We spoke with him (at 1:14:55 in the podcast) about the potential ACC Network; when it could happen, why it's taken so long, and the important factors behind the decision.

You can listen HERE.

Great, great job as usual. Teel's sharing of his conversation with Swarbrick is an eye opener!

(07-22-2015 10:24 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Great, great job as usual. Teel's sharing of his conversation with Swarbrick is an eye opener!

Missed that part. What was said?

The ACC needs to open up talks with Texas and Oklahoma, bottom line

the thing the ACC needs the most is content for a network. If you don't get that, expect FSU and Clemson to seriously start looking elsewhere. And if that happens, you can expect Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and GIT to look towards the B1G, with the SEC most likely getting NC State and VT

it's a mixture of dominoes and chess, and right now the ACC is losing

(07-23-2015 02:51 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  The ACC needs to open up talks with Texas and Oklahoma, bottom line

the thing the ACC needs the most is content for a network. If you don't get that, expect FSU and Clemson to seriously start looking elsewhere. And if that happens, you can expect Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and GIT to look towards the B1G, with the SEC most likely getting NC State and VT

it's a mixture of dominoes and chess, and right now the ACC is losing

Evil, UNC, UVa, and GT CAN NOT AFFORD TO COMPETE in the B10. To compete in the B10 means to compete against Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc , etc., - all schools with much larger alumni and fan bases. UNC, UVa, and Duke are not going to move where the move makes them become a second banana in a conference. It's not just football cost, it's Title IX.

NC State and VT can not compete effectively in SEC football without major stadium expansions because the extra TV money does not make up for the huge disparity in ticket sales. To compete NC State has to add 20-25 K seats and fill them, VT will need to add 15K. NC State and VT are both land grant, limited STEMS making it more difficult to hide a group of dumb brutes.

While NC State could thrive in basketball, VT will have to play over its head in football.

Adding 4 ACC schools to the B10 does not change the Ohio State/Michigan dominance narrative. Two ACC schools the SEC does not change that narrative, especially if the SEC also adds two from the B12.

Moving is not free for any of these schools, moving is damn expensive.

Lumber -- these guys aren't gonna listen to you. They have their minds set on the ACC breaking up no matter what you say.


That said, I do enjoy your takes and insight.

(07-23-2015 04:14 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 02:51 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  The ACC needs to open up talks with Texas and Oklahoma, bottom line

the thing the ACC needs the most is content for a network. If you don't get that, expect FSU and Clemson to seriously start looking elsewhere. And if that happens, you can expect Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and GIT to look towards the B1G, with the SEC most likely getting NC State and VT

it's a mixture of dominoes and chess, and right now the ACC is losing

Evil, UNC, UVa, and GT CAN NOT AFFORD TO COMPETE in the B10. To compete in the B10 means to compete against Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc , etc., - all schools with much larger alumni and fan bases. UNC, UVa, and Duke are not going to move where the move makes them become a second banana in a conference. It's not just football cost, it's Title IX.

NC State and VT can not compete effectively in SEC football without major stadium expansions because the extra TV money does not make up for the huge disparity in ticket sales. To compete NC State has to add 20-25 K seats and fill them, VT will need to add 15K. NC State and VT are both land grant, limited STEMS making it more difficult to hide a group of dumb brutes.

While NC State could thrive in basketball, VT will have to play over its head in football.

Adding 4 ACC schools to the B10 does not change the Ohio State/Michigan dominance narrative. Two ACC schools the SEC does not change that narrative, especially if the SEC also adds two from the B12.

Moving is not free for any of these schools, moving is damn expensive.

you're nuts, of course they can compete in the Big 10...

There's a dynamic that hasn't changed in all of this expansion shuffling, and that's RECRUITING....

Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, even Nebraska....they don't have it.

Missouri has won a couple of SEC East titles already....

of course you can compete.

(07-23-2015 04:30 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Lumber -- these guys aren't gonna listen to you. They have their minds set on the ACC breaking up no matter what you say.


