(03-15-2013 07:06 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 03:54 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't think that ND would have jumped to the ACC if the Irish had any real concerns about the future of the conference.

It could have stayed where it was for one year and talked to the C7 about a long term relationship.

I think that there were assurances given to and from the Irish. ESPN, ND and Texas (with a Big 12/ACC scheduling alliance) may be working together here.

None of those things would be able to stop a B1G/SEC raid. ND has no worries either way because they will always have the Big East as a back up

Louisville only packs their stadium if they are winning. A very fair weather fan base

Yet...we still make more $$$ then WVU....FTR, Louisville has average over 50K since the stadium expansion and that includes a pair of 7-6 record....get your facts straight.

Also, before try'n to downgrade us win a National Title is a revenue sport....juz sayn

(03-14-2013 10:42 PM)Villecard Wrote:  Is it solely the TV contract? Looking at it, the league has been on an uptick with their additions of Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, and ND. However, the ACC is still perceived to be the most likely to be poached. Does it simply come down to money, or is there something more?

Self Confidence:
When the ACC was founded in 1953, the presidents (after Maryland won the national championship) decided to de-emphasize football and place more of a spotlight on academics. The "800" rule was put into effect (ACC athletes had to score 800 on the SAT instead of the NCAA minimum 640 and project graduation in 4 years ((which was more difficult than the 800)) ).
The ACC was leading but no one else followed. By the time the ACC realized that football was important and not just a prelude to basketball season, they were 25 years behind the competition. Our football champion was not even playing in a New Years Day Bowl.
The ACC would have caught up sooner if the Supreme Court decision in favor of Oklahoma and Georgia had come 10 years later, and television became so important.
The ACC is almost there....almost. The money crunch really came at a bad time.
It does look like the ACC has some really powerful friends that will push, pull and drag it into equality and survival.
I think that TerryD is correct. Notre Dame, ESPN and suprisingly, Texas are working hard to insure the ACC's survival until the schools in the ACC realize that they are THE most sought after collegiate sports properties available. Others have seen their potential, now it's just a matter of Self Confidence.

(03-15-2013 06:52 AM)Maize Wrote:  No reason to sign a GoR unless you have an ACC Network up and running....the current buyout willl protect the league somewhat if it hold up in the ACC/Maryland issue.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...t/1752757/

Each time the ACC puts out a trite statement with nothing to turn those empty promises into unbreakable bonds, it becomes more and more obvious: The future of the conference is at the mercy of Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and the SEC's Mike Slive. And until the ACC's schools agree to a so-called "grant of rights" like the once-shaky Big 12 did last year, those solidarity statements aren't worth the Internet bandwith it took to Tweet them

(03-15-2013 07:50 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 06:52 AM)Maize Wrote:  No reason to sign a GoR unless you have an ACC Network up and running....the current buyout willl protect the league somewhat if it hold up in the ACC/Maryland issue.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...t/1752757/

Each time the ACC puts out a trite statement with nothing to turn those empty promises into unbreakable bonds, it becomes more and more obvious: The future of the conference is at the mercy of Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and the SEC's Mike Slive. And until the ACC's schools agree to a so-called "grant of rights" like the once-shaky Big 12 did last year, those solidarity statements aren't worth the Internet bandwith it took to Tweet them

Key word...somewhat...I have always stated that GoR or not the ACC is @ the mercy of the SEC/B1G...not the Big XII.

But, no school should ever bind themselves to something like that unless a Network like the BTN is involved and it is required.

(03-15-2013 06:05 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 05:57 AM)MickMack Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 05:51 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  The instant the ACC signs a GOR, the conference is safe from being raided and everyone who predicted doom & gloom for the ACC is immediately proven wrong.

Any day now on that, right?

Is that Wake Forest?

