Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
ACC ACC ACC
Comments
-
This thread just perked up. TYFYSPurpleThrobber said:whlinder said:
Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.Sandra6 said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.Sandra6 said:rodmansrage said:
thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.Sandra6 said:
PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)
And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.
People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
Need more ACC content. -
-
whlinder said:
Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.Sandra6 said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.Sandra6 said:rodmansrage said:
thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.Sandra6 said:
PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)
And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.
People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
Do you seriously think that games like Ohio State vs Michigan are "on in bars in the DC Metro" because Maryland is in the Big Ten?
Sports bars in all 50 states in the country get the BTN. It's not like bars in DC only have the BTN because Maryland is in the Big Ten. I'm not sure what your point is. -
whlinder said:
Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.Sandra6 said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.Sandra6 said:rodmansrage said:
thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.Sandra6 said:
PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)
And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.
People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
Do you seriously think that games like Ohio State v Michigan are "constantly on in bars in the DC Metro" because Maryland is in the Big Ten?
Practically every sports bar in all 50 states of the US gets the BTN. It's not like sports bars in the DC Metro are only getting the BTN because Maryland is in the league. I'm not sure what your point is. -
PAC is hung up on academis. Makes the Big 12 highly unlikely, IMO.theknowledge said:
That's why Oregon and UW join the B12. Both are higher ceilings than what they've got in football but the B12 offers a higher floor than the P12. TCU, Baylor, KState, UC, UCF, Houston, all recently offer better football than Colorado, WSU, Stan, Cal, UA. Basketball money is substantially better in the B12 as well. 6-9 teams in the tournament every year> 2-4. Kansas,Texas Tech and Oregon State all seem to be on the upswing in football and ASU is a mystery. Utah is the only consistently redeeming thing outside the NW in the P12 and that says all you need about "our" brand. GTFO sooner than later.Doogles said:
The B12 lost their 2 biggest dogs.BleachedAnusDawg said:
PAC and Big 12 merge, East/West divisions. Much better than doing an ACC thing.dnc said:
Buy our way in, wtf? They'd take us in a heartbeat. So far we have resisted the idea because the vast majority of that conference sucks ass.LebamDawg said:https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-eyes-further-conference-expansion-after-reaching-early-exit-agreement-with-texas-oklahoma/
Maybe we? could buy our way into the B12 since they want to expand...
especially after this bombshell of no TV contract https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/104349/its-not-over-for-the-pac-10#latest
You can't call yourself a power football conference without one blue blood.
Washington needs to step up to the plate. Time to Be the big Dawg -
DC gives no fucks about MD basketball. Too busy doing swampy things. TTTTT, I know.
But it is a pretty big deal for the actual State of Maryland.
Lefty Driesell Superiority Guy.
Bias > MJ
-
-
I might just be projecting here, but after reading some of @Sandra6 poasts, I'm gather zer sees some issues regarding Washington's perceived desirability versus that of Rutgers.
-
I am referring to all the other mindless and menial content which is constantly on from the B1G, not their prime football property. It’s on. ACC is not.Sandra6 said:whlinder said:
Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.Sandra6 said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.Sandra6 said:rodmansrage said:
thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.Sandra6 said:
PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)
And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.
People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
Do you seriously think that games like Ohio State v Michigan are "constantly on in bars in the DC Metro" because Maryland is in the Big Ten?
Practically every sports bar in all 50 states of the US gets the BTN. It's not like sports bars in the DC Metro are only getting the BTN because Maryland is in the league. I'm not sure what your point is. -
whlinder said:
I am referring to all the other mindless and menial content which is constantly on from the B1G, not their prime football property. It’s on. ACC is not.Sandra6 said:whlinder said:
Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.Sandra6 said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.Sandra6 said:rodmansrage said:
thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.Sandra6 said:
PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)
And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.
People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
Do you seriously think that games like Ohio State v Michigan are "constantly on in bars in the DC Metro" because Maryland is in the Big Ten?
Practically every sports bar in all 50 states of the US gets the BTN. It's not like sports bars in the DC Metro are only getting the BTN because Maryland is in the league. I'm not sure what your point is.
You seriously go to DC area sports bars that show college non-revenue sports? You must go to really strange sports bars.
Even if it's a a rare day where no live sports event that anybody will care about is taking place, every sports bar I've gone to will show replays of a 41-10 NFL blowout or 8-0 MLB blowout long before they'd show water polo. (Or any other college non-revenue sport.) Or else they might just not have the TVs on at all that day.
If I ever saw a sports bar televising a college non-revenue sport, I'd never go to that sports bar again. -
Here's to hoping that ALL your favorite sportsbars start televising non revenue sports.Sandra6 said:whlinder said:
I am referring to all the other mindless and menial content which is constantly on from the B1G, not their prime football property. It’s on. ACC is not.Sandra6 said:whlinder said:
Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.Sandra6 said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.Sandra6 said:rodmansrage said:
thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.Sandra6 said:
PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)
And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.
