There is a pretty good interview covering a wide range of topics:

http://www.ajc.com/sports/georgia-tech/a...rss_gatech

Quote:Q: One report had each ACC school gaining an extra $1 million to $2 million per year from the renegotiation. Is that correct?

A: We haven't finalized that yet. I'd rather not comment on that at this point, other than to say that I think we're going to be very pleased with where we are financially when all is said and done.

Quote:Q: So is the ACC not now thinking in terms of expansion to 16?

A: I think the best way to answer that is we are very settled right now with 14, very happy with 14. I don't think that means we would never consider 16, but it's not something that is on our plate at this given point in time.

I'm really hoping by 'very pleased' he means 10 million extra

(03-06-2012 01:43 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  There is a pretty good interview covering a wide range of topics:

http://www.ajc.com/sports/georgia-tech/a...rss_gatech

Quote:Q: One report had each ACC school gaining an extra $1 million to $2 million per year from the renegotiation. Is that correct?

A: We haven't finalized that yet. I'd rather not comment on that at this point, other than to say that I think we're going to be very pleased with where we are financially when all is said and done.

Quote:Q: So is the ACC not now thinking in terms of expansion to 16?

A: I think the best way to answer that is we are very settled right now with 14, very happy with 14. I don't think that means we would never consider 16, but it's not something that is on our plate at this given point in time.

I'm really hoping by 'very pleased' he means 10 million extra

I hope the ACC waits until the next Big East TV contract is signed so that we can get maximum value out of our negotiation/arbitration. Assuming all market actions can be used in the negotiation. Ideally I'd rather wait until the Big 12 and Big 10 tier 1 contracts are re negotiated in 2015-2016 but that's too long to wait.

There's no way we see a ten million dollar bump per school. I think it will be in the $3-5 million dollar range since the language in the orginal sportsjournal.com article was that we would see "at least" a $1-2 million dollar increase.

Quote:Q: One report had each ACC school gaining an extra $1 million to $2 million per year from the renegotiation. Is that correct?

A: We haven't finalized that yet. I'd rather not comment on that at this point, other than to say that I think we're going to be very pleased with where we are financially when all is said and done.

Meh. I'll wait until the numbers come out before celebrating. Swofford is a sheep, and as a Clemson fan I now you can't trust the self-serving, back stabbing, good for nothing sheep.

Very nice read. I know alot of us (me included) jump on the Swoff, but he represented himself (and the ACC) well in this article. -- my takeaways (from selected quotes):

Quote:Q: What do you think are the two or three most important issues facing college athletics right now?

A: No. 2 is finding the right governance approach nationally that best serves an increasingly heterogeneous NCAA membership. We've got wide gaps within our divisions at the NCAA level in terms of financial support, public support, fan support and ability to fund programs.

Reaction -- I'm inclined to believe a split is brewing between the "Founders" and the Mid-Majors.

Quote:Q: So is the ACC not now thinking in terms of expansion to 16?

A: I think the best way to answer that is we are very settled right now with 14, very happy with 14. I don't think that means we would never consider 16, but it's not something that is on our plate at this given point in time.

Reaction -- when Notre Dame has exhausted every attempt to remain as an independent in CFB, we'll be ready to discuss full membership with them.

Quote:Q: One report had each ACC school gaining an extra $1 million to $2 million per year from the renegotiation. Is that correct?

A: We haven't finalized that yet. I'd rather not comment on that at this point, other than to say that I think we're going to be very pleased with where we are financially when all is said and done.

Cha-ching!!! I'm starting to wonder if those $1M-$2M estimates were conservative. $3M perhaps? Cha-ching!!!

(03-06-2012 10:12 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

Quote:Q: One report had each ACC school gaining an extra $1 million to $2 million per year from the renegotiation. Is that correct?

A: We haven't finalized that yet. I'd rather not comment on that at this point, other than to say that I think we're going to be very pleased with where we are financially when all is said and done.

Cha-ching!!! I'm starting to wonder if those $1M-$2M estimates were conservative. $3M perhaps? Cha-ching!!!

Still going to put is anywhere from $3-5 million behind the Pac12, B1G, and SEC. I understand that doesn't bother you, being the tarhole that you are, but for fans of schools who want to compete at a national level in football it is very disturbing.

Doesn't bother me -- anything above $3M is a great number, and I still suspect it'll be higher when it's all said and done, so, um, we'll just wait and see.

(03-06-2012 10:24 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Doesn't bother me -- anything above $3M is a great number, and I still suspect it'll be higher when it's all said and done, so, um, we'll just wait and see.


But, please don't bring up "competing at a national level" in CFB when you have '70-35' hanging over your head. Because it's just too easy NOT to 'go there'.

And don't bring '70-35' up when you have '59-38' hanging over YOUR head. If WVU put up 70 on Clemson, imagine what they could do with the best team that Black Santa could buy.

Fair enough. I'll let it be for now.

In addition, I like how the Swoff is talking about doing all to protect the CBB regular season, and hoping the NCAAT doesn't expand beyond 68 teams.

When was the last time you were happy with anything Swofford or the ACC did, catdaddy? I'm really curious if there has ever been a single thing that they've done that has made you happy or if at some point things just got a lot worse from your perspective.

You come across as so negative and bitter that you'd rather the ACC only get the originally projected $1-2 million increase just so you could complain about it.

You'll have to understand the history between Clemson and UNC (when the Swoff was AD) to understand CD's bitterness to anything that comes of Swoff's mouth.

The league, however, is doing very well, and I look forward to the day Pitt (and Syracuse) are aboard the ship.

