Zion update

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

UNC football has shown it has the ability to go 3-9 in ACC football. No need to move for that reason.


You mean like Kentucky?

Maybe my punctuation/grammar was off in my poast. I wasn't saying we needed to move to the SEC in order to go 3-9. I was just saying that if we went 3-9 in the SEC, we'd still be slurped by the national media.

Yes - like Kentucky. Or South Carolina. Or Vanderbilt. Or any other crap team that still gets the SEC treatment.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Not since the early 1900's. I also hate the term "Non-Revenue" sports - because if these teams sell even one ticket or advertisement - they're revenue generating - even if they bleed cash. They should be referred to as "Unprofitable" sports, which would be everything outside football and basketball (and the select few baseball and hockey elite programs)

Stop.

Lacrosse is an Olympic sport?

No, but generally people just lump all sports not named men's basketball, football, baseball into "Olympic sports." I got lazy. Non-revenue is what I should've used.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Non-revenue is what I should've used.

GFY - it's a misnomer. Unless those teams literally don't take a dime in for tickets, concessions, ads, etc.

C'mon - if you wanna get an MBA you need to at least know the definition of revenue.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

GFY - it's a misnomer. Unless those teams literally don't take a dime in for tickets, concessions, ads, etc.

C'mon - if you wanna get an MBA you need to at least know the definition of revenue.

Oh I know the definition and the difference. You just have a weird sense of what battles to pick.

 

[al would]

Another thread gone walkabout

 

[gteeitup]

hi stranger

 

[gauchoheel]

It would never happen, but not for the reasons you might think. Basketball wouldn't stop Carolina's move to the SEC. Olympic sports would.

All of the following of our national championship-contending sports would not have a conference to play in, if we moved to the SEC:

- men's soccer
- men's lacrosse
- women's lacrosse
- women's field hockey

All four of those teams have won an NCAA National Championship within the last 8 years and have appeared (but not won) in more title games in that timespan. The SEC doesn't field leagues for any of those four sports. We'd be screwed unless the ACC agreed to let us house our Olympic sports in the ACC... which I don't know why they'd do that.

All that being said, where do I sign for SEC?

Have you been following conference realignment? There is no way, absolutely no way that Olympic sports would hold up UNC moving conferences if the AD were to decide that was the right move for the school. Championships? Irrelevant. Changing conferences is all about money, specifically football TV money. We're passing up $20 million in extra TV money that South Carolina gets (we'll see how much the ACC Network shrinks that) solely due to conference affiliation. Someday the right stars could align and the UNC AD at that time may decide it's no longer worth giving up so much money.

Realignment is causing WVU to play schools 1500 miles away. It's broken up longstanding rivalries like UT-A&M, Kansas-Mizzou, etc. Competitiveness is sacrificed for TV markets. History and what's "good for the sport" doesn't matter either. And frankly, basketball is so dwarfed by football money-wise that it's why you see very little consideration for the basketball programs in these moves. I can promise you the last thing on these guy's minds is whether the women's field hockey has a place to play.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Have you been following conference realignment? There is no way, absolutely no way that Olympic sports would hold up UNC moving conferences if the AD were to decide that was the right move for the school. Championships? Irrelevant. Changing conferences is all about money, specifically football TV money. We're passing up $20 million in extra TV money that South Carolina gets (we'll see how much the ACC Network shrinks that) solely due to conference affiliation. Someday the right stars could align and the UNC AD at that time may decide it's no longer worth giving up so much money.

Realignment is causing WVU to play schools 1500 miles away. It's broken up longstanding rivalries like UT-A&M, Kansas-Mizzou, etc. Competitiveness is sacrificed for TV markets. History and what's "good for the sport" doesn't matter either. And frankly, basketball is so dwarfed by football money-wise that it's why you see very little consideration for the basketball programs in these moves. I can promise you the last thing on these guy's minds is whether the women's field hockey has a place to play.

Yes, I've been following conference realignment pretty closely. UNC is a special case when it comes to realignment. Our athletic department is better than any school not named Stanford, Cal, and UCLA. You and I may not think Olympic sports matter, but in reality, it would be a real concern if UNC ever pondered switching conferences. It would be a sticky detail that would need to get ironed out.

 

[gauchoheel]

We'll agree to disagree then. They'd find a spot for them to play. If not, I wouldn't doubt that they'd be tossed aside. About the only thing I have confidence we'd preserve no matter what is the Duke basketball game. But again, that's maybe because of the money it generates.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

We'll agree to disagree then. They'd find a spot for them to play. If not, I wouldn't doubt that they'd be tossed aside. About the only thing I have confidence we'd preserve no matter what is the Duke basketball game. But again, that's maybe because of the money it generates.

