Swofford on a radio interview blames his conferences football teams for tv negotiations.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc/audio/11078739/

TV deal:

When asked specifically if they will pull even or remain fifth in payouts:

Said have to be careful comparing apples to oranges, #'s between conferences

Said they'll be "well within the ballpark" in terms of "competing with other conferences" (translation--will still be fifth)

Said change in marketplace-now 75-80% negotiations driven by football--their football has fallen short--best teams haven't done as well as they'd like them to on the national stage--brand programs not up to "own standards" --more quality teams they have and the better best teams do, they would be better off in marketplace (translation--will still be fifth)--need to "continue to develop" football programs because of the 75-80% importance of football in negotiations.

Said basketball has been terrific, need better "luck" on the national stage in football, need football to be as good as traditionally bb has been and need to continue to develop football

Also said schools need to "self generate" revenues and that the ACC is happy with Raycom and glad ESPN went along with the Raycom ACC Network

In short, nothing he said should make anyone believe that the ACC is getting some astronomical increase, new network, or any of the other pie in the sky increases to "save ACC football" that have been bantered about. Football hasn't been performing well and that reflects on their negotiation---and Raycom sports (current ACC network) isn't going anywhere for any new ESPN/ACC network.

I think most realistic posters have always thought the ACC would still be 5th. But it's fair to say they are more confident than the Big East that they'll remain closer to the other four.

Nothing of any suprise or any real news in all that. Most fans living in ACC country know they are 5th and probably always will be in regards to football.
Syracuse and Pitt are decent football programs as of late that have the potential to do well in the ACC, both middle of the pack teams immediately.

What he said is 100% true.

The ACC has some fantastic, national level football properties who (with the obvious exception of VT) have grossly underachieved in the ACC.

The football school in the ACC claim the ACC doesn't support them...but they fail to acknowledge that there is only so much they can do when those same football clubs are failing to live up to their part of the bargain.

There would be none of this discussion if that solid group of VT/FSU/CU/Miami/GT were performing like they used to.

Remember, the BCS emerged out of efforts by the ACC to finally lock their champion into a top bowl.

They've made nice improvements overall but their challenge is for their best football programs to not get sucked into falling toward the median in the league.

(05-09-2012 10:40 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  What he said is 100% true.

The ACC has some fantastic, national level football properties who (with the obvious exception of VT) have grossly underachieved in the ACC.

The football school in the ACC claim the ACC doesn't support them...but they fail to acknowledge that there is only so much they can do when those same football clubs are failing to live up to their part of the bargain.

There would be none of this discussion if that solid group of VT/FSU/CU/Miami/GT were performing like they used to.

Exactly. Clemson, GT, and FSU all won national titles in an ACC that was much weaker in FB than the current ACC, and Miami won theirs as an indy or in a BE that was never a tough football conference. The problem is not the strength of the conference, but the fact that all of those teams except VT are far removed from their best football years.

(05-09-2012 10:40 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  What he said is 100% true.

The ACC has some fantastic, national level football properties who (with the obvious exception of VT) have grossly underachieved in the ACC.

The football school in the ACC claim the ACC doesn't support them...but they fail to acknowledge that there is only so much they can do when those same football clubs are failing to live up to their part of the bargain.

There would be none of this discussion if that solid group of VT/FSU/CU/Miami/GT were performing like they used to.

10thMountain -- I think you'd enjoy this post (of mine) from the ACC board, then:

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=569...pid7871612

Swofford Interview:
26 minutes long

...on the new postseason structure of CFB:- Four team model is an old idea co-conceived by SEC and ACC. Didn't have a lot of support eight years ago but has slowly gained momentum over the years because of how criticized the BCS has been - even though it has been extremely successful.

- This will be seen as a more accepted system by a greater number of fans while staying within some other parameters.

- This will take tons of cooperation from everyone and it will involve sacrifice for everyone - (seemed like thinly veiled barb at the P12/B12/Rose Bowl).

- Referrred to the former AQ conferences as the "Equity Conferences" and made it clear that while they will not be excusionary, nor will this be an egalitarian arrangement.

...on the upcoming television contract negotiations:

- Raycom is a big help to the ACC and ESPN by virtue of their syndication reach.

- ESPN and Fox want to keep NBC out of the college athletics marketplace.

- ACC is very pleased with ESPN and will greatly enhance that relationship in the future.

- Pitt and Syracuse will allow the ACC to "significantly benefit" from the increased exposure those schools bring by virtue of their market share.

- Television is well positioned going forward. The ACC believes that it is better situated than most of its competitors.

- People focus on money but exposure is VERY important as well.

- Comparing numbers between conferences is often like comparing apples to oranges. Not a good comparison in many cases.

- ACC fully expects that when all is said and done, it will be well within the ballpark of where it needs to be.

- Football drives 75-80 percent of all conference decisions.

- ACC has more good football teams than at any time in its history but its best teams have not done as well as they would have liked - especially on the natonal stage. Expects "brand programs" to get back to their historical standards.

- The better their best teams do, the better off the ACC will be in the long term.

- Basketball rights fees used to be more evenly split in comparison with football but that has all changed now and that won't change any time soon.

- Basketball is still very important and they don't want to lose sight of that either.

