Discussion in 'RayGator's Swamp Gas' started by Tolbert1906, Jul 26, 2021.
Well that’s something to look forward to. You do tiktok?
The wife does. From what she says I'm quite the hit on there.
Attendance is mostly based on season ticket sales, not butts in seats. Those season tickets are sold prior to the season, so the official announced attendance shouldn't really drop off that much as a season goes along.
All schools have seen a reduction in season ticket sales for the last 10-15 years, largely due to HDTV. And yes, FSU certainly had some angry fans due to lack of performance. But a sub par season by the conference does not explain why the the ACC attendance and support is so far behind the SEC.
The reason the SEC outperforms the ACC is quite simply because they have a better product. Not just teams with winning records, but not only does the SEC have it's old historical SEC rivalries that matter every year, even when the teams aren't winning, but their expansion has been very strategic. They added Arkansas, in the 90s, but since then have added schools that were not only some of the very best schools in college football, with unmatched financial resources and fan bases. But they also added schools who both logically expanded the existing SEC footprint (all the SEC schools have common borders), which made the TV deal an easy sell and made the SEC top dollar) ... but they also enhanced the established rivalries with the SEC by bringing in Big-12 schools who renew old Big-8/SWC rivalries. They've added huge games of national interest. I mean seriously, you couldn't have scripted the SEC expansion any better.
Compare that to the ACC expansion since 2000. They added VT which was a pretty solid add and Miami, who although they had a big history of winning national championships, but it's a small school with limited fanbase and financial resource ... but still fairly solid additions, despite not expanding the league footprint. Then they add BC, which outside of Doug Flutie has limited history as a football school and is a complete mismatch for the conference footprint and is a small private school with limited resources. That was a head scratcher.
Then the Big-10 raids the ACC for Maryland and during the Big-10 and SEC expansion where the SEC gets Texas A&M and Mizzou, the ACC response is to expand by taking Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville ... basically 3 decent metro schools, who expanded the footprint of the conference, but not in a way that helped make the ACC TV package more attractive. But the ACC was in a bind and took the best programs that were available.
But this is exactly where the SEC continues to eat the ACC's lunch. The SEC hasn't tried to bring in programs that bring in more wins. They have been incredibly strategic on so many levels with their expansion. And they've evenly distributed the money so that every single program, even Vandy, is a better football program.
The idea you floated that somehow have WF and the smaller ACC schools give up their money so that FSU and Clemson can spend money to win championships and somehow that's going put the ACC on the same level as the SEC is just so off the mark.
I think you under-estimate the fan base schools like Arkansas and Kentucky. They travel better than you realize.
I think a big part of the reason those schools don't travel well is largely because of the ACC product. How excited are ACC fans about traveling to or even watching games against WF, Duke, BC or Syracuse? I think you could probably add Pitt, UVA and Louisville for that matter.
We are already teetering on antitrust considerations with Oklahoma and Texas.
This is an interesting article from Saturday Down South regarding how this coming realignment is about contraction and not expansion. It's pretty much in line with my overall thoughts, but I'm not sure I agree with what they see in terms of the final outcome.
While the masses clamored over Playoff ‘expansion,’ the real college football brokers continued the inevitable march toward ‘contraction’
One of the interesting thoughts behind this is bringing back some of the importance of the non-playoff bowl games, which makes a lot of sense.
I also think that by pushing some of the remaining smaller schools from the Big-12, Pac-12 and ACC (if the bigger programs left to make a 3rd super conference) down to a secondary level of college football (AAC, CUSA, MWC, Sunbelt and MAC), it makes that secondary level stronger and gives them a chance to have their own playoff. They would likely will generate more interest in that secondary level of football and at least the smaller schools would likely make more revenue.
It may not be what those secondary level schools really want in regards to their egos, but I kind of think that will bring a lot more interest to those conferences in the long run to have 20 or so programs fighting for a chance at a second tier playoff and crowning their own champion, than just having the 1 or 2 teams in the discussion of having a very outside chance of being in the playoff.
And I think they could split some of the mass of bowls into first level. Maybe even create new bowls. First level and second level teams could still meet in OOC games and maybe bowl games.
We need a college football Czar
I vote for Steve Spurrier
Or Archie Manning
Clemson and FSU aint gonna happen
Not going to happen if the latest stories are true. It seems the PAC12, BIGWhoop, and ACC are talking about an alliance. They see themselves as the Allies and the SEC as the Axis. Taking a big Risk.