https://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN/status/...76/photo/1

Looks a bit sleeker than the old one.

ACC Network? We're still thinking about it.
Altering Divisional Play? Nah, don't think so.
New logo? Fack yea!

Priorities.

I liked the old ACC logo better. On this new ACC logo, they just ripped off the font of the Big East's logo. The "A" in ACC is so similar to the "G" in BIG EAST:
http://www.bigeast.com/

Great. We have to repaint the turf again.

(05-13-2014 11:54 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  ACC Network? We're still thinking about it.
Altering Divisional Play? Nah, don't think so.
New logo? Fack yea!

Priorities.

On the surface I agree with you 100%; however, a Network doesn't get developed overnight and whether or not it happens remains to be seen. As for the divisions, why restructure divisions now when the ACC sponsored a change in how qualifiers for championships to the NCAA. But yes, a change in logo makes little sense at the present time considering issues to deal with.

(05-13-2014 12:33 PM)OrangeXtreme Wrote:  Great. We have to repaint the turf again.

At least you guys are allowed to paint a logo on your turf...

(05-13-2014 01:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 11:54 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  ACC Network? We're still thinking about it.
Altering Divisional Play? Nah, don't think so.
New logo? Fack yea!

Priorities.

On the surface I agree with you 100%; however, a Network doesn't get developed overnight and whether or not it happens remains to be seen. As for the divisions, why restructure divisions now when the ACC sponsored a change in how qualifiers for championships to the NCAA. But yes, a change in logo makes little sense at the present time considering issues to deal with.

I remember ACC fans mentioning a network back in 2007 or 2008. Back in the early negotiating stages with ESPN when the conference was at 12 schools and was years away from adding Pitt, Cuse, UL and ND. Back when the Big Ten was making its network debut. Fast forward to today and literally nothing has progressed. I understand the new crew is likely thinking, "We just got here. Let's give them some time to get this network ball rolling." But the fact is the ball has either been rolling for years (albeit incredibly slowly) or is still waiting on the initial push to get it going. Data should've been analyzed long ago and received updates each year with tv trends, population, new membership, etc. It's not like this is an entirely novel concept that the ACC and ESPN are trying to figure out as they go along.

You don't HAVE to restructure divisions. But this is like the people saying yesterday that "You can't get rid of divisions when the NCAA hasn't approved it yet." You can conditionally vote on it and vote changes in. Yesterday the word was "8 games, 2 divisions, same crossovers as before, no other changes."

(05-13-2014 02:17 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 01:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 11:54 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  ACC Network? We're still thinking about it.
Altering Divisional Play? Nah, don't think so.
New logo? Fack yea!

Priorities.

On the surface I agree with you 100%; however, a Network doesn't get developed overnight and whether or not it happens remains to be seen. As for the divisions, why restructure divisions now when the ACC sponsored a change in how qualifiers for championships to the NCAA. But yes, a change in logo makes little sense at the present time considering issues to deal with.

I remember ACC fans mentioning a network back in 2007 or 2008. Back in the early negotiating stages with ESPN when the conference was at 12 schools and was years away from adding Pitt, Cuse, UL and ND. Back when the Big Ten was making its network debut. Fast forward to today and literally nothing has progressed. I understand the new crew is likely thinking, "We just got here. Let's give them some time to get this network ball rolling." But the fact is the ball has either been rolling for years (albeit incredibly slowly) or is still waiting on the initial push to get it going. Data should've been analyzed long ago and received updates each year with tv trends, population, new membership, etc. It's not like this is an entirely novel concept that the ACC and ESPN are trying to figure out as they go along.

You don't HAVE to restructure divisions. But this is like the people saying yesterday that "You can't get rid of divisions when the NCAA hasn't approved it yet." You can conditionally vote on it and vote changes in. Yesterday the word was "8 games, 2 divisions, same crossovers as before, no other changes."

I pretty clearly remember Swofford saying years ago that an ACC Network was not viable.

That was before other conferences started sniffing around to snag ACC schools away. Now the ACC is in an internal loop of investigating such a network (and will it generate revenue?).

(05-13-2014 02:17 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 01:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 11:54 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  ACC Network? We're still thinking about it.
Altering Divisional Play? Nah, don't think so.
New logo? Fack yea!

Priorities.

On the surface I agree with you 100%; however, a Network doesn't get developed overnight and whether or not it happens remains to be seen. As for the divisions, why restructure divisions now when the ACC sponsored a change in how qualifiers for championships to the NCAA. But yes, a change in logo makes little sense at the present time considering issues to deal with.

I remember ACC fans mentioning a network back in 2007 or 2008. Back in the early negotiating stages with ESPN when the conference was at 12 schools and was years away from adding Pitt, Cuse, UL and ND. Back when the Big Ten was making its network debut. Fast forward to today and literally nothing has progressed. I understand the new crew is likely thinking, "We just got here. Let's give them some time to get this network ball rolling." But the fact is the ball has either been rolling for years (albeit incredibly slowly) or is still waiting on the initial push to get it going. Data should've been analyzed long ago and received updates each year with tv trends, population, new membership, etc. It's not like this is an entirely novel concept that the ACC and ESPN are trying to figure out as they go along.