...on why the ACC publicly reprimanded North Carolina in the wake of its NCAA sanctions:- ACC has fewer infractions than every other major conference in the country and they take great pride in that fact and want to maintain that status.
- The league's infractions committee wanted to make sure that they went on record to support the NCAA's ruling and to send a clear message to the rest of the league's schools what the conference's priorities would be - academics, athletics and integrity. Felt UNC had failed on that front and wanted to make it clear to everyone that would not be acceptable going forward.

...on the new men's basketball scheduling format which will diminish some of the legendary "Tobacco Road" games:

- Going to the one primary partner schedule was a decision made by the membership and by going so large their would be some casualties.

- Everyone will play everyone else at least once every three years. Just the reality of having a 14-team league.

- The vote to go to a one permanent partner model was not close. Most supported it however some did not.

- Need to integrate Pitt and Syracuse and this was the only real way to do that.

(05-09-2012 10:46 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 10:40 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  What he said is 100% true.

The ACC has some fantastic, national level football properties who (with the obvious exception of VT) have grossly underachieved in the ACC.

The football school in the ACC claim the ACC doesn't support them...but they fail to acknowledge that there is only so much they can do when those same football clubs are failing to live up to their part of the bargain.

There would be none of this discussion if that solid group of VT/FSU/CU/Miami/GT were performing like they used to.

Exactly. Clemson, GT, and FSU all won national titles in an ACC that was much weaker in FB than the current ACC, and Miami won theirs as an indy or in a BE that was never a tough football conference. The problem is not the strength of the conference, but the fact that all of those teams except VT are far removed from their best football years.

The problem with the ACC has been the lack of a dominant, i.e., "run the table," type school for several years. The middle of the pack is as good as most conferences', but having six 8-4 schools does little good in the BCS, we need a 12-1 school. A few individual schools need to raise their games. FSU and VT would appear to be the most likely candidates, but Clemson, GT and The U are all also very capable.

(05-09-2012 10:27 AM)Mothership Wrote:  I think most realistic posters have always thought the ACC would still be 5th. But it's fair to say they are more confident than the Big East that they'll remain closer to the other four.

The ACC does have more "Names" but as far as quality of play the commish seems to have spelled it out.

The Big East (new/old) and the ACC (new/old) are alot closer than people would like to admit.

That said there is Tier 1 SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, then Tier 1A Big 12 (so long as UT and OU like thier home), and then the rest.

(05-09-2012 12:49 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 10:27 AM)Mothership Wrote:  I think most realistic posters have always thought the ACC would still be 5th. But it's fair to say they are more confident than the Big East that they'll remain closer to the other four.

The ACC does have more "Names" but as far as quality of play the commish seems to have spelled it out.

The Big East (new/old) and the ACC (new/old) are alot closer than people would like to admit.

That said there is Tier 1 SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, then Tier 1A Big 12 (so long as UT and OU like thier home), and then the rest.

Not really. The BIG 12 was the #1 football conference last year and throughout the BCS era has been in the top two for final four finishes.

(05-09-2012 01:04 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 12:49 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 10:27 AM)Mothership Wrote:  I think most realistic posters have always thought the ACC would still be 5th. But it's fair to say they are more confident than the Big East that they'll remain closer to the other four.

The ACC does have more "Names" but as far as quality of play the commish seems to have spelled it out.

The Big East (new/old) and the ACC (new/old) are alot closer than people would like to admit.

That said there is Tier 1 SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, then Tier 1A Big 12 (so long as UT and OU like thier home), and then the rest.

Not really. The BIG 12 was the #1 football conference last year and throughout the BCS era has been in the top two for final four finishes.

I also factor in the long term stability of the conference, membership going forward, in additon to past results.

Of the "Top Tier" the Big 12 is the least stable. It only takes UT/OU wanting to look elsewhere to cause a major problem.

Take it from someone who actually lives in Big 12 "country"....

I did make them 1A despite my obvious bias. My point was more about ACC vs. Big East.

(05-09-2012 01:44 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 01:04 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 12:49 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 10:27 AM)Mothership Wrote:  I think most realistic posters have always thought the ACC would still be 5th. But it's fair to say they are more confident than the Big East that they'll remain closer to the other four.

The ACC does have more "Names" but as far as quality of play the commish seems to have spelled it out.

The Big East (new/old) and the ACC (new/old) are alot closer than people would like to admit.

That said there is Tier 1 SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, then Tier 1A Big 12 (so long as UT and OU like thier home), and then the rest.

Not really. The BIG 12 was the #1 football conference last year and throughout the BCS era has been in the top two for final four finishes.

I also factor in the long term stability of the conference, membership going forward, in additon to past results.

Of the "Top Tier" the Big 12 is the least stable. It only takes UT/OU wanting to look elsewhere to cause a major problem.

Take it from someone who actually lives in Big 12 "country"....

I did make them 1A despite my obvious bias. My point was more about ACC vs. Big East.

It's a TV deal. Will probably have nothing to do with many of the variables posters on this board rank conferences with. The ACC has FAR, FAR better football viewership than the Big East and the difference has only grown with the member changes. Basketball viewership is arguably on the side of the ACC now.

I still think the Big East will get a good deal but I'm leary that it will be near the ACC's. $2-3M below the ACC is a greater than the ACC being $2-3M less than the Big XII (kinda like age).

Quote:ESPN and Fox want to keep NBC out of the college athletics marketplace.

Not surprising. Hopefully this will fuel NBC Sports Network's determination to present a good tv revenue package to the Big East.