That said, I do enjoy your takes and insight.

I think the ACC has a chance to be the 3rd super-power conference....but you can't deny the dissatisfaction right now in the FSU and Oklahoma camps....

The ACC MUST produce a successful network, and that requires more content

(07-23-2015 02:51 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  The ACC needs to open up talks with Texas and Oklahoma, bottom line

the thing the ACC needs the most is content for a network. If you don't get that, expect FSU and Clemson to seriously start looking elsewhere. And if that happens, you can expect Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and GIT to look towards the B1G, with the SEC most likely getting NC State and VT

it's a mixture of dominoes and chess, and right now the ACC is losing

Clemson and FSU are not joined at the hip. I would not expect Clemson to leave ACC unless mulitiple teams left. ACC is making a lot of money. No reason to break up the conference b/c the SEC makes more.

(07-24-2015 09:50 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 04:30 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Lumber -- these guys aren't gonna listen to you. They have their minds set on the ACC breaking up no matter what you say.


That said, I do enjoy your takes and insight.

I think the ACC has a chance to be the 3rd super-power conference....but you can't deny the dissatisfaction right now in the FSU and Oklahoma camps....

The ACC MUST produce a successful network, and that requires more content

What is FSU dissatisfied about? FSU got to title game on year and playoffs last year.

OKlahoma needs to focus on winning the Big 12 rather than acting like they are too good for the conference.

(07-24-2015 09:50 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 04:30 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Lumber -- these guys aren't gonna listen to you. They have their minds set on the ACC breaking up no matter what you say.


That said, I do enjoy your takes and insight.

I think the ACC has a chance to be the 3rd super-power conference....but you can't deny the dissatisfaction right now in the FSU and Oklahoma camps....

The ACC MUST produce a successful network, and that requires more content

More content, eh?

A 9-game conference schedule would produce enough content to justify a network (at least from the FB side of the house), but I dare venture to assume FSU was one of those 6 schools who voted "NO" to a recent 9-game proposal.

Y'all flip around, drag one of the other dissenting "no" votes with you and... VOILA -- we have enough content.

I could care less about any dissension and unhappiness regarding Oklahoma.

FSU -- I have yet to see any publicly made "dissension" remarks on the interwebs. If you have any that feature comments from FSU's President or AD, please share.

If you have any such links and are concerned about privacy, PM me.

(07-24-2015 11:07 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  A 9-game conference schedule would produce enough content to justify a network (at least from the FB side of the house), but I dare venture to assume FSU was one of those 6 schools who voted "NO" to a recent 9-game proposal.

Y'all flip around, drag one of the other dissenting "no" votes with you and... VOILA -- we have enough content.

This is patently FALSE. More conference games results in LESS content, not more. Consider this simple example of the 9th game (assuming the first 8 are all conference games)

If the 9th game is an ACC game:
Team A plays Team B
--> result is ONE game (but guaranteed to be under ACC control)

If the 9th game is an OOC game:
Team A plays OOC A
Team B plays OOC B
--> result is TWO games (could be 0, 1, or 2 games controlled by ACC)

The net effect is probably ZERO, but could also be either a loss or a gain of one game. Anyone saying it ALWAYS creates more content is making some major assumptions (e.g. both OOC games are away, or they are against FCS opponents, etc.). Quite frankly, depending on the OOC opponents, even if the number of games remains the same the QUALITY of those games could be improved by remaining at 8...

CONCLUSION: You could be right, or you could be wrong - it depends on the assumptions you are making.

(07-24-2015 12:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  This is patently FALSE. More conference games results in LESS content, not more. Consider this simple example of the 9th game (assuming the first 8 are all conference games)

...

CONCLUSION: You could be right, or you could be wrong - it depends on the assumptions you are making.

Which is it?

FALSE and I'm right?
FALSE and I'm wrong?
TRUE and I'm right?
TRUE and I'm wrong?