People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
Do you seriously think that games like Ohio State v Michigan are "constantly on in bars in the DC Metro" because Maryland is in the Big Ten?
Practically every sports bar in all 50 states of the US gets the BTN. It's not like sports bars in the DC Metro are only getting the BTN because Maryland is in the league. I'm not sure what your point is.
You seriously go to DC area sports bars that show college non-revenue sports? You must go to really strange sports bars.
Even if it's a a rare day where no live sports event that anybody will care about is taking place, every sports bar I've gone to will show replays of a 41-10 NFL blowout or 8-0 MLB blowout long before they'd show water polo. (Or any other college non-revenue sport.) Or else they might just not have the TVs on at all that day.
If I ever saw a sports bar televising a college non-revenue sport, I'd never go to that sports bar again. -
Good night IrenePurpleThrobber said:whlinder said:
Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.Sandra6 said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.Sandra6 said:rodmansrage said:
thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.Sandra6 said:
PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)
And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.
People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
Need more ACC content. -
Gadz( • )Y( • )ks!DerekJohnson said:
Good night IrenePurpleThrobber said:whlinder said:
Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.Sandra6 said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.Sandra6 said:rodmansrage said:
thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.Sandra6 said:
PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)
And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.
People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
Need more ACC content. -
I, for one, have always appreciated ASCII art.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Gadz( • )Y( • )ks!DerekJohnson said:
Good night IrenePurpleThrobber said:whlinder said:
Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.Sandra6 said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.Sandra6 said:rodmansrage said:
thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.Sandra6 said:
PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)
And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.
People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
Need more ACC content. -
-
id take it and be happy about it at this pointrodmansrage said: -
I did a cursory search on Forbes and found only a grammatically deficient article, vague on any details. Wondering if there is a clear source that some talks are happening... until I see it assuming this is going nowhere
-
Actually Forbes is overrated... I see they published editorials from a guy I know who fancies himself an expert in something
-
I give you the Apostle of Grammar.AOG said:I did a cursory search on Forbes and found only a grammatically deficient article, vague on any details. Wondering if there is a clear source that some talks are happening... until I see it assuming this is going nowhere
-
by the way @PostGameOrangeSlices how did your stock sink so low here?
-
Fuck yes please real Godrodmansrage said: -
Its hardAOG said:by the way @PostGameOrangeSlices how did your stock sink so low here?
-
There would need to be cross division game requirements. Without that, it's just a "championship game" between the best team from each coast. Maybe that's good enough for TV rights but I really doubt Florida State fans are going to watch Oregon State vs Arizona.Doogles said:
Fuck yes please real Godrodmansrage said: -
There needs to be regular cross-conference games to compete with B1G and SEC, especially early in the season.BleachedAnusDawg said:
There would need to be cross division game requirements. Without that, it's just a "championship game" between the best team from each coast. Maybe that's good enough for TV rights but I really doubt Florida State fans are going to watch Oregon State vs Arizona.Doogles said:
Fuck yes please real Godrodmansrage said:
I could see the conferences having a tournament where they decide the year before to have Kickoff Classic type games in Week 1/2 and another home/away to help secure eyeballs.
I'm expecting the Pac-12 to consider stepping down to 8 conference games to have 2-3 ACC games each season. -
I got it, finally. That's a good trick.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Its hardAOG said:by the way @PostGameOrangeSlices how did your stock sink so low here?
-
Well, he does like Grammar's football.PurpleBaze said:
I give you the Apostle of Grammar.AOG said:I did a cursory search on Forbes and found only a grammatically deficient article, vague on any details. Wondering if there is a clear source that some talks are happening... until I see it assuming this is going nowhere
-
ACC will soon be falling apart
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/florida-state-clemson-unhappy-with-acc-financial-hurdles-face-conference-powers-potentially-leaving/
The opening line of the article
Florida State and Clemson have served as the bedrock programs of the ACC, but over the weekend the two league powerhouses expressed their displeasure with certain aspects of their home conference. -
ACC will move to an “eat what you kill” model to placate them. Free shoes u would need $120mm to get out of their contract.LebamDawg said:ACC will soon be falling apart
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/florida-state-clemson-unhappy-with-acc-financial-hurdles-face-conference-powers-potentially-leaving/
The opening line of the article
Florida State and Clemson have served as the bedrock programs of the ACC, but over the weekend the two league powerhouses expressed their displeasure with certain aspects of their home conference.
Not sayin that couldn’t be done but it would be tricky. -
Here's the bottom line. You can see the ACC below average and the PAC's paltry annual income
PAAC-16 here we? come