(03-15-2013 07:50 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 06:52 AM)Maize Wrote:  No reason to sign a GoR unless you have an ACC Network up and running....the current buyout willl protect the league somewhat if it hold up in the ACC/Maryland issue.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...t/1752757/

Each time the ACC puts out a trite statement with nothing to turn those empty promises into unbreakable bonds, it becomes more and more obvious: The future of the conference is at the mercy of Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and the SEC's Mike Slive. And until the ACC's schools agree to a so-called "grant of rights" like the once-shaky Big 12 did last year, those solidarity statements aren't worth the Internet bandwith it took to Tweet them

Dan Wolken is former writer for FOX, whose career focus up to this point has been covering Memphis State football.
Wolken just moved to USA Today within the last year and is trying to make a name for himself by being controversial. Anybody can write an article (and most of Dan's realignment articles are anti ACC), but not everybody has credibility.
Please see if you can find a credible article to quote.

It is the money. But "Why is it the money?" is the real question. Maybe it was the accident of the order of contract re-negotiations, but I doubt it. I don't believe in accidents when it comes to contracts, up to and including the order in which the conferences negotiate them.

I think the answer is purely a business decision by the networks, but one that was made in the absence of the knowledge of what FOX would be becoming in scale and scope. I think that ESPN first looked at the ACC as a conference in which its parts were worth more than its whole and priced them to be pieced out where their Tier 1 and 2 content would be a lot more valuable when matched against other compelling schools. Schools which ESPN thought they would have control over in conferences that they also had a large stake in.

Then, boom, FOX through YES gets a large stake in the BTN, the Big East separates and FOX goes heavy after the C-7. FOX begins to enhance its presence in the Big 12 and all of the sudden ESPN has to either shore up the ACC, or find ESPN homes for its most valuable property. I think we are still waiting for ESPN's decision on this matter and that is why I think we are waiting on the Maryland decision. If the ACC wins and the fee is upheld then ESPN can hang onto its money and give the ACC a little bump for the addition of either, or both of, Cincinnati and Connecticut. If Maryland wins then ESPN has to decide where to park its most cherished ACC brands (probably the SEC), or pony up the money the ACC deserved the first time around when they were (in my opinion) shortchanged to set up more profitable options for the Mouse.

So, the only thing I blame Swafford for is the sweetheart deal with JP that puts money in his son's pocket.

When this mess is done it would be wise for the conferences to push for the same release dates for all future television contracts so that the timing of their deals can't be used against them.

(03-15-2013 02:10 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  The ACC just has too many schools and fanbases that don't care enough about football: BC, Georgia Tech, Wake, Duke, Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse. Miami, NC State and UNC are borderline.

Basically VT, Clemson, Louisville, and FSU will be carrying 10 perennially mediocre to abysmal teams. The SEC is the opposite of this.

If you ever want to compare a schools commitment to winning, just look at coaching salaries.

All of the above is correct. There was a period in the 90's where schools in the ACC were expanding their football stadiums to 60,000 like UVA in an attempt to be more competitive with the SEC.

The problem is schools in the SEC have even gone bigger since the early 90's while 60,000 for UVA was the upper limit of what that program could draw. The expansion of Virginia Tech, Miami and Boston College was supposed to help them catch up to the SEC though all it did was push other schools further down the list.

Then that whole period where Wake Forest was pulling off ACC football championships was just an embarrassment to the league's credibility as a major football conference. How could Miami and Florida State be that down to allow something like that to happen?

Florida State, Miami and Clemson have to really step it up in recruiting. Those schools were traditionally Top 15 recruiting classes and now recruiting has shifted 100% to the SEC.

(03-15-2013 08:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It is the money. But "Why is it the money?" is the real question. Maybe it was the accident of the order of contract re-negotiations, but I doubt it. I don't believe in accidents when it comes to contracts, up to and including the order in which the conferences negotiate them.

I think the answer is purely a business decision by the networks, but one that was made in the absence of the knowledge of what FOX would be becoming in scale and scope. I think that ESPN first looked at the ACC as a conference in which its parts were worth more than its whole and priced them to be pieced out where their Tier 1 and 2 content would be a lot more valuable when matched against other compelling schools. Schools which ESPN thought they would have control over in conferences that they also had a large stake in.

