ACC football championship game proves location is everything (corrected)

The ACC football championship game was inaugurated in 2005 and played in either Jacksonville or Tampa Florida for its first five years.  The ACC picked these location because when the conference expanded to 12 teams, the ACC powers expected FSU and Miami to meet in that game more often than not and those cities won the bidding for the game.

Well Miami has never made it, and FSU has been in it twice, both times against my alma mater, Virginia Tech, though only once when the game was in Florida.  When the game was played in Florida and did not include FSU, it was played in front of embarrassingly empty stadiums.  So much so that it became widely derided as an abject failure.  Its reputation for poor attendence got so bad that if you do a google images search for ACC Championship Game, copies of this  image from the 2007 game dominate the results, as shown here.  I'm sure if he could John Swofford would pay to make this picture disappear.

All that can be said about that is: Yikes.  In fact I was so inspired by this image that when the Hokies made it back to the championship game in 2008 in Tampa, I flew down with a friend, arrived at the stadium 15 minutes before kickoff and we purchased 40 yard line club seats from a scalper for one third of face value to watch the Hokies stomp BC again for another ACC title..

The problem  with the ACCCG was, quite simply, two fold:

1. The game was in Florida but usually without Florida teams playing
2. Teams with no fan bases (Boston College, Wake Forest) made it to the game too often.

What a difference a change of location makes

Finally starting in 2010 the game moved to Charlotte.  This is where the game should have been all along, for a couple of reasons:

1. It's more centrally located for the ACC
2. It's an easy drive for the fans of the team that has made the game more consistently and more often than any other (i.e., Virginia Tech).

In 2010 the game was a sellout as VT beat FSU for the championship.

In 2011 the game is also a sellout.

Whoda thunk it, the ACCCG is a tough ticket!

How did I determine that the ACCCG is a tough ticket this year?  I did a stubhub check. I did this on the morning of Wednesday Nov 30th, three days before the game.  Here is what I found about the college football championship games for BCS conferences:

• ACC: 2221 tickets available starting at $65
• Big Ten: 8952 tickets available starting at $7.
• SEC: 4398 tickets available starting at $3 (actually much fewer tickets, starting at $95, see below)
• PAC-12: 2599 tickets available starting at $16

As was pointed out to me after I posted this initially, the SEC number includes parking passes and tickets to pre-game festivities.  Strip them out and the SEC actually starts at $95 and has far fewer tickets available. So while the ACCCG hasn't reached the level of popularity of the SECCG, they are still doing much better than before, looking mid-pack for a conference championship game.  Plus, things are so bad for the Big Ten that they are looking to hire seat fillers for their game, as seen here.

Another interesting thing I noticed is that the minor conferences, MAC and CUSA, actually appear to be pretty tough tickets too.   The stubhub status of those conferences was:

• MAC: 1024 tickets available starting at $1
• CUSA: 944 tickets starting at $55

It's worth noting that the CUSA does not play their championship games at neutral sites.   This year's game is on undefeated and sixth ranked Houston's home field, which probably helps immensely.  Also, looking at the BCS conferences above, the PAC-12 game is played on Oregon's home field, which probably helps them as well.  I have no explanation for the MAC's seeming popularity, though the $1 entry price indicates it may be an easier ticket than the 1024 available seems to suggest.

The ACC is obviously helped this year by the fact that the teams are Clemson, which is probably closest to Charlotte of all the ACC teams and has a huge fan base in the area, and Virginia Tech which is also pretty close to Charlotte and has a large fan base that isn't that far away and travels well.    In fact, VT-Clemson is probably the best case scenario for an ACCCG in Charlotte.

So I guess the lesson from this is that if you want your football championship game to do well, have it on the home field of one of the teams, or at least someplace that's easy for the participating teams' fans to get to.  And it also helps if the teams that make it are ones whose fans actually care and are willing to go to the game.  Pitting cities against each other in bidding wars and then picking the one that promises the most, without regard to fan geography, leads to embarrassment as the ACC learned 7 years ago and the Big Ten is learning now.

After several years of embarrassments in Florida, the ACC seems to finally have it right.

(btw, here's the screen shot of my stubhub research:

Should the ACC be afraid of the Longhorn Network?

