACC would negotiate a smaller share for Wake given they would have some leverage (saying we’ll just take 1 of the other 3 if you don’t go along), so can help the FB schools like Clemson close the gap to the SEC. But anyway, conference would look like the following, which I think could bring in some decent revenue at the next media deal. It’s an odd number, but you don’t need an even number with our conference set up anymore (can figure a way to make it work), or maybe can add WV to make it even (plus you get another solid FB brand in, and can maybe use this as leverage to open up the media contract from a position of better strength)

Big FB Brands — Clemson, FSU, Miami
Solid FB Brands — VTech, UNC, Louisville
Decent FB Brands — NCSU, GTech
Basketball Brands — Duke
Flagship State Schools — UVA
Designated Survivor — Wake

Any thoughts?

Not happening:

1. It's a league with mutual support among the teams. The AC presidents and AD's are not going to kick out fellow members.
2. What you suggest would get the governments of the affected states, especially the Congressional delegations, up in arms, looking for ways to cause harm to ACC schools. And the states? How about NY, PA and MA? As the biggest (??) recipient of government grants and contracts in the conference, Duke would be especially harmed.
3. The ESPN contracts would have to be renegotiated, and probably not on favorable terms, so any gain to the remaining members would likely be reduced.
4. Moreover, 15 years ago the conferences all believed that larger membership would create a greater media footprint and, therefore, generate far more dollars. The Big Ten and the SEC obviously still believe it -- why should the ACC go in the other direction?

[RoseBowl1942]

Not happening:

1. It's a league with mutual support among the teams. The AC presidents and AD's are not going to kick out fellow members.
2. What you suggest would get the governments of the affected states, especially the Congressional delegations, up in arms, looking for ways to cause harm to ACC schools. And the states? How about NY, PA and MA? As the biggest (??) recipient of government grants and contracts in the conference, Duke would be especially harmed.
3. The ESPN contracts would have to be renegotiated, and probably not on favorable terms, so any gain to the remaining members would likely be reduced.
4. Moreover, 15 years ago the conferences all believed that larger membership would create a greater media footprint and, therefore, generate far more dollars. The Big Ten and the SEC obviously still believe it -- why should the ACC go in the other direction?

I disagree that the states would do much to our funding. We’re talking 2 private schools (BC and Syracuse) and a clear public also-ran that’s well below the state flagship (Pitt). And for the footprint / media market angle, it only matters if your footprint has a high level of loyalty (driving eyes for the conference) and/or brings a high amount of quality content. BC, Pitt, and Syracuse are all schools with weak football viewership, low “excitability” for non-affiliated fans, and effectively no history with the ACC (no even 20 years). Even BC, the longest running school of the group, isn’t bleeding ACC like people from Duke, UNC, GTech, or Wake. The only argument that hurts here is if the admins are really aligned. I don’t know the answer, but if it’s a way for GTech, Duke, NCSU, VTech, and maybe Wake can ensure survival in a big boy conference, it could be worth it

[JasonEvans]

I don't agree with any of this. The 12-team rule was killed at the instigation of the Big "Twelve" a few years ago. Relatively few people in NY watch Syracuse. No one in Boston watches BC.

You are right... I forgot that they waived the 12-team requirement.

I'm about to post in the Conference realignment thread something I just found about football TV ratings. Here it is: https://forums.dukebasketballreport...58#post1505158

You are right that BC and Syracuse have really poor TV ratings... almost as bad as Duke.

[sagegrouse]

I disagree that the states would do much to our funding. We’re talking 2 private schools (BC and Syracuse) and a clear public also-ran that’s well below the state flagship (Pitt). And for the footprint / media market angle, it only matters if your footprint has a high level of loyalty (driving eyes for the conference) and/or brings a high amount of quality content. BC, Pitt, and Syracuse are all schools with weak football viewership, low “excitability” for non-affiliated fans, and effectively no history with the ACC (no even 20 years). Even BC, the longest running school of the group, isn’t bleeding ACC like people from Duke, UNC, GTech, or Wake. The only argument that hurts here is if the admins are really aligned. I don’t know the answer, but if it’s a way for GTech, Duke, NCSU, VTech, and maybe Wake can ensure survival in a big boy conference, it could be worth it

No school wants any enemies in the US Congress. Forcibly ejecting BC Pitt and Syracuse would be hugely controversial and is sure to invite repercussions. All it takes is one key Sen. or Rep. to cause trouble -- and that risk, among many others, would keep the ACC from acting.

[RoseBowl1942]

No school wants any enemies in the US Congress. Forcibly ejecting BC Pitt and Syracuse would be hugely controversial and is sure to invite repercussions. All it takes is one key Sen. or Rep. to cause trouble -- and that risk, among many others, would keep the ACC from acting.

By that logic, watch out BIG and SEC for your terrible destruction caused by stealing USC/UCLA and Texas/OU! There's some WSU and ISU senators coming for you!

These are private schools making private deals. If anything bad happens to the ACC for this, then something 10x as bad will happen for USC/UCLA and Texas/OU destroying the PAC and Big12