Swofford has been commissioner of the ACC since 1997. Name one major sport where the ACC is better now than they were in 1997.


I'll never be satisfied with anything John Swofford does. He, while AD at UNC, deliberately tried to cripple Clemson's athletic program with an extra year of probation in the 1980's in a failed attempt to eliminate competition for UNC. He did so under the guise of "protecting the integrity of the ACC", none of the allegations involved any kind of academic fraud. UNC is currently awaiting a ruling on their NCAA sanctions for violations much like the ones Clemson was penalized for, with the exception there IS academic fraud involved. Care to take bets he doesn't support an additional year for his precious sheep?

Swofford was also a key player in getting the ACC baseball tournament moved away from Greenville, SC because it was "an unfair home field advantage for Clemson" In the 13 years before the tournament was played in Greenville it averaged around 11,500 attendance, with the best year being 22,638 in Durham. In the 9 years it was in Greenville it averaged around 38,600 attendance, with the worst year being 30,006. Greenville is 30 miles from Clemson. The first year after being moved from Clemson where was the tournament held? Durham, NC. Home of Duke and 15 miles from UNC. Nah...no homefield advantage there was it? BTW...attendance for the last game in Greenville was 42,659. The next year in Durham it was 22,145. A 20k drop in attendance is great business sense isn't it?

I wouldn't take a leak on John Swofford if he were on fire, and you'll be hard pressed to find ANY Clemson fan that even comes close to supporting ANYTHING he has done as ACC Commissioner.

(03-06-2012 10:32 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 10:24 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Doesn't bother me -- anything above $3M is a great number, and I still suspect it'll be higher when it's all said and done, so, um, we'll just wait and see.


But, please don't bring up "competing at a national level" in CFB when you have '70-35' hanging over your head. Because it's just too easy NOT to 'go there'.

And don't bring '70-35' up when you have '59-38' hanging over YOUR head. If WVU put up 70 on Clemson, imagine what they could do with the best team that Black Santa could buy.

They would not put up 70!! You are in the record book for the worst beat down ever in a bowl!! National level my ass!! You are in the record books for ineptitude, like 0-58 or 0 for Chapel Hill!!!! You are a whiny biotch catmama!!!!

59-38 35-19-1

14 ACC Championships - 5 ACC Championships

Schools that have won ACC Football Championships since UNC's last:

Clemson (7)
Maryland (4)
Duke
Virginia (2)
Georgia Tech (3)
FSU (12) *note* was not a member for 11 of the 31 year time frame
Virginia Tech (4) *note* was not a member for 24 of the 31 year time frame

Quote:Swofford has been commissioner of the ACC since 1997. Name one major sport where the ACC is better now than they were in 1997.

Anybody want to step up to this challenge?

(03-06-2012 10:12 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Very nice read. I know alot of us (me included) jump on the Swoff, but he represented himself (and the ACC) well in this article. -- my takeaways (from selected quotes):

Quote:Q: What do you think are the two or three most important issues facing college athletics right now?

A: No. 2 is finding the right governance approach nationally that best serves an increasingly heterogeneous NCAA membership. We've got wide gaps within our divisions at the NCAA level in terms of financial support, public support, fan support and ability to fund programs.

Reaction -- I'm inclined to believe a split is brewing between the "Founders" and the Mid-Majors.

I'm not sure if you've seen this article from about a week ago about the ncaa restructuring that is speculating that a split is coming.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/f...52875162/1

(03-06-2012 11:36 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 10:12 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Very nice read. I know alot of us (me included) jump on the Swoff, but he represented himself (and the ACC) well in this article. -- my takeaways (from selected quotes):

Quote:Q: What do you think are the two or three most important issues facing college athletics right now?

A: No. 2 is finding the right governance approach nationally that best serves an increasingly heterogeneous NCAA membership. We've got wide gaps within our divisions at the NCAA level in terms of financial support, public support, fan support and ability to fund programs.

Reaction -- I'm inclined to believe a split is brewing between the "Founders" and the Mid-Majors.

I'm not sure if you've seen this article from about a week ago about the ncaa restructuring that is speculating that a split is coming.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/f...52875162/1

No, I hadn't seen that article -- thanks!

(03-06-2012 11:27 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  59-38 35-19-1

14 ACC Championships - 5 ACC Championships

Schools that have won ACC Football Championships since UNC's last:

Clemson (7)
Maryland (4)
Duke
Virginia (2)
Georgia Tech (3)
FSU (12) *note* was not a member for 11 of the 31 year time frame
Virginia Tech (4) *note* was not a member for 24 of the 31 year time frame

Yeah, ACC champs = national presence. Take a look at the last time Clemson finished in the AP top ten. I think UNC has twice since then. Just saying!

(03-06-2012 11:54 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 11:36 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 10:12 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Very nice read. I know alot of us (me included) jump on the Swoff, but he represented himself (and the ACC) well in this article. -- my takeaways (from selected quotes):

Quote:Q: What do you think are the two or three most important issues facing college athletics right now?

A: No. 2 is finding the right governance approach nationally that best serves an increasingly heterogeneous NCAA membership. We've got wide gaps within our divisions at the NCAA level in terms of financial support, public support, fan support and ability to fund programs.

Reaction -- I'm inclined to believe a split is brewing between the "Founders" and the Mid-Majors.

I'm not sure if you've seen this article from about a week ago about the ncaa restructuring that is speculating that a split is coming.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/f...52875162/1

No, I hadn't seen that article -- thanks!

The split already exists. Call it the haves and have-nots or majors and mid-majors, whatever you call it, it already exists. If the NCAA doesn't embrace it they will loose the haves/majors.