Conference realignment season this year has been more interesting than usual as the Big 12 appears to be imploding, having lost two teams last year (Nebraska and Colorado)  and at least one team this year (Texas A&M) and potentially more teams (Oklahoma flirting with the PAC-12) and now there is talk that Texas is exploring the ACC as a landing spot if that conference does finally give up the ghost.

As a fan of the ACC and Virginia Tech I have a lot of thoughts on that, but for now want to concentrate on the Longhorn Network and how it might or might not fit into the ACC.  The Longhorn Network is Texas's own cable network, run by ESPN,  and is thought to be the driving force in tearing apart the Big 12 since the other Big 12 schools fear the revenue and exposure that the LHN would bring Texas would put them all at a long-term disadvantage (and they are probably right).

Would that be the case in the ACC, if Texas to the ACC even  had a realistic chance of happening?

The Longhorn Network's penetration into ACC country would be minimal

If Texas joins the ACC, I don't see cable systems in North and South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Florida, etc., adding the Longhorn Network just because Texas joins the ACC.   I think the appeal of the LHN would be limited to Texas, Oklahoma, and that region.

That was a huge problem for other Big 12 schools because that puts the LHN in their backyards, directly affecting their local market position and recruiting.   But I don't think adding Texas would put the LHN into the backyards of other ACC schools, so that threat is not present.   And even if it did get onto cable systems in ACC country (perhaps because ESPN pushes it on or gives it away in those areas to help exposure), I don't see many fans in ACC country watching it.

It's worth noting that this also limits the upside of the LHN, since Texas joining the ACC would probably NOT mean significant LHN penetration into new markets.  

The ACC's exposure in Texas would increase with the Longhorn Network

Simply put, if Texas joins the ACC, then the LHN will be featuring a lot of ACC teams, when they play Texas.  This is pure upside for the otehr ACC teams, as it gives them exposure in Texas markets that they are not getting today.   And even if the LHN did show Texas high school football, the threat of which was the straw that broke the camel's back for the Big 12 (even though it didn't happen) that would not negatively affect ACC recruiting in the areas where league schools currently recruit.

Revenue inequalities are the biggest ACC problem with the Longhorn Network

One of the key tenets of the ACC is equal revenue sharing.  Lack of equal revenue sharing has been a main cause of instability in every conference I can think of that didn't have it:  the late Metro, the Big East, and now the Big 12.  Despite the advantages of having Texas, adding an unequal partner may be too high a price for the ACC to pay to get any school.     And we shouldn't think Texas would behave because the ACC saved it from conference oblivion.  Remember the Big 12 was formed as a result of the Big 8 saving Texas (and three other schools) from conference oblivion in the mid 90's as the SWC was dissolving, and look how that turned out for them.

Conclusion 

In my opinion, if Texas joined the ACC the Longhorn network would represent upside with little downside for the ACC in the areas of exposure and recruiting.  As a matter of fact I think joining the ACC would limit Texas' upside for the LHN, though that may also be the case with the PAC-12 and the Big Ten for similar reasons, if those leagues would even allow the LHN to exist.  This is probably why Texas's preferred solution is survival of the Big 12, because it's within the Big 12 footprint that the LHN really works for Texas.

But I'm not sure if I (or the ACC powers) would agree that upside would balance the downside of having an unequal revenue partner in the conference.  A partner that has blown up every conference it's touched, btw.

More: 

This post from Kristi Dosh, the SportsBizMiss has more on why/how the LHN could fit in with the ACC

In this post, Chadd Scott gives the opposite case.

Did you know Pink Floyd was named after a Chapel Hill blues musician?

There's always something to learn about the Piedmont area of North Carolina.  Yesterday I caught parts of a State of Things broadcast on WUNC while in my car.  They were discussing bluesman Floyd Council, who was born and lived in Chapel Hill and is buried in Sanford.  Today (Sept 2) would have been his 100th birthday.

This wasn't the focus of the broadcast, but it was mentioned that he is the Floyd of Pink Floyd.  Pink is SC bluesman Pink Anderson.  Turns out Syd Barrett saw their names side by side on the liner notes of a blues album  and liked the juxtaposition.  This is confirmed on Wikipedia, so I guess it was already reasonably well known but I didn't know it!

I wonder if the Health Information included "Don't eat the hot dogs (or the baked goods)"