(07-24-2015 12:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:07 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  A 9-game conference schedule would produce enough content to justify a network (at least from the FB side of the house), but I dare venture to assume FSU was one of those 6 schools who voted "NO" to a recent 9-game proposal.

Y'all flip around, drag one of the other dissenting "no" votes with you and... VOILA -- we have enough content.

This is patently FALSE. More conference games results in LESS content, not more. Consider this simple example of the 9th game (assuming the first 8 are all conference games)

If the 9th game is an ACC game:
Team A plays Team B
--> result is ONE game (but guaranteed to be under ACC control)

If the 9th game is an OOC game:
Team A plays OOC A
Team B plays OOC B
--> result is TWO games (could be 0, 1, or 2 games controlled by ACC)

The net effect is probably ZERO, but could also be either a loss or a gain of one game. Anyone saying it ALWAYS creates more content is making some major assumptions (e.g. both OOC games are away, or they are against FCS opponents, etc.). Quite frankly, depending on the OOC opponents, even if the number of games remains the same the QUALITY of those games could be improved by remaining at 8...

CONCLUSION: You could be right, or you could be wrong - it depends on the assumptions you are making.

Correct. Ultimately it probably is more about quality of content, not quantity of content anyway. In basketball the ACC has plenty of the former. What will get the ACC plenty of the former in football? Better in conference scheduling and smarter, better out-of-conference scheduling. The ND deal helped with the latter. But in order for more teams to step it up in football to create better in conference match-ups that will draw viewers, some teams need to take (and are taking) a step backwards in out-of-conference scheduling (short-term) to make strides in name and fan recognition going forward (Duke is an example of this, and perhaps NC State might soon prove to be so as well).

Cheers,
Neil

(07-24-2015 11:07 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 09:50 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 04:30 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Lumber -- these guys aren't gonna listen to you. They have their minds set on the ACC breaking up no matter what you say.


That said, I do enjoy your takes and insight.

I think the ACC has a chance to be the 3rd super-power conference....but you can't deny the dissatisfaction right now in the FSU and Oklahoma camps....

The ACC MUST produce a successful network, and that requires more content

More content, eh?

A 9-game conference schedule would produce enough content to justify a network (at least from the FB side of the house), but I dare venture to assume FSU was one of those 6 schools who voted "NO" to a recent 9-game proposal.

Y'all flip around, drag one of the other dissenting "no" votes with you and... VOILA -- we have enough content.

I could care less about any dissension and unhappiness regarding Oklahoma.

FSU -- I have yet to see any publicly made "dissension" remarks on the interwebs. If you have any that feature comments from FSU's President or AD, please share.

If you have any such links and are concerned about privacy, PM me.

No school is going to PUBLICLY make dissension remarks......completely pointless.

Did Maryland make a bunch before they left the ACC?

Doesn't mean a thing.

There is also no one monolithic voice for FSU. FSU has pro ACC folks and anti ACC folks...simple as that.


At the last FSU BOT meeting.....the trustees did seem concerned about the ACC and revenue. Frankly, they focused on it more than I prefer (focus on academics if you are BOT...but another issue).


Whatever the % of anti/pro ACC support the ACC has at FSU....I can tell you it will become more anti ACC if they go to 9 game schedule.


Next summer will be crazy as the revenue grows with another large jump......and no ACC Network/Channel. And no school will publically dissent.....but privately......

(07-24-2015 01:44 PM)nole Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:07 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 09:50 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 04:30 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Lumber -- these guys aren't gonna listen to you. They have their minds set on the ACC breaking up no matter what you say.


That said, I do enjoy your takes and insight.

I think the ACC has a chance to be the 3rd super-power conference....but you can't deny the dissatisfaction right now in the FSU and Oklahoma camps....

The ACC MUST produce a successful network, and that requires more content

More content, eh?

A 9-game conference schedule would produce enough content to justify a network (at least from the FB side of the house), but I dare venture to assume FSU was one of those 6 schools who voted "NO" to a recent 9-game proposal.