You don't HAVE to restructure divisions. But this is like the people saying yesterday that "You can't get rid of divisions when the NCAA hasn't approved it yet." You can conditionally vote on it and vote changes in. Yesterday the word was "8 games, 2 divisions, same crossovers as before, no other changes."

I have to assume that getting rid of divisions was already conditionally voted on. Why even waste the time sending paperwork to the NCAA, if there are no intentions of getting rid of divisions? Now, if the NCAA votes and approves on getting rid of divisions and the ACC keeps the status quo, I'd seriously question the point.

I understand your pessimism regarding the network. We shall see. I'm not getting my hopes up for sure.

(05-13-2014 01:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 11:54 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  ACC Network? We're still thinking about it.
Altering Divisional Play? Nah, don't think so.
New logo? Fack yea!

Priorities.

On the surface I agree with you 100%; however, a Network doesn't get developed overnight and whether or not it happens remains to be seen. As for the divisions, why restructure divisions now when the ACC sponsored a change in how qualifiers for championships to the NCAA. But yes, a change in logo makes little sense at the present time considering issues to deal with.

Right, because conference only deal with issues one at a time, in sequential order and logo design takes so much time and energy.

This must be how it works in some of your minds: all the ADs get around the table for days on end sketching out new logos, which obviously is followed by months of voting to settle on the one everyone likes. Obviously, it isn't what FSU and Clemson want.

Ugly logo? maybe. Unnecessary? maybe. Example of misplaced priorities that shows the conference isn't putting sufficient energy into other things?...that is just about the stupidest thing I've seen yet on this board, which is saying quite a bit.

(05-13-2014 02:17 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 01:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 11:54 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  ACC Network? We're still thinking about it.
Altering Divisional Play? Nah, don't think so.
New logo? Fack yea!

Priorities.

On the surface I agree with you 100%; however, a Network doesn't get developed overnight and whether or not it happens remains to be seen. As for the divisions, why restructure divisions now when the ACC sponsored a change in how qualifiers for championships to the NCAA. But yes, a change in logo makes little sense at the present time considering issues to deal with.

I remember ACC fans mentioning a network back in 2007 or 2008. Back in the early negotiating stages with ESPN when the conference was at 12 schools and was years away from adding Pitt, Cuse, UL and ND. Back when the Big Ten was making its network debut. Fast forward to today and literally nothing has progressed. I understand the new crew is likely thinking, "We just got here. Let's give them some time to get this network ball rolling." But the fact is the ball has either been rolling for years (albeit incredibly slowly) or is still waiting on the initial push to get it going. Data should've been analyzed long ago and received updates each year with tv trends, population, new membership, etc. It's not like this is an entirely novel concept that the ACC and ESPN are trying to figure out as they go along.

You don't HAVE to restructure divisions. But this is like the people saying yesterday that "You can't get rid of divisions when the NCAA hasn't approved it yet." You can conditionally vote on it and vote changes in. Yesterday the word was "8 games, 2 divisions, same crossovers as before, no other changes."

What hasn't progressed? You mean, they haven't sent you meeting minutes with ESPN to keep you up to date? You're absolutely ridiculous.

I liked the old one, but I think less is more when it comes to this stuff. When it comes to brand loyalty, I don't recreating yourself every decade has proven to be an effective strategy. That being said, the American logo is embarrassingly bad. This one just feels like its trying too hard to be sleek.

(05-13-2014 02:49 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 01:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 11:54 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  ACC Network? We're still thinking about it.
Altering Divisional Play? Nah, don't think so.
New logo? Fack yea!

Priorities.

On the surface I agree with you 100%; however, a Network doesn't get developed overnight and whether or not it happens remains to be seen. As for the divisions, why restructure divisions now when the ACC sponsored a change in how qualifiers for championships to the NCAA. But yes, a change in logo makes little sense at the present time considering issues to deal with.

Right, because conference only deal with issues one at a time, in sequential order and logo design takes so much time and energy.

This must be how it works in some of your minds: all the ADs get around the table for days on end sketching out new logos, which obviously is followed by months of voting to settle on the one everyone likes. Obviously, it isn't what FSU and Clemson want.

Ugly logo? maybe. Unnecessary? maybe. Example of misplaced priorities that shows the conference isn't putting sufficient energy into other things?...that is just about the stupidest thing I've seen yet on this board, which is saying quite a bit.

(05-13-2014 03:00 PM)ACCslater Wrote:  I liked the old one, but I think less is more when it comes to this stuff. When it comes to brand loyalty, I don't recreating yourself every decade has proven to be an effective strategy. That being said, the American logo is embarrassingly bad. This one just feels like its trying too hard to be sleek.

The Big East went the "sleek" route in logo redesign when we joined in 05, so it's only fitting.
FlossY out...