Hey I hope you're right. I'm 100% behind a move to the SEC.

 

[HeelzLover]

Way off the topic of this thread. I had to go back and make sure I was on the right one

 

[HeelzLover]

Zion update thread.

 

[al would]

I think Zion needs to join the PAC 10 or SEC .. poasters not taking their ADD meds should go outside and play in the yard.

Yes .. I am interested in Zion intel !!

 

[Archer2]

Yes, I've been following conference realignment pretty closely. UNC is a special case when it comes to realignment. Our athletic department is better than any school not named Stanford, Cal, and UCLA. You and I may not think Olympic sports matter, but in reality, it would be a real concern if UNC ever pondered switching conferences. It would be a sticky detail that would need to get ironed out.

Personally, I would hate for UNC to lose all those "non-revenue" sports, it makes the university much more well rounded. And I have no desire to move to the SEC. I'm guessing the only reason we would even consider it is money, more specifically football money. But we struggle to compete for the ACC football title, we'd be eaten alive in the SEC.

 

[gauchoheel]

I would drop a lot of the non revenue sports if it were up to me I think. If noone watches the games, what purpose do they serve? Spend that money on football and basketball. But anyway.

I have no intel, but I don't buy the Zion 55-45 to UNC/SCar personally. Given the current state of recruiting, it seems foolhardy to say Dook and Kentucky have no chance.

 

[dadika13]

I have no intel, but I don't buy the Zion 55-45 to UNC/SCar personally. Given the current state of recruiting, it seems foolhardy to say Dook and Kentucky have no chance.

Seriously. To completely eliminate Duke as having a chance means that this "intel" is "BS".

 

[tarheel0910]

I would drop a lot of the non revenue sports if it were up to me I think. If noone watches the games, what purpose do they serve?

It's hard to watch them when they don't come on TV. That's all going to change once the ACC channel launches. I've already been using the ESPN digital channel and I know a lot of other people who have done it as well. Without those sports there would be no ACC channel, because they provided most of the content.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

It's hard to watch them when they don't come on TV. That's all going to change once the ACC channel launches. I've already been using the ESPN digital channel and I know a lot of other people who have done it as well. Without those sports there would be no ACC channel, because they provided most of the content.

And more people watch the non-profitable sports than some might think. Lots of ACC schools have niche fanbases. For instance, Syracuse lax games will be get huge ratings (relatively speaking) on the ACC Network. Ditto for UNC Women's Soccer games. There's more for other schools, I'm just too tired to think of them right now.

 

[gauchoheel]

And more people watch the non-profitable sports than some might think. Lots of ACC schools have niche fanbases. For instance, Syracuse lax games will be get huge ratings (relatively speaking) on the ACC Network. Ditto for UNC Women's Soccer games. There's more for other schools, I'm just too tired to think of them right now.

Nah. Those soccer games won't het 10% of the viwers that basketball gets. And the Network would have essentially zero paid subscribers without football/basketball.

Is Zion a closet women's soccer fan? That's what Roy needs! To pitch the non-revenue sports!!

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Nah. Those soccer games won't het 10% of the viwers that basketball gets. And the Network would have essentially zero paid subscribers without football/basketball.

Is Zion a closet women's soccer fan? That's what Roy needs! To pitch the non-revenue sports!!

Have you seen what women soccer players look like? I'm sure most male college athlete recruits are women's soccer fans (and women's field hockey fans.... holy moses, that sport has some lookers)

 

[truetarheelraider0806]

Nah. Those soccer games won't het 10% of the viwers that basketball gets. And the Network would have essentially zero paid subscribers without football/basketball.

Is Zion a closet women's soccer fan? That's what Roy needs! To pitch the non-revenue sports!!

The poster never said it would get the same rating he said they get huge ratings RELATIVELY speaking

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

And more people watch the non-profitable sports than some might think.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

I heard Zion had already agreed to move to the SEC and would allow UNC to join him if the AD wanted! We are considering trading our "teams that may or may not make any money or be played in the Olympics now or at some point in the past or future" (the new designation) to BC since nobody either knows or cares which sports they play!

We have tentatively agreed to follow Zion if he will commit stay at UNC indefinitely thus helping our reputation with OADs!

Join the Family Mr. Zion!

Go Tar Heels!

 

[gauchoheel]

The poster never said it would get the same rating he said they get huge ratings RELATIVELY speaking

The "relative" in the posters sentence didn't make much sense to me though. Relative to what? Relative to the revenue sports? The ratings will be tiny. Relative to other sports TV? The ratings will be tiny. Relative to other prime-time TV? The ratings will be tiny.