Then, boom, FOX through YES gets a large stake in the BTN, the Big East separates and FOX goes heavy after the C-7. FOX begins to enhance its presence in the Big 12 and all of the sudden ESPN has to either shore up the ACC, or find ESPN homes for its most valuable property. I think we are still waiting for ESPN's decision on this matter and that is why I think we are waiting on the Maryland decision. If the ACC wins and the fee is upheld then ESPN can hang onto its money and give the ACC a little bump for the addition of either, or both of, Cincinnati and Connecticut. If Maryland wins then ESPN has to decide where to park its most cherished ACC brands (probably the SEC), or pony up the money the ACC deserved the first time around when they were (in my opinion) shortchanged to set up more profitable options for the Mouse.

So, the only thing I blame Swafford for is the sweetheart deal with JP that puts money in his son's pocket.

When this mess is done it would be wise for the conferences to push for the same release dates for all future television contracts so that the timing of their deals can't be used against them.

The ACC wasn't shortchanged when they signed their deal. What happened after that was the Pac 12 signed their deal, and that changed the market as we knew it. I mean think about it- back then SEC got what a 205 million deal and ACC got what 155 million. 50 million more for what has been on the field a much stronger product, especially in football? That's not unreasonable. But then the Pac 12 got their 275 million dollar deal and everything changed. If Pac 12 hadn't gotten that deal- I dont know if we would be where we are today quite frankly.

Wake winning an ACC Championship is an embarrassment? What?

Isn't it a sign of a good conference when every blue moon even the bad teams figure out a way to win some games?

Do you prefer other conferences in which we can automatically disqualify half the field before a ball is even snapped?

Part of what I liked about the ACC was that you actually didn't know who was going to be good in a given year. The schools all beat the tar out of each other, and while they didn't do any BCS damage it was an entertaining regular season.

(03-15-2013 08:58 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 02:10 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  The ACC just has too many schools and fanbases that don't care enough about football: BC, Georgia Tech, Wake, Duke, Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse. Miami, NC State and UNC are borderline.

Basically VT, Clemson, Louisville, and FSU will be carrying 10 perennially mediocre to abysmal teams. The SEC is the opposite of this.

If you ever want to compare a schools commitment to winning, just look at coaching salaries.

All of the above is correct. There was a period in the 90's where schools in the ACC were expanding their football stadiums to 60,000 like UVA in an attempt to be more competitive with the SEC.

The problem is schools in the SEC have even gone bigger since the early 90's while 60,000 for UVA was the upper limit of what that program could draw. The expansion of Virginia Tech, Miami and Boston College was supposed to help them catch up to the SEC though all it did was push other schools further down the list.

Then that whole period where Wake Forest was pulling off ACC football championships was just an embarrassment to the league's credibility as a major football conference. How could Miami and Florida State be that down to allow something like that to happen?

Florida State, Miami and Clemson have to really step it up in recruiting. Those schools were traditionally Top 15 recruiting classes and now recruiting has shifted 100% to the SEC.

FSU and Clemson have both recruited well the last couple of years. Even Miami with sanctions has recruited well. VT and UNC recruit well. The problem hasn't been recruting, it's been coaching. The ACC has had some very mediocre coaches or some that have held on too long (Bowden). FSU is on their way back. Clemson is a rising power. Miami will eventually get their act together. VT will be back. UNC is also a rising power.

The ACC will not be the dominant football power the SEC is. No one will be. However, the ACC can definitely be #2 or #3. The ACC will be the dominant power in basketball. As good as the SEC is in football they are terrible in basketball. The ACC was built to be the best balance between those two worlds.

(03-15-2013 09:03 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Wake winning an ACC Championship is an embarrassment? What?

Isn't it a sign of a good conference when every blue moon even the bad teams figure out a way to win some games?

Do you prefer other conferences in which we can automatically disqualify half the field before a ball is even snapped?Part of what I liked about the ACC was that you actually didn't know who was going to be good in a given year. The schools all beat the tar out of each other, and while they didn't do any BCS damage it was an entertaining regular season.

Bold describes the SEC. Ole Miss, Miss St, Vandy, Kentucky, Tenn, Missouri, Ark.

(03-15-2013 09:08 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 09:03 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Wake winning an ACC Championship is an embarrassment? What?

Isn't it a sign of a good conference when every blue moon even the bad teams figure out a way to win some games?

Do you prefer other conferences in which we can automatically disqualify half the field before a ball is even snapped?Part of what I liked about the ACC was that you actually didn't know who was going to be good in a given year. The schools all beat the tar out of each other, and while they didn't do any BCS damage it was an entertaining regular season.