(05-13-2014 03:06 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 02:49 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 01:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 11:54 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  ACC Network? We're still thinking about it.
Altering Divisional Play? Nah, don't think so.
New logo? Fack yea!

Priorities.

On the surface I agree with you 100%; however, a Network doesn't get developed overnight and whether or not it happens remains to be seen. As for the divisions, why restructure divisions now when the ACC sponsored a change in how qualifiers for championships to the NCAA. But yes, a change in logo makes little sense at the present time considering issues to deal with.

Right, because conference only deal with issues one at a time, in sequential order and logo design takes so much time and energy.

This must be how it works in some of your minds: all the ADs get around the table for days on end sketching out new logos, which obviously is followed by months of voting to settle on the one everyone likes. Obviously, it isn't what FSU and Clemson want.

Ugly logo? maybe. Unnecessary? maybe. Example of misplaced priorities that shows the conference isn't putting sufficient energy into other things?...that is just about the stupidest thing I've seen yet on this board, which is saying quite a bit.

Is that a young Johnny Manziel?

I always thought it was a young Jeff Driskell. But apparently it's just some random, stupid kid that got memed or something.

Manziel looks like this kid from the show "The Middle":

(05-13-2014 03:11 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 03:06 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 02:49 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 01:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 11:54 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  ACC Network? We're still thinking about it.
Altering Divisional Play? Nah, don't think so.
New logo? Fack yea!

Priorities.

On the surface I agree with you 100%; however, a Network doesn't get developed overnight and whether or not it happens remains to be seen. As for the divisions, why restructure divisions now when the ACC sponsored a change in how qualifiers for championships to the NCAA. But yes, a change in logo makes little sense at the present time considering issues to deal with.

Right, because conference only deal with issues one at a time, in sequential order and logo design takes so much time and energy.

This must be how it works in some of your minds: all the ADs get around the table for days on end sketching out new logos, which obviously is followed by months of voting to settle on the one everyone likes. Obviously, it isn't what FSU and Clemson want.

Ugly logo? maybe. Unnecessary? maybe. Example of misplaced priorities that shows the conference isn't putting sufficient energy into other things?...that is just about the stupidest thing I've seen yet on this board, which is saying quite a bit.

Is that a young Johnny Manziel?

I think it is local hero Scott Angulo.

(05-13-2014 03:30 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 03:11 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 03:06 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 02:49 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 01:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  On the surface I agree with you 100%; however, a Network doesn't get developed overnight and whether or not it happens remains to be seen. As for the divisions, why restructure divisions now when the ACC sponsored a change in how qualifiers for championships to the NCAA. But yes, a change in logo makes little sense at the present time considering issues to deal with.

Right, because conference only deal with issues one at a time, in sequential order and logo design takes so much time and energy.

This must be how it works in some of your minds: all the ADs get around the table for days on end sketching out new logos, which obviously is followed by months of voting to settle on the one everyone likes. Obviously, it isn't what FSU and Clemson want.

Ugly logo? maybe. Unnecessary? maybe. Example of misplaced priorities that shows the conference isn't putting sufficient energy into other things?...that is just about the stupidest thing I've seen yet on this board, which is saying quite a bit.

Is that a young Johnny Manziel?

I think it is local hero Scott Angulo.

(05-13-2014 02:51 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 02:17 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 01:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 11:54 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  ACC Network? We're still thinking about it.
Altering Divisional Play? Nah, don't think so.
New logo? Fack yea!

Priorities.

On the surface I agree with you 100%; however, a Network doesn't get developed overnight and whether or not it happens remains to be seen. As for the divisions, why restructure divisions now when the ACC sponsored a change in how qualifiers for championships to the NCAA. But yes, a change in logo makes little sense at the present time considering issues to deal with.

I remember ACC fans mentioning a network back in 2007 or 2008. Back in the early negotiating stages with ESPN when the conference was at 12 schools and was years away from adding Pitt, Cuse, UL and ND. Back when the Big Ten was making its network debut. Fast forward to today and literally nothing has progressed. I understand the new crew is likely thinking, "We just got here. Let's give them some time to get this network ball rolling." But the fact is the ball has either been rolling for years (albeit incredibly slowly) or is still waiting on the initial push to get it going. Data should've been analyzed long ago and received updates each year with tv trends, population, new membership, etc. It's not like this is an entirely novel concept that the ACC and ESPN are trying to figure out as they go along.

You don't HAVE to restructure divisions. But this is like the people saying yesterday that "You can't get rid of divisions when the NCAA hasn't approved it yet." You can conditionally vote on it and vote changes in. Yesterday the word was "8 games, 2 divisions, same crossovers as before, no other changes."

What hasn't progressed? You mean, they haven't sent you meeting minutes with ESPN to keep you up to date? You're absolutely ridiculous.

Alright, let's flip it around. Where's the proof that today we are closer to an ACC Network than we were last year this time. Show me some progress.