There's really no honest way to say ratings will be "relatively huge" for a regular UNC women's soccer game. You'll get maybe 10,000 North Carolina viewers if you're lucky. No one else on the East Coast will watch. That means essentially zero TV dollars (as the ratings will be tiny), hence a non-revenue sport.

While 80% of the ACC Network content may be non-revenue sports, 98% of the money will come from ads for football and men's basketball and all of the subscriber households who pay $1 per month or so in order to watch said football and men's basketball games. Don't confuse the two. They could run re-runs of old Roy Williams press conferences and probably still charge the same price. The non-revenue sports are called that for a reason. They are irrelevant financially, they're just cost centers.

I hear Zion is also into the business of sports. I may have to give him a call.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

The "relative" in the posters sentence didn't make much sense to me though. Relative to what? Relative to the revenue sports? The ratings will be tiny. Relative to other sports TV? The ratings will be tiny. Relative to other prime-time TV? The ratings will be tiny.

There's really no honest way to say ratings will be "relatively huge" for a regular UNC women's soccer game. You'll get maybe 10,000 North Carolina viewers if you're lucky. No one else on the East Coast will watch. That means essentially zero TV dollars (as the ratings will be tiny), hence a non-revenue sport.

While 80% of the ACC Network content may be non-revenue sports, 98% of the money will come from ads for football and men's basketball and all of the subscriber households who pay $1 per month or so in order to watch said football and men's basketball games. Don't confuse the two. They could run re-runs of old Roy Williams press conferences and probably still charge the same price. The non-revenue sports are called that for a reason. They are irrelevant financially, they're just cost centers.

I hear Zion is also into the business of sports. I may have to give him a call.

"Relatively" means exactly what it means. It means a Syracuse lax game will get MORE viewers than your average ESPN2 televised college lacrosse game that doesn't involve Syracuse. Similarly, a UNC women's soccer match will on the ACC Network will get more viewers, relative to your average Fox Sports South televised women's soccer match not involving UNC. Don't be dense.

 

[tarheel0910]

You'll get maybe 10,000 North Carolina viewers if you're lucky.

I'd be willing to bet you are way off on that number. Believe it or not there are a lot of UNC fans who like and support other sports.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

The non-revenue sports are called that for a reason.

I wanna know where these sports are. Where I can walk in to watch them play without paying money for a ticket, can eat at their concessions without paying, and don't have to look at any advertisements anywhere during the experience. Sounds like good value.

 

[tarheel0910]

I'd be willing to bet you are way off on that number. Believe it or not there are a lot of UNC fans who like and support other sports.

Just because I was curious, I looked up the viewership numbers from the men's championship lax game from last year. Total viewership was 476k. Obviously that's no where near what basketball and football are, but it sure as hell isn't close to 10k.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Just because I was curious, I looked up the viewership numbers from the men's championship lax game from last year. Total viewership was 476k. Obviously that's no where near what basketball and football are, but it sure as hell isn't close to 10k.

Damn, that's a pretty big number. Your average nationally televised regular season college hoops game (not Carolina-Duke) only averages about a million.

 

[gauchoheel]

"Relatively" means exactly what it means. It means a Syracuse lax game will get MORE viewers than your average ESPN2 televised college lacrosse game that doesn't involve Syracuse. Similarly, a UNC women's soccer match will on the ACC Network will get more viewers, relative to your average Fox Sports South televised women's soccer match not involving UNC. Don't be dense.

Oh, well sure. We have really good soccer, so it gets more views than other soccer games. Still completely irrelevant financially. Getting 10,000 viewers rather than 1,000 means nothing. TV is about scale, you want to have the 3 million UNC-UK basketball viewers rather than the 400,000 that watch Georgetown - St. Johns.

I've lost where we are even going with this. Two things:

1. Non-revenue sports get some viewers, just a heck of a lot less than football and men's basketball. I know this because I helped set the college soccer attendance record in undergrad in 2010 (UCSB, hence the "gaucho" in my handle; see:http://ucsbgauchos.com/sports/m-soccer/2015-16/releases/20151027kvnbv7). We got 16,000 people to a game, about 10% of the capacity of Michigan Stadium. "No one" cares about college soccer, and I say no one meaning very few people.

2. Financially, non-revenue sports are immaterial to the university, conference, and TV networks. Their costs far outweigh their revenues in nearly every case. That doesn't mean they aren't valuable, but they aren't financially valuable.