Bold describes the SEC. Ole Miss, Miss St, Vandy, Kentucky, Tenn, Missouri, Ark.

Let's see. Arkansas went to the BCS 2 years ago. Tennessee won a national championship in the BCS era. Missouri just got there- but has won 10 games recently. The others all bowl teams recently.

(03-15-2013 09:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 09:08 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 09:03 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Wake winning an ACC Championship is an embarrassment? What?

Isn't it a sign of a good conference when every blue moon even the bad teams figure out a way to win some games?

Do you prefer other conferences in which we can automatically disqualify half the field before a ball is even snapped?Part of what I liked about the ACC was that you actually didn't know who was going to be good in a given year. The schools all beat the tar out of each other, and while they didn't do any BCS damage it was an entertaining regular season.

Bold describes the SEC. Ole Miss, Miss St, Vandy, Kentucky, Tenn, Missouri, Ark.

Let's see. Arkansas went to the BCS 2 years ago. Tennessee won a national championship in the BCS era. Missouri just got there- but has won 10 games recently. The others all bowl teams recently.

Everybody makes a bowl game now there buddy. FWI: Peyton Manning isn't coming back to Tenn. Missouri was brought in for Basketball, they will not be competitive in football.

guess we could say the same about NC State, Wake Forest, Boston College, Duke, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse.

(03-15-2013 09:08 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:58 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 02:10 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  The ACC just has too many schools and fanbases that don't care enough about football: BC, Georgia Tech, Wake, Duke, Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse. Miami, NC State and UNC are borderline.

Basically VT, Clemson, Louisville, and FSU will be carrying 10 perennially mediocre to abysmal teams. The SEC is the opposite of this.

If you ever want to compare a schools commitment to winning, just look at coaching salaries.

All of the above is correct. There was a period in the 90's where schools in the ACC were expanding their football stadiums to 60,000 like UVA in an attempt to be more competitive with the SEC.

The problem is schools in the SEC have even gone bigger since the early 90's while 60,000 for UVA was the upper limit of what that program could draw. The expansion of Virginia Tech, Miami and Boston College was supposed to help them catch up to the SEC though all it did was push other schools further down the list.

Then that whole period where Wake Forest was pulling off ACC football championships was just an embarrassment to the league's credibility as a major football conference. How could Miami and Florida State be that down to allow something like that to happen?

Florida State, Miami and Clemson have to really step it up in recruiting. Those schools were traditionally Top 15 recruiting classes and now recruiting has shifted 100% to the SEC.

FSU and Clemson have both recruited well the last couple of years. Even Miami with sanctions has recruited well. VT and UNC recruit well. The problem hasn't been recruting, it's been coaching. The ACC has had some very mediocre coaches or some that have held on too long (Bowden). FSU is on their way back. Clemson is a rising power. Miami will eventually get their act together. VT will be back. UNC is also a rising power.

The ACC will not be the dominant football power the SEC is. No one will be. However, the ACC can definitely be #2 or #3. The ACC will be the dominant power in basketball. As good as the SEC is in football they are terrible in basketball. The ACC was built to be the best balance between those two worlds.

Basketball may be what saves the ACC in the long run. If they can establish a lot of value there they'll be safe.

(03-15-2013 09:26 AM)stever20 Wrote:  guess we could say the same about NC State, Wake Forest, Boston College, Duke, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse.

Pitt gets very good national ratings. I know you hate to hear that, but they do.

(03-15-2013 01:59 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 10:49 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  ahhhhhhhh why did you pose this question here... lol

Thing is none of these ACC haters make decisions. I just come on here so I can laugh my @ss off at these haters.

Your ass should have fallen off long ago then. Do you still have any left to laugh off?

(03-15-2013 09:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It is the money. But "Why is it the money?" is the real question. Maybe it was the accident of the order of contract re-negotiations, but I doubt it. I don't believe in accidents when it comes to contracts, up to and including the order in which the conferences negotiate them.