Y'all flip around, drag one of the other dissenting "no" votes with you and... VOILA -- we have enough content.

I could care less about any dissension and unhappiness regarding Oklahoma.

FSU -- I have yet to see any publicly made "dissension" remarks on the interwebs. If you have any that feature comments from FSU's President or AD, please share.

If you have any such links and are concerned about privacy, PM me.

No school is going to PUBLICLY make dissension remarks......completely pointless.

Did Maryland make a bunch before they left the ACC?

Doesn't mean a thing.

There is also no one monolithic voice for FSU. FSU has pro ACC folks and anti ACC folks...simple as that.


At the last FSU BOT meeting.....the trustees did seem concerned about the ACC and revenue. Frankly, they focused on it more than I prefer (focus on academics if you are BOT...but another issue).


Whatever the % of anti/pro ACC support the ACC has at FSU....I can tell you it will become more anti ACC if they go to 9 game schedule.


Next summer will be crazy as the revenue grows with another large jump......and no ACC Network/Channel. And no school will publically dissent.....but privately......

Maryland had opposed the exit free prior to the vote on it which was a big sign of being open to leaving.

The new ACC is a young conference. Syracuse, Lousiville, BC, Miami, Va Tech, Pitt all come in within past 10 years. it doesn't make much sense to me to bolt a newly arranged conference without letting it play out at lesat another 5 years.

(07-24-2015 01:44 PM)nole Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:07 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 09:50 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 04:30 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Lumber -- these guys aren't gonna listen to you. They have their minds set on the ACC breaking up no matter what you say.


That said, I do enjoy your takes and insight.

I think the ACC has a chance to be the 3rd super-power conference....but you can't deny the dissatisfaction right now in the FSU and Oklahoma camps....

The ACC MUST produce a successful network, and that requires more content

More content, eh?

A 9-game conference schedule would produce enough content to justify a network (at least from the FB side of the house), but I dare venture to assume FSU was one of those 6 schools who voted "NO" to a recent 9-game proposal.

Y'all flip around, drag one of the other dissenting "no" votes with you and... VOILA -- we have enough content.

I could care less about any dissension and unhappiness regarding Oklahoma.

FSU -- I have yet to see any publicly made "dissension" remarks on the interwebs. If you have any that feature comments from FSU's President or AD, please share.

If you have any such links and are concerned about privacy, PM me.

No school is going to PUBLICLY make dissension remarks......completely pointless.

Then, please explain the recent comments from OU...?

(07-24-2015 12:23 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  This is patently FALSE. More conference games results in LESS content, not more. Consider this simple example of the 9th game (assuming the first 8 are all conference games)

...

CONCLUSION: You could be right, or you could be wrong - it depends on the assumptions you are making.

Which is it?

FALSE and I'm right?
FALSE and I'm wrong?
TRUE and I'm right?
TRUE and I'm wrong?

OK, no more Mr. Nice Guy... your statement is FALSE, and you are WRONG.

(07-24-2015 03:19 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  Maryland had opposed the exit free prior to the vote on it which was a big sign of being open to leaving.

The new ACC is a young conference. Syracuse, Lousiville, BC, Miami, Va Tech, Pitt all come in within past 10 years. it doesn't make much sense to me to bolt a newly arranged conference without letting it play out at lesat another 5 years.

FSU opposed the exit fee too.

(07-25-2015 01:50 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 03:19 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  Maryland had opposed the exit free prior to the vote on it which was a big sign of being open to leaving.

The new ACC is a young conference. Syracuse, Lousiville, BC, Miami, Va Tech, Pitt all come in within past 10 years. it doesn't make much sense to me to bolt a newly arranged conference without letting it play out at lesat another 5 years.

FSU opposed the exit fee too.

they are only one likely to leave. it is more of a vanity thing for them.

and they will go downhill once they do.

I fully support it. Clemson will win more conference titles, even if acc teams can't get into playoffs. I can live with that. :)