Check out this and scroll to page 108: http://bot.unc.edu/files/2014/08/Incollegiate-Athletics-Report.pdf. UNC Football in 2014 had $11 million in ticket revenue, $5 million in donations, and $11 million in TV money, $2.3 million in 3rd-tier TV rights, and $800,000 in concessions. Total revenue of $32 million for football. Women's soccer had $12,000 in ticket sales, $13,000 in TV money, no 3rd tier rights, $670,000 in donations, and $12,000 in concessions. Total revenue of $700,000 for one of the top programs in the sport, and 95% of it is just donations.

Expenses for football were $18 million (on revenue of $32 million) and $1.2 million for women's soccer (on revenue of $700,000). But remember, 95% of women's soccer revenue is donations that could go to help other sports (I bet most of it is not even soccer specific donations). And we're not even a big football school! The top football schools make $50-60 million in revenue (more if you consider they get more TV money too), compared to $40,000 in non-donation revenue for women's soccer at UNC.

We're not making a conference move/non-move because of the $40,000 program.

 

[gauchoheel]

Just because I was curious, I looked up the viewership numbers from the men's championship lax game from last year. Total viewership was 476k. Obviously that's no where near what basketball and football are, but it sure as hell isn't close to 10k.

You chose the championship game.... Notice I said a REGULAR UNC women's soccer game. Like a generic regular season game. I stand by the 10,000 number. Which if Tarheelnation11's average for men's basketball of 1 million viewers for a regular season game is correct, means that women's soccer gets about 1% of the viewership of men's basketball for a regular game. Which is exactly my point.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

No one is arguing that football/basketball get more viewers than Olympic sports.

 

[tarheel0910]

You chose the championship game.... Notice I said a REGULAR UNC women's soccer game. Like a generic regular season game. I stand by the 10,000 number. Which if Tarheelnation11's average for men's basketball of 1 million viewers for a regular season game is correct, means that women's soccer gets about 1% of the viewership of men's basketball for a regular game. Which is exactly my point.

You probably don't know this, but UNC was in the championship game. Also, regular season isn't nationally televised yet, so I can't provide those numbers. If UNC was to ever leave it would be for the Big 10 though. With the exception of geography it's a better fit and we would be able to bring UVA with us. Most people think duke is the big team connected with us, but you would be surprised how connected we are with UVA.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

^ accurate re: B1G.

Thus why I don't want any more realignment to occur lol. I'd hate being in the B1G.

 

[gauchoheel]

No one is arguing that football/basketball get more viewers than Olympic sports.

What are you arguing then? Sounds like we agree that non-revenue sports get about 1-5% of the viewership and generate about 1% of the revenue of football and men's basketball. You still think they are going to dictate our conference affiliation? I'm not sure what else to say. Maybe just that history over the last few years shows that basketball barely gets a seat at the table in realignment talks, non-revenue sports have yet to get into the building.

 

[UNC-75]

I haven't seen a thread get so far off topic so quickly in a long time. Maybe time to rename it or lock it up an begin a new thread. Unless someone can actually get back to the topic and offer some info.

 

[gauchoheel]

You probably don't know this, but UNC was in the championship game. Also, regular season isn't nationally televised yet, so I can't provide those numbers. If UNC was to ever leave it would be for the Big 10 though. With the exception of geography it's a better fit and we would be able to bring UVA with us. Most people think duke is the big team connected with us, but you would be surprised how connected we are with UVA.

I have a friend who is a starter on the team, so yeah, I know we were in it lol. Your argument is a strawman. You chose the championship game to show that non-revenue sports get lots of viewers. And even the championship couldn't get HALF of the viewership of the average regular season basketball game!! That's incredible. The basketball championship last year had 17.8 million viewers, about 20x the regular season average (and 40x the lax championship...). If the lax championship had the same multiple that means the average lax game gets 23,800 viewers.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

I haven't seen a thread get so far off topic so quickly in a long time. Maybe time to rename it or lock it up an begin a new thread. Unless someone can actually get back to the topic and offer some info.

It's a lot better than every other thread on Radar, which turns into a Roy sucks or Roy is God debate.

 

[diehard34]

Fleetwood Mac is getting back together.

 

[gauchoheel]

If we don't get Knox I can't have that much confidence we'll get Zion. UNC 5 star commits:

2015-17: 1 (Tony Bradley, and he was not in the top 20 players)
2012-14: 4 (1 top 10)
2009-11: 5 (3 top 10)
2006-08: 5 (4 top 10)

Roy can't land top 10 players seemingly, and barely even 5 stars lately. It has yet to effect the product on the court, but I don't see any reason to be optimistic until we are given a bit of reason to be. Knox would be a good reason.