I think the answer is purely a business decision by the networks, but one that was made in the absence of the knowledge of what FOX would be becoming in scale and scope. I think that ESPN first looked at the ACC as a conference in which its parts were worth more than its whole and priced them to be pieced out where their Tier 1 and 2 content would be a lot more valuable when matched against other compelling schools. Schools which ESPN thought they would have control over in conferences that they also had a large stake in.

Then, boom, FOX through YES gets a large stake in the BTN, the Big East separates and FOX goes heavy after the C-7. FOX begins to enhance its presence in the Big 12 and all of the sudden ESPN has to either shore up the ACC, or find ESPN homes for its most valuable property. I think we are still waiting for ESPN's decision on this matter and that is why I think we are waiting on the Maryland decision. If the ACC wins and the fee is upheld then ESPN can hang onto its money and give the ACC a little bump for the addition of either, or both of, Cincinnati and Connecticut. If Maryland wins then ESPN has to decide where to park its most cherished ACC brands (probably the SEC), or pony up the money the ACC deserved the first time around when they were (in my opinion) shortchanged to set up more profitable options for the Mouse.

So, the only thing I blame Swafford for is the sweetheart deal with JP that puts money in his son's pocket.

When this mess is done it would be wise for the conferences to push for the same release dates for all future television contracts so that the timing of their deals can't be used against them.

The ACC wasn't shortchanged when they signed their deal. What happened after that was the Pac 12 signed their deal, and that changed the market as we knew it. I mean think about it- back then SEC got what a 205 million deal and ACC got what 155 million. 50 million more for what has been on the field a much stronger product, especially in football? That's not unreasonable. But then the Pac 12 got their 275 million dollar deal and everything changed. If Pac 12 hadn't gotten that deal- I dont know if we would be where we are today quite frankly.

I agree with your perception of what happened, but who was in control of those deals? The networks. Has any conference really taken a team that the networks didn't agree to pay for? No All realignment selections have passed corporate approval or they are not made. The Big 12 has said as much, the ACC has said as much (via the B.C. AD), Slive and Delany speak in the terms of markets (network language) that's just the way it is and everyone really knows it whether they admit it to themselves or not.

The conference structure of two years ago prevented many high dollar match ups from being scheduled. The cup cakes had to go. Six conferences were too unwieldy for the growing push for playoffs. All of these fall under the aegis of "market obstacles". I totally understand why the networks wanted some changes for a product that had nowhere nearly peaked in popularity. And as usual when there are so many different players with different agenda to pursue the process is slow and messy. But slow and messy is beginning to affect popularity.

I still believe the networks are behind all of this because the money trail is so obvious. The contracts each in turn have turned up the heat on the ACC. It's like the networks were trying to find the tinsel strength of the ACC. But, I do think ESPN underestimated FOX and now they are rethinking their strategy.

Every goal being pushed for is a network goal. Fewer more manageable conferences that fit easily within the coming playoff structure. A beefing up of content games with the major conferences. A market model (footprint) that will make it difficult for even the SEC and Big 10 to continue to monopolize their regions as effectively as in the past. That sure isn't a conference objective. Just two years ago the SEC's choices for expansion to the East were Clemson and F.S.U.. They were within the footprint and culturally a direct match. What changed? The "footprint" incentives were injected into the discussion. All of the sudden Missouri is on the menu for the SEC and apparently Rutgers and Maryland for the Big 10. And, finally the end of the cupcakes with the understanding that when there is a new upper tier then only upper tier teams may be scheduled. When this comes to pass, and it will, most of the objectives in overcoming market obstacles will have been achieved. The contracts are going up in value because the objectives, and therefore profitability potential, is going up.

College football has been nothing more than an undervalued operation that has been bought out by the networks for its high upside value potential and the unnecessary components are being cut out by the process we call realignment, which in business is called restructuring. The upper tier is merely a streamlined product line designed to maximize the profits of the networks at a time when sports programming is one of the last genres of television that still commands high advertising rates because the views are guaranteed and the overhead is relatively low.

The problem is, no conference can survive in D1A with four or more private schools. We've seen it before. Those conferences get torn apart by the big state schools.

SWC: Baylor, Rice, SMU, TCU
WAC: BYU, Rice, SMU, TCU, Tulsa
CUSA: Rice, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa
ACC: Boston College, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, Wake Forest